Obama has won the nomination
Play with the Slate Delegate Calculator
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
With the knowledge that Obama has polled to win North Carolina, and the FL and MI re-dos are unlikely. Maybe one not both.
She can't win without superdelegates
obama's had the math for nearly a month. hillary simply can not win without, as the saying goes, obama being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. Obama knows it; he's more worried about McCain at this point. Hillary's gonna be the last person in the country to realize it, I'll bet.
vote Ron Paul
even though his minions totally crowded the restaurant we ate ate last weds and made it a crowded and terse sit down instead of a relaxing Din Din with the Fammmm. I didn't hate the Ron Paul party as I can imagine i would have had they been blue blazered pubs or sweater wearing crats. seemed like normal folks.
this could be the perfect storm for a 3rd party to sneak in. or it could be that i dont know what the fugg i speak of. im politically stunted, after all. i smoked all that pot in my developmental years, that i just cant muster a poop about it.
oh well, if it gets too bad, i guess i'll just move out to the country and eat a lot of peaches
[youtube]19McuaPKjI8[/youtube]
How long, you think, before we start to hear about the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" that prevented her from getting the nomination?
no it is still the vast right wing conspiracy screwing her over. they made her seem shrill. and manipulative. and pro war when it was popular but steadfastly anti war when the polls shifted. and they kept telling people she was a clinton. they conspired to hand the nomination to obama.
obviously a vast right wing conspiracy smear campaign in action...wait, what? oh you mean those were the true things? damn, how did she stay in it this long?
So the general election will be the far left vs the far right.... and I'm stuck in the middle with you, and most of the voters.
Just going to say what I've been saying all along...
There is no way the powers that be will ever let a woman get the presidential nomination in this country. No way, no day.....Maybe 200 more years from now...not sure.....Not any time soon. Heh. Not only that...she's blonde. Double trouble. She's an "aggressive female".
No one likes that. It's funny to watch Martha get raked over the coals for the same thing. Watching Martha go to jail didn't leave the mark it was supposed to with "aggressive females" I guess........Looks like they are still trying to be powerful and live successful lives. It's an exercise in going everywhere but the
absolute top.
Fail.
This is what a female president looks like. This is Corizon Aquino....Heh...Even a second world, catholic country trusts their women before this one.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_701509178_761558570_-1_1/corazon_aquino.htmlthe powers that be
You mean the voters?
Including the women voters. They just hate her because she's a woman too.
"No one can clean house like a woman can!" - A Hillary supported I saw on TV :rolleyes:
Including the women voters. They just hate her because she's a woman too.
No they hate her because she is Hillary Clinton. Big difference.
She can't win without superdelegates
Thank goodness! Unfortunately, I'm left not really liking either candidate. She would not have changed this, but I am unhappy with the options......AGAIN.
I hate her for HER - nothing to do with her being a woman. I simply find her abrasive, annoying, belligerent and dishonest.
I don't "hate" Hillary, but I am certainly not a fan of hers for many of the same reasons. She comes off as a bitch. She keeps mentioning experience as though she's got a lot of it when she's been a Senator for 6 years. Does she think being married to a President makes her more qualified to be one or more experienced at being one?
She has a shady past with dirty and underhanded dealings where the witnesses all died mysteriously.
I don't think she's anymore qualified than Obama, I don't think she's as articulate, intelligent, classy, or witty as Obama. I don't think she belongs in politics at any level including the level she's already at let alone the office of President. She seems like an annoying shrew.
Also, she would have a harder time beating the Republicans than Obama.
Except for the "bitch" comment, I agree with everything Radar said. :eek:
Does she think being married to a President makes her more qualified to be one or more experienced at being one?
As someone said, if Hillary Clinton can say she has White House command experience, Yoko Ono can say she was a Beatle.
To be fair, Hillary did go up to Capitol Hill as First Lady to push for health care reform. So she does have that experience of failing. You could argue that failing is good experience, because you can learn from it, but I'm not convinced that in her case she did.
I am unhappy with the options......AGAIN.
I've often said that the best candidates lose in the primaries. (Or at least the ones I like. I was backing Tsongas in 1992 . . . )
Not havin' faith in the Obama. I hope I'm wrong.
To be fair, Hillary did go up to Capitol Hill as First Lady to push for health care reform. So she does have that experience of failing. You could argue that failing is good experience, because you can learn from it, but I'm not convinced that in her case she did.
Yeah, that was particularly galling. During the 1992 campaign, any comment or criticism about Hillary was strictly off-limits, because "She's not the candidate." Then, once Bill was in office, she's given the job of writing important legislation for the office of the President. Now, she wants to tacitly imply that her experience as First Lady counts toward her own Presidential run.
And now, I suppose, we're not meant to make any comment or criticism about Bill, since "He's not the candidate."
This kind of tag-team politics is silly, and it frustrates me that so many people seem to just accept it.
Honestly what frustrates me the most in the D nomination bid (and it will carry through the general election) is that race and gender card is played so easily. Hillary is going down in a tight race, so it is obvious that it is American sexism in action. America won't let a woman sit in the Oval Office, blahblahblah. If it had been the other way, people would be complaining that American racism was showing it's ugly face and we won't let a black guy into the Oval Office.
Seriously? When it is a field of white guys up there, what excuse should the runner up use? Certainly it can't be that enough people liked the other guy to beat him out.
Hillary is a woman. Deal with it. Early on in the cycle we were told to ignore the fact that she was a woman. We were told to believe she was the best candidate and move beyond that old way of thinking. Then the polls started looking a little less clear cut and we were encouraged to get behind our first female President because she was strong, experienced, tough, and oh yeah - a woman. Did we mentiont she'd be the first female president? Then the polls turned on her and words like shrew, cold, and calculating popped up. So she cried. Oh, now we have a woman we can identify with and she jumped in the polls again. When she was ahead we were supposed to ignore her gender, now that she's behind, it is because of her gender? No thanks.
Obama is a black man. Deal with it. We were told not to present him as a black man, but as a man. Cool, I can get on board with that. He ran his race as the "different" candidate. The one for change. And I think he believes in hope. and maybe even the future. We ignored his skin color until the polls got tight and then there were stories produced to show us that Obama was above using his ethnicity. IMO the dude was smooth. The stories about how he was above the issue popped up before any questions about the issue. He never once came up and addressed the issue, he simply let it play out behind the scenes so that the issue was upfront and in the open, but he could distance himself if necessary and point out that it wasn't him. BUT, if Hillary was in front right now, his camp would be dropping the "it's because he's black" card. People who don't like him must be racist.
That is what I'm not looking forward to for the general election. The R's have an old white guy, and the D's have a younger black guy. Does anyone believe that the race issue will not be well spun by the Obama camp while McCain feverishly tries to avoid the whole issue because he knows it is a minefield?
I tell you what - If we go all the way to the election without anyone in the cellar playing the "America won't let a black man be President" I'll drop $250 in the tip jar for November. Does anyone actually think I'll have to pay up?
Absolutely a black man can be president before a woman, if we're talking categories. Black men received the right to vote 50 years before any woman could vote. See you in 2058.
How about when McCain chooses Condoleezza Rice as his running mate? Like a cat dropped with buttered bread tied to its back, will all the "powers that be" simply implode with the cognitive dissonance of being unable to keep women out of the White House?
