Obama vs. McCain
* August 25-28: Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado
* September 1-4: Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St.
* November 4: Election Day!!
www.barackobama.com (http://www.barackobama.com)
www.johnmccain.com (http://www.johnmccain.com)
good call! Can we get this Pinned until november or so?
So the Democrats have boycotted Michigan? Can anyone explain this to me?
Romney's home state. enough said :wink:
Michigan violated rules by moving up the primary, so as punishment the party said they won't allow their delegates to count.
They threatened to do that to DC. DC caved.
Romney seems like a smart guy until you hear him talk :mrgreen:
Here's a link you guys might find useful & informative:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/toolbox.html?hpid=topnews
It's the Washington Post's Campaign 08 toolbox.
In particular, the Primary & Caucus Tally, Calendar & Map:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/
I was talking to a buddy of mine whose dad works for the Obama campaign, and he said that his dad has been hearing that if Obama were to win the ticket it would be Obama/Edwards...and that sounds like an amazing duo to me. Thoughts?
I'll take any two of the three front-runners plus Kucinich, in any combination. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Richardson's name get floated as a potential VP (or Cabinet member). I'm starting to lean more towards Hillary, though, to be honest. Obama's feeling a little young, a little cocky, and a little to the right of the others.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 03:59:05 PM
Obama's feeling a little young, a little cocky, and a little to the right of the others.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm interested to hear what you mean.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 16, 2008, 03:53:22 PM
I was talking to a buddy of mine whose dad works for the Obama campaign, and he said that his dad has been hearing that if Obama were to win the ticket it would be Obama/Edwards...and that sounds like an amazing duo to me. Thoughts?
no. Edwards is part of the problem, not the solution. Also, I don't mean his politics, just the fact that he is the stereotypical politician.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 16, 2008, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 03:59:05 PM
Obama's feeling a little young, a little cocky, and a little to the right of the others.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm interested to hear what you mean.
Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking
this week. That said...
OK, about young--Obama
is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. While she wasn't elected to the posotion of first lady, she took the most active policy role of any first lady in history, to some good effect. And she took worlds of hateful shit for it, and stood up to it all with some class. Obama, on the other hand, has only been in the Senate for three years to Clinton's seven), and hasn't amassed a particulary distinguished record. He's been running for President the whole time.
Cocky--in front of a crowd, he oozes it. I guess this depends on my perception of him as a little young. He just doesn't seem to have earned it.
But the big one--his policy proposals are all starting to feel like coy, centrist-Democrat come-ons to conservatives. He's aiming for the center, hence all his "purple state" talk. Not a bad idea to get elected, especially as a younger, non-white candidate. But I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.
Also, partially in answer to bluecaravan's question, and for general political information--
www.vote-smart.org (http://www.vote-smart.org)
Excellent resource.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 05:07:10 PM
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 16, 2008, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 03:59:05 PM
Obama's feeling a little young, a little cocky, and a little to the right of the others.
Would you mind elaborating? I'm interested to hear what you mean.
Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking this week. That said...
OK, about young--Obama is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. While she wasn't elected to the posotion of first lady, she took the most active policy role of any first lady in history, to some good effect. And she took worlds of hateful shit for it, and stood up to it all with some class. Obama, on the other hand, has only been in the Senate for three years to Clinton's seven), and hasn't amassed a particulary distinguished record. He's been running for President the whole time.
Cocky--in front of a crowd, he oozes it. I guess this depends on my perception of him as a little young. He just doesn't seem to have earned it.
But the big one--his policy proposals are all starting to feel like coy, centrist-Democrat come-ons to conservatives. He's aiming for the center, hence all his "purple state" talk. Not a bad idea to get elected, especially as a younger, non-white candidate. But I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.
Also, partially in answer to bluecaravan's question, and for general political information--
www.vote-smart.org (http://www.vote-smart.org)
Excellent resource.
Hillary is a one term senator. She didn't attend ONE MEETING WITH BILL while he was president. This has been well documented. She has no experience with foreign politics, and little experience with domestic politics. She is the least active senator in the whole country. She has submitted less than 5 bills in six years of office. Her health care "run" was her only relevant attempt to be involved while Bill was in office. Meeting with the wives of other presidents isn't politics, its just an obligation. So please provide a better argument for why you back Hillary. Her experience claim doesn't match the facts.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/)
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-times-slams-hillary-clintons.html (http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-times-slams-hillary-clintons.html)
QuoteBut during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton's major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 03:59:05 PM
I'll take any two of the three front-runners plus Kucinich, in any combination. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Richardson's name get floated as a potential VP (or Cabinet member). I'm starting to lean more towards Hillary, though, to be honest. Obama's feeling a little young, a little cocky, and a little to the right of the others.
I was thinking that watching the NH debate. Edwards seemed to be trying to score points with Obama.
couple other thoughts on above comments.
None of the Dems can match McCain for experience. Romney was a 1 term governor, much of that in abstentia as he started to run for pres several years ago. Huckabee was a 2 term gov, so I don't think he has any major experience issues over the others.
Hillary was on the armed svc committe, both Hillary and Barack on the foreign affairs committe, so they do have more foreign affairs experience than everyone except McCain. Even Newt praised Hillary for her work across the aisle in co sponsoring legislation (I forget what it was), but you won't hear him talking about it now. Hillary also made a point of becoming familiar with the Pentagon.
As far as the issues go, all 3 Dems (sorry Dennis) are quite similar. Watching the debate from Vegas last night, they talked about their major differences but when they answered the questions the differences were minor.
Hillary answered things a bit more completely and came off more knowledgable last night, imo.
Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama, partly because I think Hillary incites anger in many republicans, including the moderates who might vote dem. Partly cause Obama did something I admire - he told people what they didn't want to hear. He spoke in front of the teachers union and said tenure should be out, merit should be in. He went to Detroit and spoke about emissions standards. That kind of attitude is rare in politics.
I'm staying open minded, but at least for now that's how I'm leaning.
Quote from: slslbs on January 16, 2008, 06:03:30 PM
Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama, partly because I think Hillary incites anger in many republicans, including the moderates who might vote dem. Partly cause Obama did something I admire - he told people what they didn't want to hear. He spoke in front of the teachers union and said tenure should be out, merit should be in. He went to Detroit and spoke about emissions standards. That kind of attitude is rare in politics.
I'm staying open minded, but at least for now that's how I'm leaning.
I would really have to agree with the anger factor, which has gone into some of my decision. Its so easy to hate her...being raised by Republicans I HATED HER...lived in NY when she was elected, picked up on a ton of hatred. I've since then confronted that hatred, but its still a huge factor in the election.
Regarding experience- its not as big of a factor for me as others make it sound...I think every candidate (minus Thompson) is more than qualified intellectuall to run the country, and I look at it as more of a matter of what they would do in power, how much respect they would command, etc. I think that as president Obama would command a lot of respect among the Congress, while I'm not as sure about Hillary....who knows though, I haven't been 100% sold on anyone yet.
Quote from: Sophist on January 16, 2008, 05:29:15 PM
...please provide a better argument for why you back[?] Hillary.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 05:07:10 PM
Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking this week. That said...
Obama is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. ... He's aiming for the center ... I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.
OK?
SOmeone mentioned Richardson as a VP candiate. I think he's a strong candidate for that job./ Given that the role of the VP on a presidential ticket is to shor up the wek spots in a Presidential candidate's platform, Richardson has what none of the Dems have: Real experience and policy regarding immigration and border control. The Reupblicans will be the shit out of whomever gets the nomination on this topic alone. It's one of their big battle cries and Richardson provides an opportunity to answer that assault with substance.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Sophist on January 16, 2008, 05:29:15 PM
...please provide a better argument for why you back[?] Hillary.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 16, 2008, 05:07:10 PM
Now remember, I'll vote for any of these guys over whatever Republican they pick. That's no contest. And I've wavered between Hillary & Obama ever since they emergerd as the front-runners. Basically, this is my thinking this week. That said...
Obama is young, and not as seasoned as Hillary. ... He's aiming for the center ... I'm not sure that's what I want in our next president.
OK?
If it works for you, but the reality is the only difference between Hillary and Obama is their appearance. They have the same stance on every issue, and they lose themselves in their own verbosity(Hillary more than Obama). Add to the equation that both published ambiguous plans on their respective websites. As much as I dislike Edwards, I will give him respect for publishing a detailed health care plan and Iraq strategy on his website. I don't really see an upside to either Hillary or Obama, as both would worry more about getting reelected as opposed to getting the job done. Lets face it, both would have to remain centrist in order to last two terms and that would put their agenda on the back burner. I'd rather have a one term president do the right thing, rather than a career politician. However, I'm a cynical jackass, so take my discourse with grain of salt.
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 17, 2008, 08:22:29 AM
SOmeone mentioned Richardson as a VP candiate. I think he's a strong candidate for that job./ Given that the role of the VP on a presidential ticket is to shor up the wek spots in a Presidential candidate's platform, Richardson has what none of the Dems have: Real experience and policy regarding immigration and border control. The Reupblicans will be the shit out of whomever gets the nomination on this topic alone. It's one of their big battle cries and Richardson provides an opportunity to answer that assault with substance.
agreed, he would be a good choice
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
eh. Maybe. I dunno, I kind of hate how he attempts to play the "everyman" mentality. Blasting blue collar rock every time he takes the stage. He is a rich capitalist, and is attempting to fight the system that made him who he is, why do that? He was a tort lawyer for many years. Why not just give your money away if you want to help the poor? Money is money, and the poor won't care about the origin of the money. If capitalism helped you, why not extend the favor to someone else? Set a standard to live by, after all, we do have good capitalists in this society, like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc. We tend to stereotype capitalists as those like the Enron CEO's, but I think those with money do good things(generally speaking a just majority exists within the wealthy bracket). Take the tsunami disasters, and Katrina as examples, more good was done through the private sector than the government. The money had to come from somewhere, and it came from those that had. The one thing I respect about religious based organizations is their willingness to give when people are in need of help. Their aid wasn't possible without private sector money, and that money was generated through capitalism. The logic doesn't hold up, why punish the majority(good capitalist), due to the actions of the minority (Enron, etc)? This is the equivalent of making narcotics illegal because a minority of people suck at taking drugs(which is the reality of this country). If the money is mine, I can control what happens to it. If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska? I can do more good for society when I am in control.