Absolutely a black man can be president before a woman, if we're talking categories. Black men received the right to vote 50 years before any woman could vote. See you in 2058.
The people who fought that so hard are not dominant today. Look around you and realize these are teh people that vote, just like you. They might not like the female candidate because of her penis she
doesn't have but because of the baggage she
does have.
Absolutely a black man can be president before a woman, if we're talking categories. Black men received the right to vote 50 years before any woman could vote. See you in 2058.
True, but they were only considered 3/4 of a person so only had a 75% vote. :)
If you criticize Obama, it's racism.
If you criticize Clinton, it's sexism.
If you criticize McCain, it's ageism.
If you criticize Paul, it's anti-Americanism.
I tell you what - If we go all the way to the election without anyone in the cellar playing the "America won't let a black man be President" I'll drop $250 in the tip jar for November. Does anyone actually think I'll have to pay up?
Absolutely not - There is no way we'll make it thru the summer.
If you criticize Obama, it's racism.
If you criticize Clinton, it's sexism.
If you criticize McCain, it's ageism.
If you criticize Paul, it's anti-Americanism.
Nice one bro.
What if I criticize Radar?
If you criticize Obama, it's racism.
If you criticize Clinton, it's sexism.
If you criticize McCain, it's ageism.
If you criticize Paul, it's anti-Americanism.
I thought criticizing a Libertarian was anti-wack-a-doodleism... [COLOR="White"]. . . just kidding . . . [/COLOR]
What if I criticize Radar?
Then you're not in a very exclusive club.
Ok, I'll be the first one to say America won't let a black man be Pres. Ok, not that they won't let him, but its going to be very hard for Obama to win.
If you look at all the various polls, more show voters will vote for a black man BEFORE a woman.
Now, with that said...
Its OK to say a woman can't be President because she's weak, because the motherly instinct will kick in, women are over emotional... You might get glares from a few women, but the reality is people can say that openly on any talk show without it turning into a brawl or into the the lead story on CNN, and the majority of men will shrug and have a little smirk that says "I kind of agree", or at least "I know what your saying."
What you can't say is a black man can't be Pres. You can't be racist. You can't make that call into CSPAN without being hung up on. You can't say that on on any mainstream news outlet without it turning into a fight and front page news. With that said, there are a lot of racists in this country, there a lot of people who are not comfortable with a black man as Pres. Before I go on, do not take this out of context - its not my opinion, but the opinion of others. You can see it in some posts at online newspapers. These are things I've actually read on other forums - and after they post they are quickly called a racist and that ends the discussion. "Will Obama make it so we owe restitution to all the children of slaves?" "He has that preacher he's been listening to that is all about black power and taking away from the whites." "No African American mayor in the US has been successful - look at Detroit, look at DC, and then look at the African nations and how screwed they are, so therefore blacks can't lead..." [AGAIN - DO NOT TAKE THIS AS MY PERSONAL OPINION - ITS NOT - I'm just stating reality.]
I think a lot of people lie when they say, yeah, a black man can be Pres, but the reality is I think it will be harder for a black man to be elected than a woman.
Its nice to think were beyond that, but when the Obama camp makes statements like "Hillary's never had a cab refuse to pick her up before" they are validating the fact that there is racism alive and well in this nation.
Maybe another 50 years and racism will be less prevelant and an African American will have a much better chance.
On to McCain...
McCain won't have Rice as VP - she's WAY too connected to Bush.
Colin Powell - that's an option. But that only gets him more military votes, which he already has. I don't think Colin Powell garners the African American vote.
Romney - good for cinching people worried about the economy.
So far, only half-reasonable argument I've heard for Obama (paraphrase): "We've been calling for change, so if there's a candidate running that says he stands for change, I'd feel like a hypocrite if I didn't vote for him, and then later on was still complaining about needing change."
They won't count Condy Rice if she's selected as VP - she's far too conservative to be consider a "woman" or "black", in the way those terms get used by feminist and racial power brokers in the political world.
Condaleeza is black, and a woman; but she's not black, or a woman, in the way that counts. Which shows that there is something else ...
I wouldn't say "There's something else that matters more to people"
Its kind of like bill Clinton was the first black President. He interacted with more African Americans than any previous President, and not just interacted - but understood and participated in the "black" culture. I highly doubt Rice interacts much with the African American community. She's not really "black" - even though that is her skin color.
She's from Colorado - a fairly white/Hispanic state. I'm from there. She went to my high school about two decades before me. A private girls only elite Catholic high school. Almost all white. She's more "white" than "black" in attitude and culture and upbringing.
Ok, I'll be the first one to say America won't let a black man be Pres.
Less than 24 hours.
Couldn't resist the bet... lol Why wait until summer?
BTW, did you read his speech about race and the reverend? Uninspiring.
Yep, very well written smooth speech. It won't begin to quell the issue of why he sat in a church pew listening to that shit for 20 years, but typical smooth Obama speech.
It was polished, but not inspiring. And it really didn't answer anything. Not that there are any answers.
When I initially heard about the Reverend's comments, I thought "McCain has Haggee... candidates can't help that people are for them that they don't agree with all their views". Then I read that it wasn't just an occasional church attendance on Obama's part, but 20 years, married him and Michelle, baptised his kids, spiritual advisor... There is no way to distance himself. I know the fiery speeches weren't every Sunday, but in 20 years you can't say Obama didn't know (nor has he claimed that). It kind of comes off like "if your not black you won't understand and his comments are taken out of context." I understand fiery speeches to get the masses moving, but his went above and beyond.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?em&ex=1205985600&en=de9d6b3b3cf39e55&ei=5087%0A
This doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Wright’s thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama’s behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted “present” in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.
The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.
Clinton already had my vote, baggage and all.
That's what I see: all smooth but never really saying anything.
Bush is the complete antithesis of smooth, and people have hated the fact that he was apparently a moron. At least Obama's smart.
Carter was smart. No thanks.
I'd prefer competent.
[youtube]pWe7wTVbLUU[/youtube]
That's what I see: all smooth but never really saying anything.
I read
the transcript before I saw any clips of the speech. I can understand you saying you disagreed with what he said, I can understand you saying you didn't believe what was said or didn't believe that he meant what he said. I do not, however, believe that anyone can argue that 'nothing was said'.
I am undecided at this time, but that speech was the most concise appraisal of the current state of race relations in this country I have read in a while. It is fortunate that it is during an election, because it has received an audience that it would have lost if it had been given from a pulpit or on C-SPAN. After I read the speech, I saw a 10 second clip of Obama giving it. For all that he is considered a good speaker, I think his delivery did not live up to the words because the words were that good. It really is one of the better contemporary speeches I have read in a very long time.
I can understand your not liking it, but even many of his critics admit that it was a good speech. Consider where we are right now, the largest prison nation in the world. Our current president has done nothing to address this. Reading his speech, I can see that at least he articulates the issue instead of ignoring it like every other candidate.
If you didn't see anything, then you must have been keeping your eyes closed.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
Carter was smart. No thanks.
I'd prefer competent.
Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.
I'm no expert, nor thoroughly up to date in politics or blah blah blah write me off as a dumb college student, lack of real world experience as I have been written off before.
But it was an awesome speech.
I have to agree it looks much better in print than I sounded like on TV.
But even reading it, brings one question to mind.... What are you going to do about it?