Quote from: Sophist on January 17, 2008, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
eh. Maybe. I dunno, I kind of hate how he attempts to play the "everyman" mentality. Blasting blue collar rock every time he takes the stage. He is a rich capitalist, and is attempting to fight the system that made him who he is, why do that? He was a tort lawyer for many years. Why not just give your money away if you want to help the poor? Money is money, and the poor won't care about the origin of the money. If capitalism helped you, why not extend the favor to someone else? Set a standard to live by, after all, we do have good capitalists in this society, like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc. We tend to stereotype capitalists as those like the Enron CEO's, but I think those with money do good things(generally speaking a just majority exists within the wealthy bracket). Take the tsunami disasters, and Katrina as examples, more good was done through the private sector than the government. The money had to come from somewhere, and it came from those that had. The one thing I respect about religious based organizations is their willingness to give when people are in need of help. Their aid wasn't possible without private sector money, and that money was generated through capitalism. The logic doesn't hold up, why punish the majority(good capitalist), due to the actions of the minority (Enron, etc)? This is the equivalent of making narcotics illegal because a minority of people suck at taking drugs(which is the reality of this country). If the money is mine, I can control what happens to it. If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska? I can do more good for society when I am in control.
giving money to people never did much, short of stave off disaster. Helping them help themselves with education and job training (of course, the jobs need to be available) has a much higher chance of improving the future.
I admit, I'm kinda tired of the 2 America speech, but that's what he is talking about. Of course, the debate is how to do it. The gop thinks the markets are the answer to everything, the dems think govt programs are the answer (I am stereotyping and exaggerating on purpose) - the true answer is some sort of combination.
Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet? Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD). I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks.
EDIT: the reason I post it in here is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.
Quote from: antelope19 on January 17, 2008, 12:13:55 PM
Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet? Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD). I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks.
EDIT: the reason I post it in here, is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.
That seems too radical to get much play in national politics. And it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Mandating birth control for people on welfare would be a better place to start, if we were going that route. (Did I just hear the 'whoosh' of a flamethrower starting up?)
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 12:20:44 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 17, 2008, 12:13:55 PM
Has the whole "Drug testing those on Welfare" thing been debated in here yet? Maybe it's just a Maryland thing, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic around here (MD). I think the statement is fairly self-explanitory, but for those who have not heard about it yet, they are considering testing people who collect welfare checks.
EDIT: the reason I post it in here, is because this has the potential to become a major issue for presidential candidates, IMO.
That seems too radical to get much play in national politics. And it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Mandating birth control for people on welfare would be a better place to start, if we were going that route. (Did I just hear the 'whoosh' of a flamethrower starting up?)
You seriously think that it'd make more sense to keep people from reproducing rather than spending welfare dollars on meth?
I do see where you're coming from with respect to welfare abusers having children ostensibly to get fatter checks but.. freal?
No, no... both of those ideas are way too interventionist to ever go anywhere. (Well, the drug one could pass in some very socially conservative quarters, but paying for it would probably stop it from being implemented.) I'm just sitting where you see where I'm coming from. I don't think it's at all feasible to keep drugs away from people determined to have them--all efforts have failed. Birth control for the indigent on public assistance doesn't seem like a completely awful idea, and I don't think we've nearly exhausted the opportunities for slowing the birth rate. Removing an incentive to have more kids they can't support might help get some people off the welfare rolls. But yes, it might be just as expensive and futile as the war on drugs. Just a thought is all--a weather balloon. I think MarMar's sighting in on it right now.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 12:39:34 PM
I don't think it's at all feasible to keep drugs away from people determined to have them--all efforts have failed.
Wouldn't the fact that they couldn't collect their checks without passing a drug test make people at least think twice about doing said drugs? I am not saying it's a good idea, but it is certainly attacking the problem from a different angle.
if someone wants/needs meth, H, coke, etc they aren't going to think about their welfare check.
you could argue that in order to get free $ from the govt you must prove that you are law abiding.
regardless, the ACLU will have a field day with this one.
Invasion of privacy, unlawful search, etc
Agreed in part. Not to mention all sorts of arguments about strereotyping and profiling. ....Paging Misters Sharpton and Jackson.....
Its a decent idea and a bad idea all in one.
^^^I agree with slslbs on this. There would be instant black markets for clean piss, new ways of beating blood tests, etc. (Not to mention what the ACLU and every conservative religious group in the world would say about any restriction of breeding rights.)
But stepping back from it a bit, my take on prohibition in general is that is a complete and utter failure, and is nothing but a colossal waste of resources. So I don't really see it as relating sensibly to debates about public assistance. Like all too many social policies, requiring drug tests before handing out welfare checks would just single out the poorest, most vulnerable and least capable among the population, for the specific purpose of depriving them even further. It would do nothing positive.
My mom is socially liberal, but as straight as they come--she won't take so much as an ibuprofen unless she's actually limping. She's been a small-town family doc for over 25 years. She is 100% convinced that the only sane public drug policy is total decriminalization. She's not my only source on the issue, but she makes a damn good case.
Quote from: slslbs on January 17, 2008, 12:03:25 PM
Quote from: Sophist on January 17, 2008, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
eh. Maybe. I dunno, I kind of hate how he attempts to play the "everyman" mentality. Blasting blue collar rock every time he takes the stage. He is a rich capitalist, and is attempting to fight the system that made him who he is, why do that? He was a tort lawyer for many years. Why not just give your money away if you want to help the poor? Money is money, and the poor won't care about the origin of the money. If capitalism helped you, why not extend the favor to someone else? Set a standard to live by, after all, we do have good capitalists in this society, like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, etc. We tend to stereotype capitalists as those like the Enron CEO's, but I think those with money do good things(generally speaking a just majority exists within the wealthy bracket). Take the tsunami disasters, and Katrina as examples, more good was done through the private sector than the government. The money had to come from somewhere, and it came from those that had. The one thing I respect about religious based organizations is their willingness to give when people are in need of help. Their aid wasn't possible without private sector money, and that money was generated through capitalism. The logic doesn't hold up, why punish the majority(good capitalist), due to the actions of the minority (Enron, etc)? This is the equivalent of making narcotics illegal because a minority of people suck at taking drugs(which is the reality of this country). If the money is mine, I can control what happens to it. If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska? I can do more good for society when I am in control.
giving money to people never did much, short of stave off disaster. Helping them help themselves with education and job training (of course, the jobs need to be available) has a much higher chance of improving the future.
Thats not what I'm saying. I'm implying the choice to choose which charity I would support (using my tax money + the money I normally donate to not for profit firms). An organization that is geared towards helping the poor as opposed to an organization that is geared towards reelection. A difference in efficiency exists between the two entities.
Quote from: Sophist on January 17, 2008, 11:29:00 AM
If I give it to the government, how do I know it won't end up building another useless and overpriced bridge in Alaska?
or an off ramp leading off a dead end street onto a highway that is adjacent to an empty field where the landowner would profit by selling to wal-mart or Lowes?
that sketchy Senator from Alaska who earmarked monies for the Alaska bridge and tried again in Lee County Florida, false appropriations.
still leaning towards Obama, on the Rep. side, McCain because I like his straight talk approach even though I despise the "war on terror".
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
Edwards on the surface seems good, but there is something there that bothers me. Go back and watch the tapes of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Every time Edwards gets near a woman, especially Kerry's daughter, he would reach over and touch her. Usually put his arm around her and rub her back. My wife and I found it incredibly creepy at the time.
Interesting observation. I'll never see John Edwards the same way. :lol:
Quote from: Guyute on January 19, 2008, 09:30:05 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
Edwards on the surface seems good, but there is something there that bothers me. Go back and watch the tapes of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Every time Edwards gets near a woman, especially Kerry's daughter, he would reach over and touch her. Usually put his arm around her and rub her back. My wife and I found it incredibly creepy at the time.
are you sure you're not confusing him with Clinton?
Quote from: slslbs on January 19, 2008, 10:14:35 PM
Quote from: Guyute on January 19, 2008, 09:30:05 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
Edwards on the surface seems good, but there is something there that bothers me. Go back and watch the tapes of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Every time Edwards gets near a woman, especially Kerry's daughter, he would reach over and touch her. Usually put his arm around her and rub her back. My wife and I found it incredibly creepy at the time.
are you sure you're not confusing him with Clinton?
Good point. :lol:
Who do y'all want to count for Nevada on the blue side? I hear there's controversy over who the true victor was...for now I'll leave it as a ?, maybe we'll have to wait on the official state ruling.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 20, 2008, 06:25:17 PM
Who do y'all want to count for Nevada on the blue side? I hear there's controversy over who the true victor was...for now I'll leave it as a ?, maybe we'll have to wait on the official state ruling.
I think it's a situation like the 2000 national election (without the police intimidation, recounts, etc.)--one candidate won the popular vote, and another the majority of delegates.
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 17, 2008, 08:54:42 AM
Fair enough. Edwards does have a way of seeming principled and, well.. courageous? less calculating, anyway...that we don't often see. Nothing like Kucinich, of course, but little K would never get elected.
That said, I also have to acknowlege that there's something a little creepy about a guy who made his money suing doctors for malpractice...
^^^
no argument from me. of course, they're all lawyers.
I emailed each of the campaigns (and one of the debates) a question about malpractice reform. So far, all I've gotten back are requests for $
:|
Quote from: slslbs on January 20, 2008, 06:49:06 PM
So far, all I've gotten back are requests for $
:|
Of course. Politicians--always with the hands out. :roll:
saw part of the SC debate last night.
it's getting nasty :evil:
Hillary has a way of taking things out of context, twisting things around, and putting words in people's mouths.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757
Thompson has dropped out of the race.
Quote from: antelope19 on January 22, 2008, 02:52:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757
Thompson has dropped out of the race.
Finally, Law & Order re-runs can get back on the air.
Quote from: mattstick on January 22, 2008, 02:53:10 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on January 22, 2008, 02:52:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757
Thompson has dropped out of the race.
Finally, Law & Order re-runs can get back on the air.
:-D
Due to "equal airtime" laws, TNT could not air re-runs of Law & Order from the seasons that Fred Thompson was in the cast.
Not really noteable, unless you're Elisabeth Rohm who was on the show for the same seasons as Fred Thompson, and your royalty cheques start to dry up...
Quote from: antelope19 on January 22, 2008, 02:52:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757
Thompson has dropped out of the race.
What a clown. I never took him seriously, and when he started in this race I got the feeling he wasnt serious, either.
Elisabeth Rohm, on the other hand--he should pay us all for keeping her off USA & TNT for the past six months.
Quote from: antelope19 on January 22, 2008, 02:52:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22786860/?GT1=10757
Thompson has dropped out of the race.
Thank god. What a fool.
this made me smile...
no other thread really seemed appropriate..
(http://www.marriedtothesea.com/112807/mouth-on-dick.gif)
^^^ 'minded me-- my dad sent me this a couple of years ago.
(//)
:-D :clap:
+k
Have you guys heard about the latest epidemic to sweep the US. We should all be afraid. Very, very afraid.
Quote
Electile Dysfunction:
The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
:-D
Barack's top 10 list on Letterman
Wow- Obama destroyed the SC primary...that momentum is going to be hard to kill. Super Tuesday...shit thats going to be insane.
yep
NYT endorsed Hillary
Caroline K endorsed Barack, rumor has it that Ted K will be soon.
If you saw the SC debate or read the "fact checkers" by the news outlets, you will see why I don't trust Hillary. Not because she's a woman, but because when she attacked Barack she twisted around what he said and basically said stuff that wasn't true. I guess she was doing what politicians have been doing for years. She lied.
props to Obama although Hilarity still leads the overall delegate count, so far that is...
Here's a telling snippet from today's Washington Post:
QuoteIn a quiet moment of an otherwise-fiery Democratic debate Monday, Barack Obama reflected on the frenzy sparked by seemingly every one of his and Hillary Rodham Clinton's utterances.
"I'm not entirely faulting the media," Obama offered. "There's no doubt that in a race where you've got an African American and a woman," then, after an uncomfortable pause, he continued, "and John . . ."
The camera flashed to former senator John Edwards, smiling bashfully amid a chorus of audience laughter, the white man on a presidential stage that until this year was dominated by white men.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/26/AR2008012602552.html
Quote from: slslbs on January 27, 2008, 10:11:13 AM
yep
NYT endorsed Hillary
Caroline K endorsed Barack, rumor has it that Ted K will be soon.
Done.
Just now.
Obama is onstage accepting and saying thanks, etc.
edit:
great speech... as usual.
I'm getting pissed at Hillary- campaigning in boycotted states and then trying to get them added in? That's just ridiculous and cheap play. I love that in Michigan 40% of the voters voted "uncommitted" when she was the only name on the ballot- they actually got out of their houses to vote in a meaningless primary just to vote against her.
yea, she is going down to FLA and trying to get that added in - after all the candidates agreed to the DNC rules.
like I said at the beginning of this convo - there's something slippery about her
(http://obeygiant.com/images/obama.jpg)
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 28, 2008, 05:38:47 PM
they actually got out of their houses to vote in a meaningless primary just to vote against her.
If you don't know this story, you may get a kick out of it. I know it, and I still chuckle.
Back in the mid-90s, Fred Tuttle, an old dairy farmer here in VT ran for congress as a goof, saying he was in it for the pay raise. Someone made a documentary about him called "Man With A Plan." Some issue-raising about vanishing family farms, etc., but mostly just a jolly little character-based goof.
Fast-forward a couple of years to the 1998 mid-term elections. Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) is up for re-election. He's worked hard on the anti-landmine laws, been a long-time member of the Judiciary Committee, fifth or sixth seniormost Senator in the country. 24 years on the job at that time--we love him. This rich chump Jack McMullen, a Massachusetts millionaire who made his money in convenience stores (I think?), buys a house in VT and tries to use his money to force his way into the U.S. senate, running against Leahy as a Republican. (Apparently nobody told him Vermont is a small state with a 300-year old dairy economy: news travels fast and we know bullshit.)
Little Fred Tuttle, the old dairy farmer who ran for congress as a lark, runs for the Republican nomination in the senate race, on the platform that if elected in the primary, he will vote for the incumbent democrat, Senator Leahy. What happens? Vermonters turn out in droves for the primary, Tuttle wins a landslide victory, and declines to campaign against Leahy. :-D
:-)
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 29, 2008, 08:17:01 AM
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 28, 2008, 05:38:47 PM
they actually got out of their houses to vote in a meaningless primary just to vote against her.
If you don't know this story, you may get a kick out of it. I know it, and I still chuckle.
Back in the mid-90s, Fred Tuttle, an old dairy farmer here in VT ran for congress as a goof, saying he was in it for the pay raise. Someone made a documentary about him called "Man With A Plan." Some issue-raising about vanishing family farms, etc., but mostly just a jolly little character-based goof.
Fast-forward a couple of years to the 1998 mid-term elections. Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) is up for re-election. He's worked hard on the anti-landmine laws, been a long-time member of the Judiciary Committee, fifth or sixth seniormost Senator in the country. 24 years on the job at that time--we love him. This rich chump Jack McMullen, a Massachusetts millionaire who made his money in convenience stores (I think?), buys a house in VT and tries to use his money to force his way into the U.S. senate, running against Leahy as a Republican. (Apparently nobody told him Vermont is a small state with a 300-year old dairy economy: news travels fast and we know bullshit.)
Little Fred Tuttle, the old dairy farmer who ran for congress as a lark, runs for the Republican nomination in the senate race, on the platform that if elected in the primary, he will vote for the incumbent democrat, Senator Leahy. What happens? Vermonters turn out in droves for the primary, Tuttle wins a landslide victory, and declines to campaign against Leahy. :-D
I luv yer state.
Thats awesome. Great story.
any thoughts on the state of the union speech?
I caught the last half and was bored. I watched the democratic response and was also bored. Is anyone else tired of hearing the same catch phrases from both parties? I almost want to make a drinking game out of it.
I tried to watch for about 15 minutes, but i couldn't stand it. It was like watching that horrible comedian who liked throwing shit on the audience, then wait for them to laugh, then go into another one-liner.
Quote from: Bobafett on January 29, 2008, 10:44:17 AM
It was like watching that horrible comedian who liked throwing shit on the audience, then wait for them to laugh, then go into another one-liner.
(http://www.nndb.com/people/711/000022645/gallagher-maddest.jpg)
I got through the first 45 mins, but as I watched my attention seemed to wane, so I don't remember much of it. Kinda sounded like the same lines we've been getting from Bush for a while.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 29, 2008, 08:41:41 AM
I luv yer state.
God, so do I--relaxed enforcement on reefer, civil unions legal, billboards forbidden. You're all welcome anytime. I gotta warn you though--20 degrees and raining right now.
On last night's address--same delivery from Bush, and the same rhetorical style from his writers, that we've been getting for 7 years. I watched 5 minutes and switched to a rerun of South Park.
He made an interesting comment on congressional earmarks, ie pork, and how he wanted to cut down on it and will veto the budget if there's too much. everyone stood up. (of course, in public they're all against pork)
George Will commented afterward that both parties are addicted to it, Bush never complained before, and that it'll never happen
:frustrated:
otherwise, SOS
I love how the President of the United States doesn't know how to pronounce the word "nuclear". In seven years, I don't think I've ever heard him pronounce it correctly. Last night, after he once again said, "nukular" they cut away to some random congressman laughing his ass off. I had to rewind it and watch it again.
Quote from: khalpin on January 29, 2008, 12:18:48 PM
I love how the President of the United States doesn't know how to pronounce the word "nuclear". In seven years, I don't think I've ever heard him pronounce it correctly. Last night, after he once again said, "nukular" they cut away to some random congressman laughing his ass off. I had to rewind it and watch it again.
Its his catchphrase now. Its like Urkel and "Did I do that?" only more grating
funny, I always thought knowledge of the English language was a requirement to be President
If you don't require it for (il)legal workers, why require it for President?
I didn't waste a bit of energy on Bush's state-of-the-union. I'm just sitting in terror over the fact that, we have an entire year left with that t00l and he could still fuck something else up.
Quote from: slslbs on January 29, 2008, 07:04:26 PM
funny, I always thought knowledge of the English language was a requirement to be President
Quote from: Bobafett on January 29, 2008, 07:15:06 PM
If you don't require it for (il)legal workers, why require it for President?
I think there were French kings who only spoke German, and Holy Roman Emperors who didn't speak Latin... not that that's a good example to follow.
When I made a joke about Bush's pronunciation my dad (verrry conservative) complained that Jimmy Carter(?) pronounced it the same way and that no one jumped down his throat for it...I guess the big difference is that Jimmy Carter was not an asshole.
Good story sunrise. :-D
^^^Yeah, and Carter at least tried to do something with the office. And won't it be interesting to see what the Smug Monkey does with his post-presidency life? Wanna bet it isn't something useful like Habitat for Humanity?
McCain wins FL (as does Clinton)
Giuliani to drop out and endorse McCain.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 29, 2008, 10:56:08 PM
McCain wins FL (as does Clinton)
Giuliani to drop out and endorse McCain.
Guiliani blows, glad he's done. I do like McCain on the Elephant side of things however Obama will most likely have my vote.
The thought of Hilarity Clinton as our next president is scary, scarier then if McCain won.
Not surprising that she won FL considering she was the only one on the ballot there. Even after she pledged not to campaign there and to withdraw her name. Shameless. At least it doesn't really count for anything.
At this point I'm losing respect for Sir Bill as well for two reasons: chumming w/ Bush Sr. (which diminishes any kind of political clout or validity) and the fact that he attacks Obama with racial undertones, comparing him to Jesse Jackson and playing dirty ball all around.
Quote from: nab on January 29, 2008, 11:20:21 PM
Not surprising that she won FL considering she was the only one on the ballot there. Even after she pledged not to campaign there and to withdraw her name. Shameless. At least it doesn't really count for anything.
Thats not exactly true- the Florida Democratic Party does not allow candidates still in the race to withdraw their names from the ballot, so Obama and Edwards
were on the ballot, although Hillary's campaigning and being the only one who cared about the contest make the entire thing entirely inconsequential in my book. I like as Obama put it, something like, "I'll campaign for Florida votes once I get the nomination."