Oh that's right, Change.
I'd like a little more detail.
don't forget the hope bruce. i hear he believes in it.
Just read the transcript. That's a great essay. For me, at least, it takes the issue of his paster being nuts off the table. Now if only he had the slightest bit of sense when it comes to economic issues.
Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.
That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again? after how many tries and how many years, again? -- and carrying that war to the enemy abroad, does not and cannot rise to high treason. I cannot respect thinking of that kind: go suck a wet rock (sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic, your call) and your thumb, in alternation. Meanwhile, let our self-made, pathologically aggrieved foes reap the whirlwind and be blown to Sheol where they won't bother democrats and other good people.
As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.
Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.
Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.
OK, rich, I'll put it another way: I didn't like it because he does not resonate sincerity with me. Though that may be on my end, he may be the most sincere person out there, I'm not feeling it.
He is a great speaker, he is smart. I think we could do a lot worse. Smart counts for much with me. It was a beautiful speech. Now, what is he planning to do?
actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again?
Bush, when he decided to invade without any justification? (answer: yes)
after how many tries and how many years, again?
Well, he tried to find an excuse from his first day in office, so a couple at least...
I thought it was a pretty good speech.
I agree with Shawnee - it lacks sincerity. It was a good polished essay. At times it was close to inspired. But not sincere.
Of course, I read it, and only "heard" a few sound bites. It doesn't take the issue off the table for me of the Reverend. Why?
At one point he essentially says, we've all listened to our pastors say stuff we don't agree with. Well, no, not really, not on something this huge. And secondly, as a leader, if you disagree - you do something. Not just sit there for 20 years, and never have a conversation with him that you disagree with his statements. He's his ADVISOR, but Obama states that he is divisive and stuck in the past. And he knew this. Seriously, if you really don't agree with him, why have him as your advisor? If you are all about not being divisive, why have someone that divisive in your life? If you are about change, why keep someone stuck in the 1970s?
I do believe on a lot of the race issues, Obama said things we all think. I think he articulated things we all know. Some blacks feel this way because of this. Some whites feel this way because of this. And he hit the nail on the head. He said it for all to hear, and for all to go - you know, that's what I've been thinking. And its a good thing. But he didn't address the way I feel. Affirmitive Action didn't hurt me. I didn't like it because I knew it hurt others, but I understood the reason why. I saw both sides as a viewer, not a participant. For me, my core states (and I've put this in other posts) - anyone can become anything if you try. Get out and work - at MacDonalds if you have to. I didn't see this feeling addressed. Maybe its that I'm a minority in this issue. I am also in line with Bill Cosby - the black community is its own worst enemy. If you want your local schools to be better - do something! Don't just complain that its a racial thing and do nothing. But I digress. The speech didn't 'speak' to me. It didn't clear the air. Although he definitiely didn't justify the Reverend's comments, he didn't tell me why he sat there for 20 years and did nothing. He can't answer that truthfully and still win. Agent of change my arse.
That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again?
Started solely by America and America's puppet the UN. The United States has a DEFENSIVE military that may be used legitimately (legally) only when America is attacked, and then only against the NATION that attacked us, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress
(Not an authorization for the use of force in support of UN resolutions) The United States had no legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991, in 2003 or at any time before or since. The first gulf war was illegal and blatantly unconstitutional, bombing Iraq for 12 straight years was illegal, the cease-fire agreement was illegal, the no fly zones were illegal, the embargos were illegal, etc.
Aside from starting an unconstitutional war and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and getting thousands of Americans killed unnecessarily, Bush also deserted from the military during war time (high treason), and he openly admits and actually champions another act of high treason
(spying on Americans)
As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.
Yes, you prefer to avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, or plain old common sense.
Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.
The Clinton's didn't knowingly lie to the American people to start an unprovoked, unwarranted, unreasonable, and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that posed no harm to America at any point during America's history as Bush did. They also don't address the United States with a smirk, while looking like a chimp the way Bush does. They also didn't violate habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, etc. the way Bush did.
Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.
Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.
I think he made a nice speech. The guy connects with me probably because he's about my age and shows a willingness to understand the entire picture. As smooth said he'll screw up when it comes to the economy, but so has every president from Hoover on.
For me, the White woman versus the Black Man thing plays out this way. Obama is a Black Man who can be elected. He is not Al Sharpton. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is Al Sharpton. She's always been a divider. Getting women to the point of national prominence has been a problem, but the right woman will eventually do it. My State Rep is one, she comes out of the resturant business so she knows something about keeping books and people happy. Anyway, it seems to be about who we believe, which is pretty dangerous territory when we're talking politicians.
Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.
Does that make Bush Spitzerian or Spitzer Bushian?
Hillary is Al? Srsly?
truly
That is why the Dems lose the general election to McCrazyperson if she is the nominee.
We thought Clinton would screw up the economy. We were wrong.
Obama was just covering his ass, his target audience was quite obvious.
The speech was nice but I think it lacked major depth. He mentioned many times of the problems we have in our society but nothing of how to solve them or the sacrifices needed to solve them. Yes, a unified America is needed for change but the civil rights movement would never have happened if people weren't attacked by police dogs and soaked with fire hoses on a regular basis.
He said that a disparity exists between white and black schools, but the solution he even hinted at was that whites will start having to fund black schools, which I don't think will work.
truly
That is why the Dems lose the general election to McCrazyperson if she is the nominee.
The latest polls have McCain down only 1 or two points versus either Obama or Clinton. Statistically a tie, considering the error factor.
I think the Dems are going to lose either way. There's too many unknowns on Obama - which the Republicans will play very well. Clinton. Well, she's Hillary Clinton. So McCain it is.
McCain isn't McCrazyperson. He won't be bad. Honestly, none of them will be bad. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
I just wish it was Nov already so we can get the election over with. I'm tired of it already and we haven't even finished the primaries.
He said that a disparity exists between white and black schools, but the solution he even hinted at was that whites will start having to fund black schools, which I don't think will work.
Actually, ideas to do just that at the state level have been floated. There has been a lot of tinkering with property taxes for "clean and green" (PA's version) and property tax relief for farmers and retirees. This shifting burden pisses people off. I could see it sneaking through in the form of state taxes combined with property taxes so rich people can still get better schools and the poor get minimum funding. Of course this moves us further toward ending locally controlled school, but the Kennedite/Busherian ultra-nationalists already support that. (I'm having fun with words here but srysl that style funding is not out of the question.)
McCain isn't McCrazyperson. He won't be bad. Honestly, none of them will be bad. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
[youtube]hAzBxFaio1I&feature=related[/youtube]
is he the only candidate to say some stupid shit?
[youtube]XDHbHcOV1N4&feature[/youtube]
Wow. That was stupid. McCain swung right by stupid to land on evil though.
eh, i thought it was pretty stereotypical midwest humor that fit right in with his surroundings. the guy's a career politician, he slipped into character.
we're in worse shape than i thought
what? you didn't realize they were politicians?
i had this idea that midwesterners cared about stuff like the price of corn and wheat and left the bomb fantasies to hollywood
I think the Dems are going to lose either way.
The Dems will win no matter what. They could have video of Obama doing Clinton with 2 girlscouts and a boyscout on a pile of crack cocaine while taking a crap on the American flag and McCain still would have absolutely no chance. Keep in mind that double the number of Americans have voted for Obama than McCain and that's just half of the Democratic Party.