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 29, 2008, 11:43:27 PM
Quote from: nab on January 29, 2008, 11:20:21 PM
Not surprising that she won FL considering she was the only one on the ballot there. Even after she pledged not to campaign there and to withdraw her name. Shameless. At least it doesn't really count for anything.
Thats not exactly true- the Florida Democratic Party does not allow candidates still in the race to withdraw their names from the ballot, so Obama and Edwards were on the ballot, although Hillary's campaigning and being the only one who cared about the contest make the entire thing entirely inconsequential in my book. I like as Obama put it, something like, "I'll campaign for Florida votes once I get the nomination."
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I wasn't sure before I posted.
Quote from: susep73 on January 29, 2008, 11:24:23 PM
At this point I'm losing respect for Sir Bill as well for two reasons: chumming w/ Bush Sr. (which diminishes any kind of political clout or validity) and the fact that he attacks Obama with racial undertones, comparing him to Jesse Jackson and playing dirty ball all around.
Yep.
Makes me sad.
Bill is also going around saying that he was always against the war, but I remember him going around supporting it in the beginning, saying Sadam's got to go.
Don't be surprised if it's close at the end if Hillary presses the DNC to allow the FLA and MI delegates to vote, even go to court, despite the fact that she agreed on the rules ahead of time.
That said, the DNC shouldn't have allowed this to happen
Edwards = Out
Anyone think he'll get another VP run?
I still think Bill Richardson is the Dem VP of choice. He's got the experience of border state governorship AND he's hispanic which puts the Dems in position to grab the hispanic voters that the republitards have been pushing so hard to alienate with their immigration policies.
They are droppin like flies out there. McCain/Guilliano Obama/Edwards....no dice.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 30, 2008, 09:55:56 AM
I still think Bill Richardson is the Dem VP of choice. He's got the experience of border state governorship AND he's hispanic which puts the Dems in position to grab the hispanic voters that the republitards have been pushing so hard to alienate with their immigration policies.
I think you're probably right there--plus he's got good foreign policy experience.
Oh, sweet jeebus--I just imagined the Rove hate machine working against an Obama-Richardson ticket... :-P
Not to play the race card myself but, the republitards need to appeal to african americans and hispanics if they want a shot in the general election.
That's how W got where he is (Hispanic vote in particular.)
Remember, by 2050, 25% of voters will be of hispanic heritage. Rove knew not to fuck with those numbers but he's not the #1 guy anymore...
I was thinking about how good he is at playing dirty while keeping his own (and especially his boss') hands clean--pandering to one group while defaming them to another would be right up his alley...
Quote from: sunrisevt on January 29, 2008, 10:18:06 PM
^^^Yeah, and Carter at least tried to do something with the office. And won't it be interesting to see what the Smug Monkey does with his post-presidency life? Wanna bet it isn't something useful like Habitat for Humanity?
Yeah, Carter really turned it around :roll:
His record of proposed bills is about as impressive as Bush junior's presidency. Add to his lack of economic strategy and you have a president that royally sucked ass. I can name five liberal presidents off the top of my head, who have done better jobs of correcting economic problems:
1) FDR
2) Clinton
3) Truman
4) Kennedy (space program provided a huge economic boost)
5) Wilson
I'll grant him (Carter) the activism as of late, and comment that it is impressive for him to be active, but while in office he didn't do anything. Like Bush, his reputation is severely fluffed by the party's faithful followers. Remember, people weren't crazy about Carter after his presidency. He had low ratings like Bush, and nothing to contribute to the country (again like Bush). His foreign policy was appeasement, and it didn't sit well with the American people. He lost in a land slide to Reagen. Further, any person willing to be president, is in it for the ego-trip, thus they crave that spotlight, so bushy will return to public scene after he leaves office.
Quote from: rowjimmy on January 29, 2008, 10:56:08 PM
Giuliani to drop out and endorse McCain.
It's official.
I was gonna bet that Edwards would have stayed in until the end, then give his endorsement the last minute to help put his favorite candidate over.
for a favor, of course.
I wonder if he ran out of $.
I heard that his wife's breast cancer came back, which may or may not have contributed to dropping out. I hope he endorses Obama, that would give him a nice boost...although he doesn't have much time before an endorsement won't matter.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on January 30, 2008, 06:23:44 PM
I heard that his wife's breast cancer came back, which may or may not have contributed to dropping out. I hope he endorses Obama, that would give him a nice boost...although he doesn't have much time before an endorsement won't matter.
Thats seems more practical to me. He and Obama have more in common politically.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22930218
Schwarzenegger endorses John McCain
Praises him for 'reaching across the aisle in order to get things done'
How many Californians is this gonna send off the deep end? :wink:
Anyone watching the debate? I started watching at 9... its hard to tell who's doing better, although that blow on Hillary was pretty rough about being naive in trusting Bush, although I sorta agreed. Thoughts?
got home late, missed the beginning.
thanks to Tivo I'll watch Lost tonight.
anyway, from what I saw pretty even. Hillary wanted to appear human, Barack wanted to appear smart. They both did. The Iraq issue, and Barack's comment is you need someone who's going to be right day 1 was big.
MoveOn Endorses Obama
QuoteUpdated LOS ANGELES – Senator Barack Obama has won the endorsement today from the membership of MoveOn.
In a vote of the group's members, Mr. Obama outpaced Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton 70 percent to 30 percent. The political action committee of MoveOn.org has 3.2 million members across the country, including 1.7 million members who live in the 22 states with Democratic primaries or caucuses on Tuesday.
"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn. He added, "The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington."
With John Edwards out of the race, and Super Tuesday quickly approaching, members of the grassroots group polled their membership on Thursday and Friday and they decided to endorse Mr. Obama. It is the first time the group has offered an endorsement in a Democratic presidential primary.
So what does this endorsement mean? It is, of course, hardly the type of seal of approval that would rival Senator Edward M. Kennedy's support for Mr. Obama. But it suggests that many liberals are galvanizing behind Mr. Obama's candidacy. Mrs. Clinton has never been a favorite of MoveOn and was particularly criticized for her Iraq war stance, yet she still won 30 percent of the vote.
It was unclear how many people took part in the on-line endorsement proceedings.
Update | 1 p.m.: The Republican National Committee weighs in, scoring the endorsement as a sign of what they call Mr. Obama's left-leaning ideology and a rejection of Mrs. Clinton.
"It's no surprise MoveOn.org would endorse the newly crowned 'most liberal' member of the Senate. Obama may claim to unite the country, but he's only uniting the extreme-left wing of the Democratic Party," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican committee. He added, "Considering how MoveOn.org was originally founded to defend the Clintons, this must be a blow to Senator Clinton. Coming after the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements, today's news begs the question: Why are those most familiar with Clinton's record rejecting her?"
I get a kick out of the GOP response.It kills me that they use "liberal" as a dirty word.
QuoteAnn Coulter: Hillary Clinton-campaign ready
by Mark Silva
Testing the limits of tolerance, the campaign of 2008 may be doing.
We've been amused by the assertion of Ann Coulter, the iconoclastic conservative, that, if Sen. John McCain wins the Republican Party's presidential nomination, she will campaign for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Coulter said so last night on Fox's Hannity & Colmes.
If this is how far the card-carrying members of the conservative punditry are willing to carry their objections to McCain, the self-styled "maverick'' who has appealed to independent voters but alienated many of his party's most conservative members, this could be a fun year.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ann_coulter_hillary_clintoncam.html (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ann_coulter_hillary_clintoncam.html)
I find that hilarious...I've always thought that McCain was the biggest threat to a democratic victory because of his ability to draw in independents, but with the recent backlash against him in the conservative community, maybe the Romney will win and ensure a democratic victory.
That would be sweet--I can't imagine Romney not imploding in some embarrassing way during a national campaign.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 02, 2008, 03:27:56 PM
QuoteAnn Coulter: Hillary Clinton-campaign ready
by Mark Silva
Testing the limits of tolerance, the campaign of 2008 may be doing.
We've been amused by the assertion of Ann Coulter, the iconoclastic conservative, that, if Sen. John McCain wins the Republican Party's presidential nomination, she will campaign for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Coulter said so last night on Fox's Hannity & Colmes.
If this is how far the card-carrying members of the conservative punditry are willing to carry their objections to McCain, the self-styled "maverick'' who has appealed to independent voters but alienated many of his party's most conservative members, this could be a fun year.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ann_coulter_hillary_clintoncam.html (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ann_coulter_hillary_clintoncam.html)
I find that hilarious...I've always thought that McCain was the biggest threat to a democratic victory because of his ability to draw in independents, but with the recent backlash against him in the conservative community, maybe the Romney will win and ensure a democratic victory.
McCain had a good chuckle over that on Face the Nation Sunday.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/02/calif_contest_leads_to_battle_1.html
QuoteCalif. Contest Leads to Battle of the Bands
By Garance Franke-Ruta
California Democrats go to the polls on Tuesday and that can only mean one thing: a sudden surge in campaign efforts to trot out the brightest cultural stars in the Left Coast firmament, and by those stars in support of their favored candidates.
Today, a new independently-produced video by will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas and director Jesse Dylan (son of Bob) was released on DipDive.com. The video is a sung version of Obama's pre-Nevada caucuses "Yes We Can" stump speech -- itself a riff on the rallying cry of the United Farm Workers, "Si Se Puede!" -- and features a star-studded cast ranging from bow-lipped ingenue Scarlett Johansson to Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls, as well as musicians John Legend and Herbie Hancock. The video, which first appeared Friday on ABCNewsNow's "What's the Buzz," quickly hopped to YouTube, where it's sure to become a hit with the young voters whose turnout has been essential to Obama's success to date.
Hillary Clinton today countered by announcing the support of Grammy-award winning R & B singer Mya Harrison -- an endorsement that might actually carry more weight in the D.C.-Maryland region, from whence Mya hails. Mya will serve as national co-chair of Clinton's HillBlazers, the campaign's youth outreach program. "It is with great passion and absolute certainty that I am proud to announce my support for Hillary Clinton for President," Mya said in a statement released by the campaign. "As President, Hillary will inspire young people and all Americans to make their voices heard."
And on Monday night comes the Obama campaign's boldest cultural outreach effort to date: the first ever Deadheads for Obama concert, sure to draw attention from a slightly older audience than the will.i.am video. According to PhilLesh.net, "Members of the Grateful Dead will host a get out the vote concert in support of...Obama on Monday, February 4th at The Warfield Theatre in San Francisco."
(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/plf_obamaposter-2008.jpg)
Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh and Bob Weir will be joined by Jackie Greene, John Molo and Steve Molitz at the concert, which will be simulcast live (http://www.iclips.net/) onto the internet on iclips.net. This will be the first time that the members of the band have performed together since 2004, Lesh says on his web site, adding, "They have agreed to reunite for this one-time-only event in order to lend support to Senator Obama leading into the crucial "Super-Tuesday" series of primaries."
that vid is pretty cool
the whole thing reminds me of the way people describe the feeling of JFK
so last night I froze my ass off in line for about 3 hours with about 5 - 10,000 other people waiting to get into the Obama rally in Boston. Someone had Dominoes pizza deliver 10 pies to the line, then went up and down selling them (who says Dems can't be entrepreneurial :-))
anyway, once the thing got started it was pretty cool. I would guess median age was about 30-35, multiracial. Everyone was cool, despite the large # of people and the long wait. Obama himself was a very energizing speaker. People really believe.
The best thing about it though, is how excited and motivated so many people are. Hopefully, we can do something positive here.
vote!
Huckabee won WV
CNN projects Obama in GA
GA is a dead heat for the Republicans.(abc)
McCain gets NJ, Conn, Illinois, Delaware
Romney wins Mass
Huckabee wins Arkansas
Obama wins Illinois
Clinton wins OK & Arkansas
(all per cnn)
Apparently, the GA margin for Obama was significant showing that he picked up a fair amount of Edwards voters.
I think I'm going to wait until everything is finalized tomorrow to put in all the victories....so many to write in!
f**in Massholes voted for Hillary
:-( :-(
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 05, 2008, 08:53:37 PM
I think I'm going to wait until everything is finalized tomorrow to put in all the victories....so many to write in!
Good idea.
Some of these are really close.
For the record, everything I'm posting is a projection.
Huckabee to win alabama.
Hillary to take NY (shock!) & Tenn.
Obama to take Delaware.
from my blog (cos I don't wanna type it again)
http://www.rowjimmy.com
Quote
What a day.
Per the Washington Post this morning:
For the Democrats-
Hillary picked up 582 delegates / 8 states
Obama picked up 562 delegates / 13 states
New Mexico is still, apparently, too close to call (Obama 49%/Clinton 48% with 92% of precincts reporting at 'press time.')
The overall totals are:
Hillary = 845 delegates / 12 states
Obama = 765 delegates / 15 states
2025 needed for the nomination.
Obama absolutely crushed Hillary in Idaho with 80% of the vote. In other states, suck as Georgia and Colorado, he won with greater than 30 percent more of the vote. Hillary's margins were not nearly as good anywhere but Arkansas.
On the other side of things...
McCain picked up 511 delegates / 9 states
Romney picked up 176 delegates / 7 states
Huckabee picked up 147 / 5 states
The overall totals are:
McCain = 613 delegates / 12 states
Romney = 269 delegates / 11 states
Huckabee = 190 delegates / 6 states
1191 needed for the nomination
Interesting note, Huckabee owned the Southeast yesterday but is showing poorly, overall. Add to that McCain's strong second place showing in each of those states and you have a recipe for one less candidate in the soup. I wonder how long he'll last.
Lastly, here's a good read about delegate assignment and the race going forward for both parties:
Neither horse race is over, yet.
Updated totals
have the Dems in a dead heat
Clinton : 540
Obama: 539
!!!
Damn!!!! This is gonna be exciting.
NM 98% reporting
QuoteObama 65,036 49%
Clinton 64,965 48%
still shifting around on the results page... they're back to 582-562 again on the delegate count.
get the feeling this is replacing football?
did someone say football?
what about football?
I wanna watch some football!
what time is the game?
Hillary Clinton 66,173 49%
Barack Obama 65,963 48%
still showing 98% as of 2:38est
Thats 210 votes, people.
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 06, 2008, 02:39:37 PM
did someone say football?
what about football?
I wanna watch some football!
what time is the game?
:-D Sadly, all that's left is the pro bowl. :|
Anyone want my "outsider looking in" opinion?
I think Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nod. I've seen the "politics of hope" campaign fail too many times in the USA, when it comes down to it I believe that people will think twice about voting for Obama, but in the end his lack of experience will push people towards Hilary.
Clinton vs. McCain and at least four more years of Republicans in the White House.
Quote from: mattstick on February 06, 2008, 02:48:13 PM
Anyone want my "outsider looking in" opinion?
I think Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nod. I've seen the "politics of hope" campaign fail too many times in the USA, when it comes down to it I believe that people will think twice about voting for Obama, but in the end his lack of experience will push people towards Hilary.
Clinton vs. McCain and at least four more years of Republicans in the White House.
Interesting perspective Matt. Is your implication that it will be more of the same? I take it you think McCain won't stand by his pledges.
Well, regardless of who wins it will be "more of the same", Democrat or Republican.
Big Business interest isn't going anywhere.
Very true. Which is why I want an outsider like Obama in the whitehouse. We need to ruffle a few feathers and revamp the system.
Quote from: slslbs on February 05, 2008, 09:03:32 PM
f**in Massholes voted for Hillary
:-( :-(
We need heart docs in vermont too, dude. 8-)
:-)
maybe I'll work out a part time deal so I can come up for ski season
Romney out.
:?
clearly.
FWIW:
I don't think i have really weighted in on thizs topic, so why not? #1: In MS, there is no interest from a politicians standpoint to even pay for commercials here. Don't know why, but, oh wait, yeah, there's no reason to campaign here. #2: I don't really know who i feel should get the job. #3: i am scared of the rebuttals to my views/opinion on here, as i feel i will be in the vast Minority! :-P
I am a McCain supporter. I was when he ran against bush. I wanted a mccain/Powell ticket 4 years ago. Why McCain? He has proven leadership skillz, and not just politically. This is an area that, imo, is rarely looked at. sure, policies/voting in past gov. job and stances on issues are looked at and debated, but not leadership. yes, military leadership is related to political leadership, but not directly, as the politicos must chose to be at war, but they are totally diff. skills. As far as JM's immigration talk goes, i think he has the most experience on the issue being from a border state. and, i don't think the Dem. candidates are that good. Obama has made many speeches that i have been impressed by, but i can imagine him winning enough states, simply because of his "liberal" aura. "" are for the opinion cast by the media, not necesarily my real feelings. And Clinton, hell no. that's it. just because.
I have a lot of respect for McCain. Maybe that's why Rush, Coulter, and the other talk show nazi's hate him, cause some people like me think he's OK, even though I disagree on many of his positions.
Why - I can believe what he says, he's not an idealogue, and is willing to buck the party establishment if he disagrees.
In fact, I voted for him in the 80 primaries. It was obvious that Gore was gonna get the Dem nomination, and even then I didn't like W.
Quote from: slslbs on February 07, 2008, 07:28:20 PM
I have a lot of respect for McCain. Maybe that's why Rush, Coulter, and the other talk show nazi's hate him, cause some people like me think he's OK, even though I disagree on many of his positions.
Why - I can believe what he says, he's not an idealogue, and is willing to buck the party establishment if he disagrees.
In fact, I voted for him in the 00 primaries. It was obvious that Gore was gonna get the Dem nomination, and even then I didn't like W.
FYP
I would have to agree with most of what you said, but I am not too fond of his war policy/tendencies. First of all, theres 100 years in Iraq- which I am completely against. And for future conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, I think that we need a diplomat, not a soldier running this country at so critical an hour, and while I'm sure McCain is a fine diplomat, I would not be surprised if his early instincts would be to fight it out.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 07, 2008, 07:31:57 PM
Quote from: slslbs on February 07, 2008, 07:28:20 PM
I have a lot of respect for McCain. Maybe that's why Rush, Coulter, and the other talk show nazi's hate him, cause some people like me think he's OK, even though I disagree on many of his positions.
Why - I can believe what he says, he's not an idealogue, and is willing to buck the party establishment if he disagrees.
In fact, I voted for him in the 00 primaries. It was obvious that Gore was gonna get the Dem nomination, and even then I didn't like W.
FYP
I would have to agree with most of what you said, but I am not too fond of his war policies/tendencies. I think that we need a diplomat not a soldier running this country at so critical an hour, and while I'm sure McCain is a fine diplomat, I would not be surprised if his early instincts would be to fight it out.
That would certainly match his rhetoric.
yeah, the war issue i gave up on about 3 yrs ago. Its unacceptable that we are stuck there, but i had to.
as far as future conflicts, i hope that we as a country can have some say in where we stand. Of course, there is going to be some inside info that the general populous shouldn't know about, but the way this war played out gave EVERY citizen a bad rap without ANY citizen being considered. Not that 911 wasn't about the citizens, everyone knew that was not the cause for the actions, they were individualist motives.
He seems to be the only believable candidate.
and when i first read slslbs post i gawked, mockingly, at the fact that he voted in the 1980 primaries. :-D
Quote from: mattstick on February 06, 2008, 02:48:13 PM
Anyone want my "outsider looking in" opinion?
I think Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nod. I've seen the "politics of hope" campaign fail too many times in the USA, when it comes down to it I believe that people will think twice about voting for Obama, but in the end his lack of experience will push people towards Hilary.
Clinton vs. McCain and at least four more years of Republicans in the White House.
as an outsider you show more interest in U.S. politics then a majority of Americans.
"politics of hope" doesn't apply to Obama in this sense. Everything, economically speaking, has nearly bottomed out, lawyers are doing well processing the pluthora of bancruptcies. The U.S. is definitely showing a few gray hairs and major cracks in its foundation. Ultimately its how well individuals adapt to increasing change esp. after living in spoiled excess for a long time. Decades of spoiled conditioning is where we are which is what gives Obama hope in the election.
one of the positions I disagree with McCain on is the war. That said, we do need to find a way out but I don't think we can just leave tomorrow, but that's another topic.
As far as voting for him - yea that was the 00 primaries.
But remember, I'm an old shit and I did vote in 80.
(if your wondering, John Anderson)
:clap: I remember that election--I was seven and eight years old.