America is sick to death of Republicans. They are even more fiscally irresponsible and dishonest than Democrats...which I thought couldn't be done.
Nothing the Democrats do will prevent them from winning, and nothing the Republicans do will prevent them from failing.
6 words: dead girl or a live boy
The Dems wouldn't lose if Obama was having a 3-way with both.
Wow. How will you ever handle the cognitive dissonance if it turns out you're wrong? As I recall, you were pretty damn sure there was no way Kerry could lose either.
He would have won if it weren't for Diebold. This time even they can't help the Republicans. There are just too many people. The voter turnout for Democrats is higher than it's been in 30 years.
dead girls never hurt Dems before:driving: :drunk:
live boys haven't hurt the Republicans either.
Actually, I suspect something that doesn't reach that level could sink him. I'll just wait and see. Do people still listen to Limbaugh? He could always get the faithful riled up over something.
The Dems will win no matter what.
Not if everyone walks around saying the Dems will win no matter what.
Do people still listen to Limbaugh?
Not in the Republican primary they didn't. He all but called McCain the antichrist.
He's been calling McCain the antichrist for more than 8 years now. The R's find themselves in the same spot that the D's were in '04. No one really inspired them and the more electable choices dropped out a bit too soon. Romney dropping out really through the R process off. People will be blaming Huckabee for that for awhile I believe.
Wow - that one really nailed it.
He would have won if it weren't for Diebold.
More Conspiracy BS without basis for fact.
More Conspiracy BS without basis for fact.
As usual, you couldn't find your ass with both hands and a map.
You got it right in that it was a conspiracy, but you're wrong about the facts. You might want to watch the movie "Hacking Democracy" or visit Bev Harris's website
http://www.blackboxvoting.orgClinton is a Scorpio, Obama is a Leo, and McCain is a Virgo??????? I think in the end Clinton will steal it from Barack! cindy
I just listened to someone tell me that Obama is a muslim and moments later that his minister is a racist, so I guess with some folks the "scandal" layers will all be accepted as truth, but won't be compared.
No no, you have to get it right.
He's a SECRET Muslim, so of course he would go to a Christian church for 20 years to throw people off the scent.
Wow. I knew the Moors were devious but I had no idea.
As usual, you couldn't find your ass with both hands and a map.
You got it right in that it was a conspiracy, but you're wrong about the facts. You might want to watch the movie "Hacking Democracy" or visit Bev Harris's website http://www.blackboxvoting.org
More BS. A movie some Bush hater makes for some dumb ass with an agend does not make if fact no matter how hard you get when you read it.
A movie made by someone who wants fair elections and who CAUGHT people throwing away ballots, who found that the Republican national committee had paid money to Diebold, who proved that the machines could easily be hacked into, etc.
The truth hurts, and that's why you're a little bitch and try to avoid it.
A movie made by someone who wants fair elections and who CAUGHT people throwing away ballots, who found that the Republican national committee had paid money to Diebold, who proved that the machines could easily be hacked into, etc.
You're some guys bitch I am sure of that. You ignore the fact that demoncrats pull the same shite. Becase something is possible does not make if fact in your hottest fantasy.
You are my bitch. I'm sure of that.
I don't like the Democrats anymore than I do Republicans. Although I will say the Democrats are open and honest about their intentions. Both of them want larger, costlier, more intrusive government that violates our rights more and more and steals more of our income.
The only difference is which of our rights will be violated and where the stolen money will be spent. Also, Democrats tax us openly while Republicans use "invisible" tax by deficit spending and having more money made to make up the difference which causes inflation and reduces the value of the dollar (which we are experiencing right now). It's a hidden tax because Republicans are dishonest about their dishonesty, and Democrats are honest about their dishonesty.
In any case, Bush won in HIGHLY questionable elections and refused to allow UN observers to watch over the last ones. Money from the Republican Party was paid to the maker of the voting machines, and the CEO of that company said in public that he would deliver the election to Bush.
There is no such evidence for Democrats. If there were, I'd be the first one to jump on them. In addition to that, Democrats are less willing to start unprovoked wars of aggression that get thousands of Americans killed without legitimate cause and without being in the defense of America. It's not just a matter of it being possible. It's probable based on actual evidence and facts. You know, the stuff you like to ignore.
Not proof; sorry to bust your fantasy.
So you want men to be your bitch? I am sure that you could find an illegal alien to help you out. I don't swing that way. But have at it.
I love a good consipracy theory.
Yea, we know already.
Yea, we know already.
I didn't post a conspiracy theory. I posted a conspiracy fact. I realize in your tiny and pathetic excuse for half a brain, you don't know the difference, but luckily for me, the rest of America knows everything I've said is true and factual; especially the stuff about you being a gutless little bitch. :)
And yes, you chose to become my bitch when you were stupid enough to challenge your intellectual, social, and moral superior (me). Now wash my car bitch. When you're done with that, pick up my dry cleaning.
I love a good conspiracy theory. It makes me hard.
Yea, we can tell already. Hump an illegal alien and get some relief already! :lol2:
Radar I found your bitches you so desire. They wait for you in lock up.
You found my bitch when you looked in the mirror. If I wanted an undocumented immigrant, I'd probably just talk to one of the ones I've hired to do my yard work or to clean up my uncle's machine shop. They are far less likely to commit crimes than American born citizens.
Also, stop posting shit I never said and claiming it was me. Nobody here is as stupid as you so they won't buy it.
Sure I would love to hang with those guys in the lock up. I love illegal aliens.
We know already, give it up.
is there anything more immature and juvenile than quote-editing?
Teens who post with a bunch of adults?
Or maybe it is people who like to call everyone a bitch and the people who support them? :lol2:
Richardson Throws Support to Obama
"Your candidacy is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our country, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader," said Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, before a cheering crowd of about 12,000 in Portland's Memorial Coliseum. "You will make every American proud to be an American."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102957.html?hpid=topnewsI find this very interesting. Richardson was on my short list of candidates I would have liked to see win among Democrats and Republicans.
He has one of the best resumes of any of the candidates. He's both Hispanic and a border state governor, giving him a unique perspective on immigration.
He's also a (now probably former) friend of the Clintons. I'm still on the fence, giving equal weight to Clinton, Obama, and McCain. I have to say though, that if Obama picked Richardson as a VP, he'd probably leapfrog over anyone McCain would pick, especially since Condi has carried too much water for Bush and Powell seems reluctant to run.
Many of the former shining stars in foreign policy are too old or too burdened with baggage to pass scrutiny as a VP candidate. McCain and Obama both need a strong foreign-policy VP - someone who can negotiate or show a presence where the Secretary of State isn't enough.
This is getting interesting.
I have to agree. I am anxious to see who Obama is going to pick. There is no way I can vote for Hillary. Obama needs to think long and hard about who he picks as his running mate, a good choice will seal up the election for him. I would love to see him pick Richardson but I don't think he would do it.
My opinion is the best person Obama could pick as a VP would be John Edwards. If not him, than Al Gore. :)
Why wouldn't you want him to pick a staunch libertarian? After all, there's no way he can lose the election to McCain no matter who he chooses, right?