I'm beginning to get more and more of the feeling that Hillary will lose the election if she is pitted up against McCain. While I think she would make a good president, I don't think she would be able to overcome her prejudices. I don't think that she can get through to the people who already dislike her, and GOP slander will make that problem even worse. I think the only thing the Republicans will have on Obama is the drug thing, and it seems to me like hes pretty much settled that issue. Although at the same time, I'm biased about the drug 'issue' (as I'm sure most here are :wink:)... I read that 40% of Americans would not vote for her under any condition...while I have no idea if that is true...it doesn't sound far from the truth.
W didn't quite admit he did drugs, but when asked about coke he said something like
"when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish". Draw your own conclusion.
I don't think they'll sling dirt at Barack cause of drugs, but of course anything is possible. They are already labelling him as the most liberal in the Senate, and will likely throw the tax and spend, socialism, afraid of terrorist, weak on defense type stuff at him (or Hillary, for that matter)
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 07, 2008, 07:31:57 PM
I would have to agree with most of what you said, but I am not too fond of his war policy/tendencies. First of all, theres 100 years in Iraq- which I am completely against. And for future conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, I think that we need a diplomat, not a soldier running this country at so critical an hour, and while I'm sure McCain is a fine diplomat, I would not be surprised if his early instincts would be to fight it out.
Diplomat is the Orwellian euphemism for appeasing politician. :wink:
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 07, 2008, 10:55:30 PM
I'm beginning to get more and more of the feeling that Hillary will lose the election if she is pitted up against McCain.
I think this is spot on. I know for me, personally, if it is McCain vs. Hillary, my vote goes McCain, No contest. And having conversations with many friends(both dems and repubs) in different parts of the country about this same topic, I am finding this to be the overwhelming sentiment of everyone. If it is Obama vs. McCain, I think it's a different story. I know I will have a much more difficult time making my decision.
Quote from: slslbs on February 07, 2008, 11:28:28 PM
W didn't quite admit he did drugs, but when asked about coke he said something like
"when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish". Draw your own conclusion.
I don't think they'll sling dirt at Barack cause of drugs, but of course anything is possible. They are already labelling him as the most liberal in the Senate, and will likely throw the tax and spend, socialism, afraid of terrorist, weak on defense type stuff at him (or Hillary, for that matter)
Dude, look at his track record. He
IS the most liberal person in the senate. He has voted that way since he was elected. Even moreso than Hillary.
Quote from: antelope19 on February 08, 2008, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 07, 2008, 10:55:30 PM
I'm beginning to get more and more of the feeling that Hillary will lose the election if she is pitted up against McCain.
I think this is spot on. I know for me, personally, if it is McCain vs. Hillary, my vote goes McCain, No contest. And having conversations with many friends(both dems and repubs) in different parts of the country about this same topic, I am finding this to be the overwhelming sentiment of everyone. If it is Obama vs. McCain, I think it's a different story. I know I will have a much more difficult time making my decision.
Quote from: slslbs on February 07, 2008, 11:28:28 PM
W didn't quite admit he did drugs, but when asked about coke he said something like
"when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish". Draw your own conclusion.
I don't think they'll sling dirt at Barack cause of drugs, but of course anything is possible. They are already labelling him as the most liberal in the Senate, and will likely throw the tax and spend, socialism, afraid of terrorist, weak on defense type stuff at him (or Hillary, for that matter)
Dude, look at his track record. He IS the most liberal person in the senate. He has voted that way since he was elected. Even moreso than Hillary.
His healthcare policy is the least liberal of the democrats. Edwards and Clinton both wanted universal healthcare, Obama's plan doesn't fall under that category.
I was simply pointing out that his voting track record in the senate has been the most liberal of any.
Quote from: antelope19 on February 08, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
I was simply pointing out that his voting track record in the senate has been the most liberal of any.
I know this. I felt the need to play devil's advocate. :-D
Quote from: Sophist on February 08, 2008, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: antelope19 on February 08, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
I was simply pointing out that his voting track record in the senate has been the most liberal of any.
I know this. I felt the need to play devil's advocate. :-D
what else is new? :roll: :-P :-D
:lol:
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on February 08, 2008, 10:47:27 AM
Quote from: Sophist on February 08, 2008, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: antelope19 on February 08, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
I was simply pointing out that his voting track record in the senate has been the most liberal of any.
I know this. I felt the need to play devil's advocate. :-D
what else is new? :roll: :-P :-D
what a burn! :evil: :wink:
Quote from: Sophist on February 08, 2008, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: antelope19 on February 08, 2008, 10:44:53 AM
I was simply pointing out that his voting track record in the senate has been the most liberal of any.
I know this. I felt the need to play devil's advocate. :-D
Dude, nobody's going to take you seriously if you're just Playing the devil's advocate. Take one of his certification courses and get the notarized document proving you are an officially-licensed advocate of the devil.
Attended an Obama rally earlier in Bangor. It was cool to see and hear him in person, tall and lanky. He played some good tunes while we waited, lots of good old school funk and r&b. He had a strong secret service detail which was kinda funny to see these intense looking dudes looking around the crowd. I spotted two undercovers on the floor with long trench-coats and ear pieces. The opening speakers were saying how they hadn't seen such a jubilant political crowd in Maine since JFK. Definitely had a party/happy vibe with various choruses of people singing about change etc...
The only dissapointing thing was his wife was absent.
LA, WA, NE to Obama
:banana:
The delegate count is 1095 (Clinton) to 1070 (Obama)
There are 17,000 provisional ballots to be counted in New Mexico. Clinton has a 1123 vote lead...
I think that includes superdelegates, which IMO is the DNC's attempt at anti-democracy.
For "elected" delegates, Obama 908, Clinton 877
the convention could get ugly
Quote from: slslbs on February 10, 2008, 09:33:27 AM
the convention could get ugly
Sad to say, but if the Clintons stay true to form, it surely will.
I agree with the CNN analysis that says Obama has a better chance than Clinton of beating McCain head-to-head.
If this election is a referendum on the status quo of our national politics, then Clinton loses to McCain, but Obama could very well win.
Here's a few shots of BO from the Bangor Auditorium rally yesterday:
Quote from: susep73 on February 10, 2008, 03:35:39 PM
Here's a few shots of BO from the Bangor Auditorium rally yesterday:
hot show
The Hope > Progress encore was tight!
Quote from: mattstick on February 10, 2008, 03:41:06 PM
Quote from: susep73 on February 10, 2008, 03:35:39 PM
Here's a few shots of BO from the Bangor Auditorium rally yesterday:
hot show
The Hope > Progress encore was tight!
He did mention we might have to cut trade with Ontario province because of Sars.
Hillary has replaced her campaign manager...
Also, Obama came out on top of the Maine caucuses.
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 10, 2008, 09:13:59 PM
Hillary has replaced her campaign manager...
Wow sounds like shes getting a little worried there :-o Any word on these debates that the two are having sometime soon? How much do you all think that Tuesday's results will count?
they'll count. don't know any reason why they shouldn't
the big questions are what's gonna happen in OH, TX, and PA.
oh no no i mean- how much weight they'll carry? It doesn't seem like these past 4 contests have gotten much attention. I'm guessing those other three are the biggest ones though
my guess is that it depends. if Barack wins big and picks of lots of delegates they'll mean a lot - for momentum if nothing else
Barack even won a grammy 8-)
They both added appearances in DC/VA/MD after last tuesday. every delegate counts.
McCain is in Annapolis today and Obama is in B-more.
Obama is everywhere today.
There is a debate tonight in DC, too.
Local press is reporting that Obama has won the Democratic primary in VA.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1320545
Seems an awfully quick decision. Especially as, @ my polling place we us paper ballots & the Repub. & Dem. ballots went in the same machine.
Edit to note:
The polls closed 7 minutes ago..
I logged onto CNN.com at 7PM. With 0% of votes counted they declared a winner.
maybe I should take those guys with me to vegas
I guess the exit polls were pretty decisive.
CNN is also saying that the Republicans actually have a contest between McCain & Huckabee.
Observations from tonights news
Obama is speaking to bigger and bigger crowds all the time. His demeanor is getting more confident
McCains campaing song; Johnny B Goode
Quote from: slslbs on February 12, 2008, 10:18:27 PM
Obama is speaking to bigger and bigger crowds all the time. His demeanor is getting more confident
I hope that this confidence translates into his debates, cause I think victory in those will push him over the top.
Obama's won all three of the Potomac primaries
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/primaries/va/
edit to add:
Obama now leads in the delegate count.
Obama & McCain won Wisc.
Also, McCain won Washington & Obama won Hawaii (shock!)
Clinton is "hanging by a thread". She has to win Texas & Ohio in two weeks or she's done.
I don't think she can pull both. It won't suprise me if Obama sweeps.
It has started.
Last week, George W said all he's heard about Obama on foreign policy is that he would attack Pakistan and embrace Amibijan (?sp - you know who I mean).
Last night McCain said the same thing.
Context- during a debate, the candidates were asked a hypothetical - what would they do if a terrorist attack was launched on the US that originated in Pakistan (iirc the Pakistani govt was involved). They all answered, they would attack Pakistan. Sounds like what we did in Afghanistan - as opposed to attacking Iraq un-provoked.
nothing like taking things out of context.
oh, and as far as negotiating with Iran goes, seems to me that talking to an enemy isn't a bad thing. we've certainly not gotten anywhere by making speeches saying that he's an evil bastard (which he is).
duyba is a "credible" source for foreign policy discussion :?
me -> :lol:
If he wants to help McCain he needs to STFU
Anyone watching the debate? I'm really sick of that snide smile Hillary keeps doing while Obama speaks :evil: Obama needs to explain his health care plan better- hillary keeps putting it down unfairly.
got home around 8:45. I think when she let him, he presented his plan well. she does have a way of twisting his statements around.
He does a great job of continuing to take the high road. He had several oppurtunities to attack but didn't
Quote from: slslbs on February 21, 2008, 10:28:16 PM
got home around 8:45. I think when she let him, he presented his plan well. she does have a way of twisting his statements around.
He does a great job of continuing to take the high road. He had several oppurtunities to attack but didn't
If Obama doesn't win and the neo-cons continue to corrupt our democratic process, revolution may come into fruition.
Ralph Nader just announced he's running for President on Meet The Press.
Nader is killing it on MTP this morning.