[SIZE="7"][COLOR="Red"]OBAMA[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Blue"]PAUL[/COLOR]
2008[/SIZE]
I know that song:
Obamapaul
Do do do do do
obamopaul
do do do do
obamapaul
do do do do do do do do do do do do do doo do doo doo doo doo doo doo
Why wouldn't you want him to pick a staunch libertarian? After all, there's no way he can lose the election to McCain no matter who he chooses, right?
Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid and a moron. and they probably smell bad too.
I don't have time to come back and post later so I'll just make sure you know my statement is true here and now.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid and a moron. and they probably smell bad too.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid and a moron. and they probably smell bad too.
HA! It's repeated AND in bold. You can't get truer than that.
Why wouldn't you want him to pick a staunch libertarian? After all, there's no way he can lose the election to McCain no matter who he chooses, right?
I wasn't aware there were any staunch libertarians in the Democratic Party.
I wasn't aware he was restricted by law to pick a Democrat.
He's restricted by law and the bylaws of his political party to pick a Democrat. It is the Democratic Party ticket.
You guys aren't actually living in Richardson's state. You know not what you are saying!!
Please, god no...he's a flaming idiot...please don't do this. Merc. Please....have merc.y on us all?
:)
He makes bush look smart..K? There is no way a decision should be left in the hands of Richardson....
You guys aren't actually living in Richardson's state. You know not what you are saying!!
Please, god no...he's a flaming idiot...please don't do this. Merc. Please....have merc.y on us all?
:)
He makes bush look smart..K? There is no way a decision should be left in the hands of Richardson....
Well he talks a good talk. And any Gov who is willing to send troops down to shut the border from the illegals pouring across can't be half bad. Now if we could just get the rest of the Gov.'s on board we might be able to control the illegal immigration problem in the US.
i haven't read any of this thread....and i don't care a whole lot about politics at this point....i just want to say Obama Nation. five times, fast.
Well he talks a good talk. And any Gov who is willing to send troops down to shut the border from the illegals pouring across can't be half bad. Now if we could just get the rest of the Gov.'s on board we might be able to control the illegal immigration problem in the US.
Show me a governor that is willing to bring troops to the border, and I'll show one that doesn't own any landscape that needs maintenance.
ooh ooh hyperbole works really well to convince people!:rolleyes:
Don't forget, middle America mows it's own damn lawn.
Show me a governor that is willing to bring troops to the border, and I'll show one that doesn't own any landscape that needs maintenance.
Better yet, you show me a Gov that would be stupid enough to directly hire illegal aliens to do their yard work and I'll bet his term will be shortened.
what a stupid ass argument. so if we don't have illegals running around our society will be overrun by runaway landscaping? AAAH, the bushes are attacking! Run away run away!
People pay landscapers and housecleaners because the low cost is justifiable within their budgets. It is a business decision. If it becomes too expensive, I'll bet they'll remember how to start their own lawnmowers before the grass gets too tall. hey look at that, now they are saving a couple hundred bucks a month and getting some exercise... the horror, the horror.
Actually, without undocumented immigrants you'd be paying $10 for an apple. Also, there are no "illegals" and anyone who denies this is an idiot who can't read English.
Also, there are no "illegals" and anyone who denies this is an idiot who can't read English.
Might want to change that to your standard of "and a moron" before we all asphyxiate on the irony of "can't read English."
Well since so many illegal aliens can't read English I would guess that would be a great description.
Might want to change that to your standard of "and a moron" before we all asphyxiate on the irony of "can't read English."
"can't read English" is grammatically correct so I fail to see the irony.
And the English I was referring to is that of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the federal government from legislating over immigration.
Well since so many illegal aliens can't read English I would guess that would be a great description.
I stand corrected. I was referring to those for whom English as their primary language, yet are unable to read in English. This refers to idiots like you Merc.
illegal aliens ate yer brain.
"can't read English" is grammatically correct so I fail to see the irony.
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE COULDN'T READ ENGLISH?
[COLOR="White"]Hitler. Duh.[/COLOR]
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE COULDN'T READ ENGLISH?
[COLOR="White"]Hitler. Duh.[/COLOR]
All the illegal aliens standing just on the other side of the fence waiting to enter our country illegally in violation of our law? I think you are right.
It's cool Merc. I can't hate you too much. You can't help being stupid. You're a redneck and you drive a truck. When a retarded kid runs around repeating the same idiotic crap despite being corrected, all you can do is pity him or laugh at him....which is what the vast majority of people do with you.
When a retarded kid runs around repeating the same idiotic crap despite being corrected, all you can do is pity him or laugh at him.
[SIZE="5"]O'Rly????Well thank God we have never had to see
you repeat the same idiotic crap despite being corrected. Yep, thank God.[/SIZE]
:lol2:
Can anyone tell me the definition of irony? :D
IRONY: See Mercenary
:crazy:
:biglaugha
:shocking:
:fumette:
Choice Just Got Harder
OK, Obama’s all about hope, and Hillary’s all about experience. I’ve got that. But Obama’s got a crazy pastor. And Hillary just lied about her war record. Now, it turns out, Obama’s related to Brad Pitt, and Hillary’s related to Angelina Jolie.
Make the Olsons their love twins and you’ve got a supermarket tabloid cover. Hill’s also related to Madonna and Celine Dion and Alanis Morrisette, because she’s part French-Canadian. Hey, I thought you can’t be president unless you’re American. What’s with that? And what kind of name is “Alanis” anyway? Or “Celine” and “Madonna,” for that matter. Must run in the family. That explains “Chelsea.” But Obama’s related to both George Bushes and Dick Cheney. That can’t be good. And Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman, James Madison, Winston Churchill and Robert E. Lee. Starts to sound like Obama’s got the experience thing after all, sitting around that dinner table. All Hill did was marry a president. The New England Historic Genealogy Society forgot to mention Obama’s also related to some supposedly genocidal wackjob in Kenya, but who cares, because judging by recent history, just about everyone who’s anyone in Africa is related to some genocidal wackjob. The point is, this is turning into a really difficult race. I don’t know how people are supposed to make up their minds.
Another pressing question: Who will this tired old geezer who’s been playing the same song with different titles since 1978 endorse? Adoring fans hang on for the endorsement of the eminence grease.
Gotta decide, gotta decide. The Hero of Tuzla or the United Trinity Crackpot churchgoer? When will the bleeding stop? Sage physicians weigh in: Bleed the patient. Leeches and scalpel, please!
Meanwhile, what’s with this other old geezer who just acts normal?
If you want to escape all of this, there’s only one place to go. The North Pole. With gin and tonics.
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/03/25/choice-just-got-harder/Here is Carl Bernstein's article on Hillary's truthiness.
Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
Posted: 10:14 AM ET
Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:
“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]
As I noted:
“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…
When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.
The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.
On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.
On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.
Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”
“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”
The book concludes with this paragraph:
“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”
The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.
- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor
Filed under: Carl Bernstein • Election 2008
The Article"Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions."
Her legacy to date, for sure.
Truth? You can't handle the truth!
The truth has a well-known liberal bias.
If you want to escape all of this, there’s only one place to go. The North Pole. With gin and tonics.
What was once ice to play war games under has now become ice cubes. One cannot escape change even at the North Pole.
Being the North Pole is so cold, shrinkage is inevitable.
Senator and son of an ex-Governor Bob Casey Jr., that is -- not the current Gov. Rendell, who is firmly in the Hill camp.