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that I couldn't vote for Ralph Nader (if I were a voter/citizen) - but it also really illustrates the giant problem of only being able to vote for Republicans or Democrats.
Nader's point that if the Democrats can't landslide over Republicans (even with Nader in the race) then they have a giant problem with their party, was well taken.
SER Nader? Not again....
I take that back, while I really like Obama, the world needs more people like Nader, he's quite a noble guy
yea, but I don't see the point.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on February 24, 2008, 11:45:54 AM
SER Nader? Not again....
I take that back, while I really like Obama, the world needs more people like Nader, he's quite a noble guy
No presidential candidate is noble. It takes an egocentric person to be in a position of political power.
I have sworn on many occasions that, if I ever see Ralph Nader in DC, I'll run him over with my car.
Still mean it.
From Doonesbury's website this morning:
Quote"It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total asshole."
-- Marty Kaplan
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 25, 2008, 12:13:48 PM
From Doonesbury's website this morning:
Quote"It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total asshole."
-- Marty Kaplan
It's a good point... but notice he said "wasn't always"?
I'll be sure to wear my seatbelt when I run his ass down.
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 25, 2008, 12:31:27 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 25, 2008, 12:13:48 PM
From Doonesbury's website this morning:
Quote"It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total asshole."
-- Marty Kaplan
It's a good point... but notice he said "wasn't always"?
I'll be sure to wear my seatbelt when I run his ass down.
:lol:
This is news to me. I hadn't heard he was considering running again. IMO, this is bad news for the dems. He has been like kryptonite in the past.
yep. He'll pull the far left votes away and the result will be a Mcfizzle victory. :frustrated:
Quote from: Sophist on February 25, 2008, 12:47:12 PM
yep. He'll pull the far left votes away and the result will be a Mcfizzle victory. :frustrated:
Mcfizzle. Haven't heard that one before. :lol:
I'm not worried--the mainstream dem & independent voters are still pissed at him over 2000.
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 25, 2008, 02:09:34 PM
I'm not worried--the mainstream dem & independent voters are still pissed at him over 2000.
agreed, I saw a Michael Moore interview a while ago about that
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 25, 2008, 12:31:27 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 25, 2008, 12:13:48 PM
From Doonesbury's website this morning:
Quote"It's hard to believe, I know, but there is now an entire generation of 20- and 30-something Americans who don't know that Ralph Nader wasn't always a total asshole."
-- Marty Kaplan
It's a good point... but notice he said "wasn't always"?
I'll be sure to wear my seatbelt when I run his ass down.
yea, but it would be very cool if you were driving a Corvair
Quote from: antelope19 on February 25, 2008, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: Sophist on February 25, 2008, 12:47:12 PM
yep. He'll pull the far left votes away and the result will be a Mcfizzle victory. :frustrated:
Mcfizzle. Haven't heard that one before. :lol:
I prefer "Grandpa Munster"
(props to Bill Maher for that)
(http://homepage.mac.com/glen.kingston/grandpamunster.jpg)
(http://www.registers1.com/mccain/images/mccain.jpg)
Hmmmmm.....guess I could see it :-)
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 25, 2008, 02:09:34 PM
I'm not worried--the mainstream dem & independent voters are still pissed at him over 2000.
I agree. Even Eddie Vedder probably wouldn't vote for him this time.
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 25, 2008, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on February 25, 2008, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: Sophist on February 25, 2008, 12:47:12 PM
yep. He'll pull the far left votes away and the result will be a Mcfizzle victory. :frustrated:
Mcfizzle. Haven't heard that one before. :lol:
I prefer "Grandpa Munster"
(props to Bill Maher for that)
Quote from: antelope19 on February 25, 2008, 03:10:18 PM
(http://homepage.mac.com/glen.kingston/grandpamunster.jpg)
(http://www.registers1.com/mccain/images/mccain.jpg)
Hmmmmm.....guess I could see it :-)
It's not just the resemblance... It's also that whole undead/death-warmed-over personality.
Anyone catch the debates last night? Apparently it got pretty heated?
Yea - Hillary was clearly pissed off and out of control for the 1st 45 min. She was even complaining that is wasn't fair that she got asked the first question and some other BS. For that reason, I think Obama just blew her out of the water.
He responded to criticisms and attacks in a cool manner, answered questions appropriately.
Face it, on most things their positions are pretty close. Aside from the fact that I think he is more up front and open than she is, I would certainly prefer to have someone with his demeanor negotiating on my behalf with the Russians than hers.
Quote from: slslbs on February 27, 2008, 11:11:30 AM
I would certainly prefer to have someone with his demeanor negotiating on my behalf with the Russians than hers.
QFT
This could throw a monkey wrench into the whole election:
Quote
McCain's Birthplace Raises Questions
The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.
Mr. McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."
Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. "I don't have much doubt about it," said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain's closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
"He was posted there on orders from the United States government," Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain's father. "If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can't be president if they take an overseas assignment."
continued here: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/mccains-birthplace-raises-questions/20080228093909990001
Yeah, I gotta say this is a non-issue.
I would agree with you, but I thought it was interesting. Do you think this (natural born citizen) needs clarification?
Quote from: antelope19 on February 28, 2008, 03:47:37 PM
Do you think this (natural born citizen) needs clarification?
I always thought it was retarded, personally - there is no law on the books for the Canadian Prime Minister. Why limit the pool of potential leaders?
The whole thing will be repealled when Gov Schwarzeneggar decides to run.
There was some talk about this when Kissinger was in power, iirc.
Anyway, changing it would require a constitutional amendment, not just re-writing the law.
Ahnold hasn't the chance he thinks he has.
Anyway, I think it's a sensible rule. McCain was born to two US citizens on a US Military base (US soil, bitches!)
What's the point?
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 29, 2008, 10:35:12 AM
Anyway, I think it's a sensible rule. McCain was born to two US citizens on a US Military base (US soil, bitches!)
What's the point?
agreed
I suspect its more BS from the conservative talk show nazis - especially after Cincinnati the other night
What a waste of news...the media sucks with priorities big time
I was talkin with a buddy of mine from CO last night, and he has this giant conspiracy theory that McNamee was an inside government agent set up to aid in distraction from the war during this, bushs last hoorah. I know another batallion from MS is getting sent out in 3 weeks. I never thought of it, and i am not a conspiracist, but maybe.....nah. Nevermind.
Quote from: slslbs on February 29, 2008, 01:23:53 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on February 29, 2008, 10:35:12 AM
Anyway, I think it's a sensible rule. McCain was born to two US citizens on a US Military base (US soil, bitches!)
What's the point?
agreed
I suspect its more BS from the conservative talk show nazis - especially after Cincinnati the other night
It originated from a NYT article.
a liberal rag
:wink:
Hillary wins Texas AND Ohio. Wow, didn't see that coming.
Me, neither...
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 20, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
I don't think she can pull both. It won't suprise me if Obama sweeps.
I stand corrected. Now I'm hpoing for a spring campaign and summer convention that are relativelyfree of acrimony, a coalition, and both of them on the ticket. I think I'd prefer Hillary on top, but who knows?
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 05, 2008, 11:46:56 AM
Me, neither...
Quote from: sunrisevt on February 20, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
I don't think she can pull both. It won't suprise me if Obama sweeps.
I stand corrected. Now I'm hpoing for a spring campaign and summer convention that are relativelyfree of acrimony, a coalition, and both of them on the ticket. I think I'd prefer Hillary on top, but who knows?
unfortunately, I think it's only gonna get nastier :-(
Hillary has shown what she will do when she's on the ropes
After all of the "Blue Dresses" I saw in uptown Charlotte last winter, I'm surprised she isn't more upset!
:cry:
I really hope the campaigns don't get messier, now is a pivotal time in the Campaign process. They will be allowed to no longer focus on each other, because there is a singular Republican Candidate. This makes John McCain a target that will bring the focus off of the faults of both of the candidates.
This is the time for the Candidates to explain their party platforms and how they supercede the platform of John McCain, not time for them to argue about who uses the media the best.
Paris Hilton is a great media manipulator. Lindsay Lohan is a great media manipulator. Pearl Jam are inventive media manipulators. Watching Obama and Rodham-Clinton bicker about who has the best "team" is about as exciting to watch as the fallout from Paris vs. Nicole. Actually, it might be a little less exciting. I liked the "Simple Life" a little bit more than I've liked this round of debating.
When are we going to get 1992 Mtv style questions like "Do you shave or trim, Hill?" or "Boxers or Briefs, Barry?" or "What do you get at Starbucks?"
This campaign so far has been BOR-ING.
And the music is nowhere near as cool as the "Grunge" from the early 90's.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on March 05, 2008, 01:28:24 PM
Watching Obama and Rodham-Clinton bicker about who has the best "team" is about as exciting to watch as the fallout from Paris vs. Nicole. Actually, it might be a little less exciting. ...
...This campaign so far has been BOR-ING.
I hear that.
I fear that the excitement will come in the form of negative campaigning. Apparently Clinton made some sort of tacit overture to the Obama camp about joining forces... I would hate to see them destroy eachother, saving McCain having to do it himself.
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 05, 2008, 02:09:45 PM
I fear that the excitement will come in the form of negative campaigning. Apparently Clinton made some sort of tacit overture to the Obama camp about joining forces... I would hate to see them destroy eachother, saving McCain having to do it himself.
Perhaps they can settle this privately some how, and then have a televised game of "paper-rock-scissors" to see who wins?
That would entertain me to no end.
I was thinking of maybe an arm wrestling match.
It would be nice to stay with the issues and not with innuendo, which is where it has starting to head last week. Imo the Clintons are very good and getting down in the dirt. One of the CNN commentators last night said something like that if this goes into the convention without a clear leader, it's gonna come down to a back room knife fight, and that no one is better at those than the Clintons. I hope it doesn't come down to that.
I heard McCain's speech last night. Although I disagree with many of his positions, I admire him for having reasonable arguments and not resorting to name calling, taking things out of context, etc.
I feel bad for Obama because its obvious he's trying to stay away from the real nasty stuff, but Hillary's "3 am" bullshit is working, so he has few ways to combat it... personally I'd like someone with judgment to answer the phone, not some cranky old woman :-P
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/03/clinton_hints_at_running_with.html
QuoteClinton Hints at Running With Obama
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared on the six broadcast and cable network morning shows Wednesday. On CBS's "The Early Show" Clinton acknowledged that Democrats may eventually nominate a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket.