Senator and son of an ex-Governor Bob Casey Jr., that is -- not the current Gov. Rendell, who is firmly in the Hill camp.
Opps... my bad, I typed that incorrectly. Thanks for the correction.
PITTSBURGH (AP) - Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Democrat Barack Obama on Friday, a move that could help the presidential candidate make inroads with white working-class voters dubbed "Casey Democrats" in the Keystone State.
Appearing on stage beside the Illinois senator, Casey told a boisterous rally, "I believe in my heart that there is one person who's uniquely qualified to lead us in that new direction and that is Barack Obama."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VMHK5G1&show_article=1&catnum=3I made a bet with my Vietnamese friends this last weekend. The Vietnamese all love McCain. I bet them 4 bottles of Martell Cordon Bleu Cognac (roughly $100 each) that Obama would win not only the Democratic nomination, but the presidency.
Being the North Pole is so cold, shrinkage is inevitable.
So what kind of thinking does not occur up there?
Well, if she's the candidate, it will be good to finally cast a vote -- against Washington's Least Convincing Blonde. Face it: the Clintons, husband and wife, are incompetently evil. Of the many things they're not good at, they are among the worst at being bad, and do it remarkably poorly. You vote for that, you're voting for a schmuck.
I recommend sixteen Bushes in the Oval Office over one more self-destructive Clinton. Seventeen might be too much of an antifascist good thing, though -- on the grounds that new blood would be wanted by then.
Well, if she's the candidate, it will be good to finally cast a vote -- against Washington's Least Convincing Blonde. Face it: the Clintons, husband and wife, are incompetently evil. Of the many things they're not good at, they are among the worst at being bad, and do it remarkably poorly. You vote for that, you're voting for a schmuck.
I recommend sixteen Bushes in the Oval Office over one more self-destructive Clinton. Seventeen might be too much of an antifascist good thing, though -- on the grounds that new blood would be wanted by then.
Actually, most people would consider the Clinton presidency pretty competent. Of course, you could make the case that some of the bad decisions made then came to roost in the next administration, but you could also make that argument about the Reagan administration.
As for the multi-Bush option. Outside of a lesbian nightclub, this is not a good idea. While H was a competent president, the $1-3 trillion dollar quagmire that GW put us in will probably take an entire generation to pay off, when the bill finally comes due. Rumor has it that GWB is the stupid one in the family and that Jeb would probably have been and might be better at the job, but considering the monumental cost at this point, writing off the entire clan seems like a good idea.
I will do this in the fashion of W.Hi.P. Betting Tips.
[SIZE=4]
Democratic nomination[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]
Barry Obama v Hill Clinton @ Pennsylvania[/SIZE]
Clinton is heavily favored in this state, by 20 points, and has been for months. However, she has just "hit the wall"; a combination of unfavorability trends is working against her; and she has nearly run out of money, according to some sources. Meanwhile Obama is saturation-bombing the airwaves of PA. Polls are starting to narrow the gap and there are three weeks left.
[SIZE=3][COLOR=Green]Bet on Obama to win Pennsylvania = Currently $3 to make $10 @ Intrade[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][COLOR=Green]Bet on Clinton to drop out after Pennsylvania = not wagered at Intrade, but predicted by UT anyway[/COLOR][/SIZE]From Larry Eichel at
philly.com:
nd there's a fourth poll just in, this one from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
This poll has Clinton up by 9 points. The previous version had her ahead by 12. So, again, there's movement toward Obama, but not much in this one.
In the past two days, there've been three new polls in the Pennsylvania primary. And all of them show movement in Barack Obama's direction.
The movement almost surely reflects a combination of factors -- Obama's having spent six straight days in the state, his huge television buy, and the fallout from the controversy over Hillary Rodham Clinton's overstatement of how much danger she faced as First Lady landing in Bosnia in 1996.
In the Rasmussen Reports poll, Clinton leads by 5 points. She'd been up 10 in the same poll last week.
In the Survey USA poll, she's up 12. She's been up 19 in the same poll three weeks earlier.
The latest survey, from Public Policy Polling, actually has Obama ahead by 2 points, although that is well within the poll's margin of error. It's hard to know what to make of this one. Two-and-a-half weeks ago, the same company had Clinton ahead by 26, which is much the largest margin recorded in any Pennsylvania poll in the last few months.
Dean Debham, the company president, speculates that the movement "could be an indication that Democrats in that state think it's time to wrap it up." But the poll did not ask a question that would confirm such thinking.
The bottom line? It's safe to say Obama is gaining ground and that Clinton's hopes for a double-digit win in the state seem like more of a long-shot than a week ago. Beyond that, well, there are still 20 days to go.She's dropping faster than Bill's drawers at a Delta Zeta party.
Is that the ugly sorority at Binghamton?
So Bill Cliton shows his true colors. If she could get reid of that fucker she might have had a chance. I really think if she divorced him she would have a better chance of being elected.
She'd lose remaining black voters.
If she could get reid of that fucker she might have had a chance.
Bill exonerated to become a Senator from Nevada?
Well, if she's the candidate, it will be good to finally cast a vote -- against Washington's Least Convincing Blonde. Face it: the Clintons, husband and wife, are incompetently evil. Of the many things they're not good at, they are among the worst at being bad, and do it remarkably poorly. You vote for that, you're voting for a schmuck.
I recommend sixteen Bushes in the Oval Office over one more self-destructive Clinton. Seventeen might be too much of an antifascist good thing, though -- on the grounds that new blood would be wanted by then.
I'd rather have someone who is incompetently evil than someone who is an expert at being evil like Bush or Cheney.
It doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate happens to be, they will roll over McCain effortlessly. I'd personally prefer if it wasn't Clinton, but I'd take an illiterate crack whore over any Republican.
Bill exonerated to become a Senator from Nevada?
I don't care what Bill does. If any state is stupid enough to elect him a Senator that is their problem. I mean look at NY. :lol2:
. . .but I'd take an illiterate crack whore over any Republican.
It's cracks like this that tell me you have a lot to learn about being a political man, Radar. A lot. And you had such a good chance at it, too. At least I think being rather well placed in the regional Libertarian Party might have been a good chance. Was it somehow not so? Or did such seeds as fell really only scatter upon rocky ground?
The Republicans, at least, are often doing things -- chiefly in foreign policy -- that I recognize as wisdom. At this moment I'm sure you're scoffing, but with time, I think you will recognize that however little credit this Administration is being given, whether GWB is comparable to a Reagan or to a Truman (per T.P.M. Barnett), this Administration will be the one that began the joining of the Non-Integrating, economically- and security-disconnected Gap into the richer life of the world's Economically Functional Core.
Really now? GHWB will be compared with James Buchanan, and unfavorably at that.
GHWB is reviving the Cold War with Russia, stopped cold in his imperialist war vs the axis of evil only when North Korea announced they got nukes, and played kissyfoot with China and Saudi Arabia when elements of these two countries are wreaking the most havoc around the world, militarily and financially.
The Republicans, at least, are often doing things -- chiefly in foreign policy -- that I recognize as wisdom. At this moment I'm sure you're scoffing, but with time, I think you will recognize that however little credit this Administration is being given, whether GWB is comparable to a Reagan or to a Truman (per T.P.M. Barnett), this Administration will be the one that began the joining of the Non-Integrating, economically- and security-disconnected Gap into the richer life of the world's Economically Functional Core.
Anyone is invited to translate, empathize, clarify, or vindicate that paragraph.
Don't be silly, we just use him as a bellweather of how crazy the extreme right is at the moment.
UG is just as impervious to counter-wisdom as you are, t.
The Republicans, at least, are often doing things -- chiefly in foreign policy -- that I recognize as wisdom. At this moment I'm sure you're scoffing, but with time, I think you will recognize that however little credit this Administration is being given, whether GWB is comparable to a Reagan or to a Truman (per T.P.M. Barnett), this Administration will be the one that began the joining of the Non-Integrating, economically- and security-disconnected Gap into the richer life of the world's Economically Functional Core.
The Republicans are indeed doing things with foreign policy. Specifically they are starting unprovoked, unwarranted, unnecessary and unconstitutional wars of aggression against nations that posed no threat to ours, didn't attack ours, and had no connection to those who did. Wars that have resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans, a million Iraqi people, thousands of our allies, etc. Wars that have nothing to do with defending America but will ensure that Americans will be born into debt for the next 10 generations. Republicans have made America the scourge of the world even among our allies, and made us known around the world for being the most dangerous rogue nation. Republicans have made our government a laughing stock everywhere. Republicans have made the dollar worthless, pushed up the cost of everything through the price of oil, have wrecked our economy, have infringed on our freedoms, violated the Constitution, emboldened our enemies, recruited terrorists, given a valid reason for people to hate us, etc.
I'd say you're right. The Republicans have been pretty damned busy. I'd rather have someone who wasn't to busy, though it may take the next 4 or 5 presidents to undo the damage this one has caused.
Radar, read Thomas P.M. Barnett's works, both of them, and get a clue why I didn't even finish your post before replying.
Hell, son, tw of all people has read at least one of the two.
I already know why you don't finish my posts before replying. You actively avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, reason, or logic. You've devised a system of hiding your head deep within your own ass to avoid seeing such things. From these depths, things that annoy normal humans seem pleasant sounding. For instance the voices of liars and idiots like Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Dobbs, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfield, Petraeus, Roberts, Alito, etc. might even sound believable and not make you want to vomit like those of us breathing from outside our rectum.
The combined IQ of all of these people and you, wouldn't make up 10% of mine or any other intelligent, well-educated, articulate, honest, and reasonable person like me.
I already know why you don't finish my posts before replying. ... You've devised a system of hiding your head deep within your own ass to avoid seeing such things.
No reason to comprehend. UG has a Rush Limbaugh political agenda to tell him how to think. All Republicans good; all Democrats evil. Same sources also proved that Saddam had WMDs, the Domino Theory, and rewrote the Pentagon Papers (which UG understood also without ever reading). Amazing what is known when one has conclusions; never bothers to first learn why. UG reads words; then comprehends what he is told to think.
Sometimes I wonder if his thesaurus had a swastika on it. Or just a Satanic verse. Imagine, UG in a tub of Jell-O - proclaiming a communist conspiracy because Jell-O is red. Fighting Jell-O now so that we don't have to fight them out in our streets. If Rush told him, UG would post it.
UG apparently read words in Barnett's book; never comprehended what was being said. Wacko extremists in the administration did same. Then as Barnett explained those reasons why, suddenly, Barnett was uninvited. If UG had comprehended Barnett, then UG also would be attacking Barnett; not creating a persona non gratis.
Extremists see only what they are told to see. UG never read what Barnett said just like UG need not read what Radar has posted. UG - like some others - ignore 'reasons why' and then get pissy when confronted for not grasping underlying facts.
A political agenda (and denials, insults, rhetoric) is sufficient to save us from ourselves. UG don't need bother reading. God tells him what Radar will post. Same reason why some automatically knew Saddam had WMDs.
The combined IQ of all of these people and you, wouldn't make up 10% of mine or any other intelligent, well-educated, articulate, honest, and reasonable person like me.
Now that's some funny shit right there. :lol2:
Well I'm still on the fence, but I did
sign up for a discussion with
Tony Lake and
Cassandra Butts, Obama's foreign and domestic policy advisers. Speeches are fun to watch, but PA doesn't do town hall meetings very well so if you want real answers maybe it's best to talk to advisers rather than the candidates themselves. It's also instructive to meet with the people a candidate picks to advise him/her. If I had been able to meet James Witt and Michael Brown, Clinton's and Bush's FEMA heads, I think I would have been able to formulate a theory on the success of their administrations.
It's at 1pm in Center City.
Since foreign policy and domestic energy policy are going be even more linked going forward than they have been in the past, it's a good pairing.
Anthony Lake (born April 2, 1939) is an American diplomat, political figure, and academic. He has been a foreign policy advisor to many Democratic U.S. presidents and presidential candidates, and served as National Security Advisor under U.S. President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. Lake is credited with developing the policy that led to the resolution of the Bosnian War. He is currently a faculty member at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, holding the chair of Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy.
Butts coordinated the formulation of policy on Rep. Gephardt's presidential campaign that included a universal health care plan. In her seven years of work for Rep. Gephardt during his tenure as the House Democratic Leader, Butts was a principal advisor on matters involving the judiciary, financial services, and information technology.
Lake has an extremely impressive record. Anyone lucky enough to get him on their administration will have a star.
It was a great presentation. Tony Lake spoke about 2/3 of the time and Cassandra Butts for the remainder. I asked a dual question about energy policy and she handled part and had him finish with the foreign policy aspects.
There were only about 20 people there and before and after the formal presentation both speakers were available so I got to ask them additional questions and listen while others asked them questions. Cassandra Butts' presentation was very good and Tony Lake's presentation was great. I kept thinking that to hear this anywhere else I'd have to sign up for a $100 a plate dinner or take a college class.
I went in undecided and I still am, but it would be nice if I could have found a similar event with Richard Holbrooke speaking for Hillary Clinton. Of course, if I did I would have asked why he thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea.
Still, I would have like the opportunity to give equal time. Unfortunately for Hillary, the Obama web site make it easier to find events and the Obama team is making themselves more available.
BTW, I forgot to bring my camera and so I had to make do with the cellphone.
Below are pictures of Tony Lake with Cassandra Butts and Tony Lake with me and the family.
Very nice Rich!
I thought so. BTW, I passed along your 'star' comment.
I thought so. BTW, I passed along your 'star' comment.
:D
Well here we go, Pennsylvania... final polls say I was wrong about a Bama revival. The Real Clear Politics poll average is a 6 point win for Hillary, but big pollster Zogby says undecideds are breaking Hill's way and will give her a double digit win.
How does he know? I like it better when the pollsters get it wrong. It's fun to watch the sport of it.
I'm watching you Pennsylvanians with bated breath, whatever that is!
Clinton by 10 or less...I think it'll be a hollow victory.
Hillary will win PA by around 5 points but this won't help her. She'll still be pressured to drop out.
They'll have to drag Hill off the stage at the convention in chains with a ballgag in her mouth before she'll step aside.
It's looking more and more like this thing is going to run all the way to the convention. :-/
Hooray for divisive politics! It's a great time to invest in advertising companies specializing in smear campaigns!
Ha Ha [/nelsonfromsimpsons]
Larry Elder -- and he's having fun.
President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; A03
Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous president.
Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.
Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious:
11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
Wow - and all this after the trip abroad. This is just great. Its also another reason I think politicians should quit their current job before going after the next one.
The latest making the email chain letter rounds.
I depend on that age old military maxim: The first report is always suspect.
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to "The War Zone". I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country. If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier
Ah crap, my boss sent that to me and I immediately found on
snopes that he "retracted" that email and had not expected it to be forwarded all over the place, and asked that it not be forwarded or posted.
Anyway, I asked for no more political stuff to be forwarded to me and I'd rather make up my own mind.
Ah crap, my boss sent that to me and I immediately found on snopes that he "retracted" that email and had not expected it to be forwarded all over the place, and asked that it not be forwarded or posted.
Anyway, I asked for no more political stuff to be forwarded to me and I'd rather make up my own mind.
Thanks, what I figured.
Thanks, what I figured.
Are you going to contact the person who sent it to you and inform them that they are spreading lies?
Are you going to contact the person who sent it to you and inform them that they are spreading lies?
Spreading lies? I don't look at most information passed in that manner. People have strong political emotions and I could easily ask those questions about things posted about Bush or Obama or McCain.
FTR I did send them the snopes link.
Are you going to contact the person who sent it to you and inform them that they are spreading lies?
I understand this wasn't aimed at me, but its funny - I have told my mother that numerous times and hit "reply all" to her emails refuting the garbage spread. I don't get too many of them from her anymore.
good for you. There is too much ignorance in the world already to be spreading false stuff around.
good for you. There is too much ignorance in the world already to be spreading false stuff around.
Oh, and I forgot to mention it came from my wife. Who got it from one of her best friends who is the wife of a WO-5 and one of the most senior WO's in Army Aviation. I am sure she got it from someone else as well. I will just have to make sure the wife passes on the Snopes link when I get off work in another 36 hours.
I guess we can scratch
Edwards off the VP list...
Poor John, I guess the National Enquirer reports actually may have some truth to it. Reports state that the birth certificate of his former Mistress is missing the name for the father. Time will tell.
One of his staffers is claiming to be the father of the baby, and I don't think the mistress is saying it's Edwards' either.
I guess we can scratch Edwards off the VP list...
I never thought he had it in him; he always seemed pretty namby-pamby to me.
One of his staffers is claiming to be the father of the baby, and I don't think the mistress is saying it's Edwards' either.
People like Edwards are surrounded by others who are willing to fall on a landmine for them. Anyone in that political group has them.
A Clinton aide is bitchin now that she woulda coulda shoulda won if this had come out earlier...
That doesn't even make sense. Why would Edwards' scandal have hurt Obama while helping her?
Well, she probably hasn't fathered any love-children....
That doesn't even make sense. Why would Edwards' scandal have hurt Obama while helping her?
They both have racist unionist appeal?
He felt that the electoral votes that Edwards won MAY have gone to her. Had that happened...
Actually, it isn't true though. for example...
Rasmussen. 1/31. Likely voters. MOE 4% (last poll taken by anyone with Edwards in the mix)
Clinton 47
Obama 38
Edwards 11
Actual results:
Obama 49.3
Clinton 47.1
Edwards 1.7
or
two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses.
Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5%
"As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?""
Edwards 32
Obama 20
Clinton 16
Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5%
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?"
Edwards 36
Obama 25
Clinton 11
(
www.dailykos.com)
I wouldn't believe dailykos if they told me today was Tuesday - sorry.
But again - the Clinton aide was the one whining - not me. I'm glad she lost.
I wouldn't believe dailykos if they told me today was Tuesday - sorry.
But again - the Clinton aide was the one whining - not me. I'm glad she lost.
Second.
Yeah, if Mark Penn had his way, the Clintons would all but make Blacks start a new third party and run them out of Harlem. Good thing the Clintons adjusted in midstream, and make it on this side of a halfway decent primary fight. What a schmuck Penn was. If the Republicans had operatives in the Democatic party, they would do no better than Penn.
[cynic] Apparently Obama and McCain got together at one of those mega-churches where people go to be anonymous before God. That probably isn't fair but for someone raised in rural community churches it just looks like spiritual fast food. People in large single minded groups where the individual submits to group will make me nervous whether they're Cub Scouts, metal heads, Christians or [godwin]Nazis[/godwin]. The ever creepy neo-com
William Kristol did manage to tease out a difference between McCain and Obama on the question of confronting evil. From my reading of it McCain will follow the Bush plan of feeding evil by commiting disproportionate evil and Obama won't really say. For a while I was feeling good that Bush would leave and things would improve, but these guys weaken the positive vibrations.[/cynic]
The only 'Evil' the US confronts are the 'evil-doers' who are in the way of what the US wants. The government paints it with the 'We are the Do-Gooders' brush stroke to make its actions more palatable to its voting public. I wish I could hear one of them, one day, say that our oil chasing days are over and we all better start tightening our seat belts because energy independence is going to start out as a really rough ride.
Well sorry but we are not "chasing oil". I have no idea where you go that idea from but if you could provide us with some non-partisan original source links to that notion I would love to read them. We all certainly know that neither China nor India are chasing any oil reserves in any nefarious capacity.
Well sorry but we are not "chasing oil".
Can you prove that? How about if you could provide us with some non-partisan original source links to that notion, I would love to read them. :p
What about the part where, McCain says that making 4500000 dollars a year, yes, 4.5 million a year, is middle class?
Talking about what it means to be rich, what is middle class and what is upper class:
McCain took a far more discursive approach to answering the question but ultimately settled on a dramatically higher figure: "I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?"
When I heard an Obama ad, touting his plans to benefit the "middle class", I was wondering how he defined "middle class"?
Most people say, I ain't poor and I ain't rich, so I must be middle class. It's a wonderful term that don't mean shit. :rolleyes:
When I heard an Obama ad, touting his plans to benefit the "middle class", I was wondering how he defined "middle class"?
Most people say, I ain't poor and I ain't rich, so I must be middle class. It's a wonderful term that don't mean shit. :rolleyes:
I am still waiting for someone to define rich.
I am still waiting for someone to define rich.
Too much chocolate.
I am still waiting for someone to define rich.
Mrs Levy, seems to have done that. ;)
"You're a financial planner and you want to invest my retirement savings in scratch tickets?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You're a plumber and you're going to fix my clog with a stick of dynamite?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You're a firefighter and you're going to put out the flames with gasoline?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You're a jeweler and you're going to fix my Rolex with a hammer?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You’re a nuclear physicist and you're giving out 'free samples' of enriched uranium to children?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You're a surgeon and you're using a rusty hacksaw?"
"Trust me. I was a POW."
"You’re the Republican candidate for president and you want to fix the country's problems even though you don’t know much about the economy, you don’t know how to use the internet, you don’t know how many houses you own or what kind of car you drive, you admit you don’t think clearly when you’re tired, you make frequent gaffes on foreign policy, you think offshore drilling is a short-term solution to high gas prices, you support torture and keeping the Guantanamo prison open, you make rash decisions and statements from which you have to quickly backtrack, you have an explosive temper on a hair trigger, your idea of health care reform is 'wear more sunscreen,' you're for stem cell research except when it's done on stem cells because you consider them all American citizens, and you voted to support the policies of the worst president ever 100 percent of the time this year?"
"Trust me, my friends. I was a POW."