"That may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."
It is a dream ticket--we get youth & excitement, and experience & wisdom. I don't even really care which one tops the ticket. I just hope they bury the hatchet soon and get on task fixing Bush's mess...
It would be a hard tix to beat...Cover all your minority bases...i don't think they can stay away from each others throat in the next two weeks, and if that happens, it would be no good for any democrat.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be Hillary's veep. Nothing to do with her. Just that someone in her family may have considerable influence over the way things are done.
Quote from: slslbs on March 06, 2008, 05:41:36 PM
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be Hillary's veep. Nothing to do with her. Just that someone in her family may have considerable influence over the way things are done.
Either way, the other member of the ticket has to worry about that influence.
Obama being at the top of the ticket will not negate Bill's influence.
Funny story, US Weekly has a cover headline that basically says they have an Obama interview where he answers the "boxers/briefs" argument.
I didn't see if he said boxers like Bill.
My question is "Shaven or Trim?"
I started asking that question about 10 years ago.
i bet on a big ole muff. a scary one, with bats coming out of it.
you've all seen the 3AM phone call ad.
turns out, that was stock footage done about 8 yrs ago.
the sleeping girl is now 17, will be 18 in April
she's supporting
Obama - avidly, volunteering on his campaing, working in the WA caucus
that will make a great ad
Quote from: slslbs on March 08, 2008, 09:03:23 PM
you've all seen the 3AM phone call ad.
turns out, that was stock footage done about 8 yrs ago.
the sleeping girl is now 17, will be 18 in April
she's supporting
Obama - avidly, volunteering on his campaing, working in the WA caucus
that will make a great ad
:lol: How did you come across this info? That's great! :-D
watching cnn last night
Think this whole Spitzer debacle has any effect on the race to the presidency?
Not really.
Though Hillary is probably having a sympathetic flashback.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 11, 2008, 10:25:06 AM
Not really.
Though Hillary is probably having a sympathetic flashback.
Or hoping that she gets pooned by an intern to revenge her embarrassment via Swallowgate. :wink:
Quote from: Sophist on March 11, 2008, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 11, 2008, 10:25:06 AM
Not really.
Though Hillary is probably having a sympathetic flashback.
Or hoping that she gets pooned by an intern to revenge her embarrassment via Swallowgate. :wink:
I think that, given the condition of the blue dress, the proper term should be "Spitgate"
:lol: ^^^Beat me to it!
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 11, 2008, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: Sophist on March 11, 2008, 11:29:09 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 11, 2008, 10:25:06 AM
Not really.
Though Hillary is probably having a sympathetic flashback.
Or hoping that she gets pooned by an intern to revenge her embarrassment via Swallowgate. :wink:
I think that, given the condition of the blue dress, the proper term should be "Spitgate"
True. I was thinking the load was so mammoth she couldn't contain it, but that gives way to your name, so your right.
gross
Obama is projected to win Mississippi
You guys see "Kristen", Spitzer's lady friend?
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0312084kristen2.jpg)
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0312084kristen5.jpg)
(http://a473.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/22/l_e5e22de824052efc19185af6b51ea930.jpg)
(http://a586.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/100/l_4a9c0495d7c9e54a2d86188f28faab51.jpg)
She's a piece.
a
For $4100, I'd hope that anything is fair game. Props to client # 9.
she's "only" $1k/hr, part of that payment was a deposit for future services...
but still, quite worthy of the mental image i had before they uncovered her. :beers:
:roll: Threadjack, anyone? I can't think of a better use for the Red Light District.
On topic--I asked my old man, an old-time democrat, what he thought of the potential democratic dream ticket. He thinks some nutjob will try to off CLinton if they go for it.
What do people think of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama?
well, the "problem" with Clinton being involved in any Obama ticket is that Bill will be calling the shots. don't get me wrong, i'd vote for Bill for Emperor of the USA, but i think it's time for some fresh ideas...
you really think Hillary would be more of a target than Obama?? i'm seriously afraid for his life if he gets the nomination...
Quote from: tet on March 15, 2008, 12:46:44 PM
well, the "problem" with Clinton being involved in any Obama ticket is that Bill will be calling the shots. don't get me wrong, i'd vote for Bill for Emperor of the USA, but i think it's time for some fresh ideas...
you really think Hillary would be more of a target than Obama?? i'm seriously afraid for his life if he gets the nomination...
I've been thinking that but have been afraid to say it out loud for some reason
also, I would rather see someone else as veep. not sure who, but someone who can "balance the ticket"
Quote from: tet on March 15, 2008, 12:46:44 PM
you really think Hillary would be more of a target than Obama?? i'm seriously afraid for his life if he gets the nomination...
No, I don't; my dad said he does, but I think he was talking out his ass. He does that. Especially when he doesn't have a good answer ready at hand. I think he just prefers Obama, partly because he thinks Hillary is a joyless ball-buster, and he thinks that might be sexist so he covered with something stupid ... But enough about him.
I agree that the 2-for-1 thing will be a problem if they get Obama and Clinton together. It would probably be a problem anyways though, right? And I'd be happier with Obama on top of the ticket, I think. He's got the charisma--let him deal with the people over the airwaves. Let Clinton do the management stuff she excels at. Make Bill Secretary of State or Ambassador-at-Large and keep him out of the country most of the time, doing what he does best. (Interns! Get it? :roll:)
I think Hillary and Obama will both make juicy targets for the militant far-right strange-o fringe. I hope the Secret Service is ready for it. And I dearly hope McCain loses. I mean, who would we get as McCain's VP? If it's one of the clowns running in the primaries, we'd be doomed.
well, i don't know of Bill could be Sec. of State, or anyone in succession to the Presidency (due to term limits), but i'm not sure how all that stuff works beyond VP & Speaker...
Yeah, me neither. But I think he'd be pretty good at it. Ambassadors aren't in the line of succession, though.
And what about Gore as Secretary of the interior? Wes Clarke as Defense, maybe?
as if I had nothing better to do, I just looked up the pres term limits (22 amendment). the amendment says no person shall be elected for more than 2 terms as president, but nothing about possible succession from another office.
so I guess Bill could be sec of state, hypothetically anyway.
this may be a stupid question then, but can he be elected as a VP after serving 2 terms as Pres? i would guess not, or someone else would have done it by now...
Quote from: tet on March 15, 2008, 04:20:00 PM
this may be a stupid question then, but can he be elected as a VP after serving 2 terms as Pres? i would guess not, or someone else would have done it by now...
There's nothing that says he can't.
Some of my random thoughts:
Obama's message of change will be questioned if he brings in Hilary as his VP.
Hilary MUST bring Obama as her VP.
The US should have some official job for former Presidents, seems like a wasted resource having these still fairly young guys just touring around and giving speeches for $100K.
Quote from: tet on March 15, 2008, 04:20:00 PM
this may be a stupid question then, but can he be elected as a VP after serving 2 terms as Pres? i would guess not, or someone else would have done it by now...
I'm not sure anybody would want to be VP after being pres
Quote from: mattstick on March 15, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
Some of my random thoughts:
Obama's message of change will be questioned if he brings in Hilary as his VP.
Hilary MUST bring Obama as her VP.
The US should have some official job for former Presidents, seems like a wasted resource having these still fairly young guys just touring around and giving speeches for $100K.
interesting. I suspect that often the new pres would rather keep the old one shut up and out of the way.
Quote from: mattstick on March 15, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
Obama's message of change will be questioned if he brings in Hilary as his VP.
very true. he can't do it for that reason alone, and i wouldn't want him to have Billary questioning his every decision for the next 8 years....
Quote from: mattstick on March 15, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
Hilary MUST bring Obama as her VP.
would be very good for her campaign, and possibly the only thing that could win it for her against McCain. nothing galvanizes conservatives
more than the prospect of electing a Clinton (except possibly a Kennedy), so having the broader appeal that Obama would bring to her ticket would certainly help.
that being said, i don't think Obama would do it. i get the feeling that he really doesn't like her, and that he could probably do more good for this country as a Senator than VP.
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 15, 2008, 01:01:26 PM
Let Clinton do the management stuff she excels at. Make Bill Secretary of State or Ambassador-at-Large and keep him out of the country most of the time, doing what he does best. (Interns! Get it? :roll:)
Do we really need to debunk the whole Hillary has skills/experience myth again?
So now it's a "myth" that Hilary is a qualified leader? I guess she just made tea for the Armed Services Committee. I guess her time spent abroad acting as a representative of the White House was really just a vacation.
You can rant and rave all you want, but that was a sexist comment - and one you wouldn't bestow on a man with similar credentials.
Basically, what mattstick said.
I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.
But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.
Check this out: Tracy Morgan on SNL :-D
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454 (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454)
Quote from: mattstick on March 16, 2008, 11:12:17 AM
So now it's a "myth" that Hilary is a qualified leader? I guess she just made tea for the Armed Services Committee. I guess her time spent abroad acting as a representative of the White House was really just a vacation.
You can rant and rave all you want, but that was a sexist comment - and one you wouldn't bestow on a man with similar credentials.
Read the whole thread before you make silly comments like that, as I've posted detailed accounts about what Hillary did while first lady. It has nothing to do with her sex, I've provided the correct reasonings as to why that statement is accurate. Further, these stupid and illogical sexist claims are as about as invalid as they come. I never said she should be baking cakes or anything of that ilk. I stated she has really done nothing in the political field, which isn't sexist. Simply doing nothing can be done by anyone of any gender and isn't sexist to point out the obvious lack of action. Look at her bill record, she has introduced the least number of bills in the senate, look at her voting record too. It has nothing to do with her vagina, so stop hiding behind these blanket "isms" and accept the fact that she isn't qualified. I'm the first person to point out that Condoleezza Rice is carrying the Bush administration, and if anything, Hillary should be taking notes from Rice.
edited to correct spelling
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 16, 2008, 11:25:34 AM
Basically, what mattstick said.
I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.
But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.
Again, 5 bills written by her in 6 years as a senator (she's been running since 2006), and all 5 bills are completely whimsical. She didn't attend one NSA meeting with Bill, or even have basic security clearance for CIA, FBI, etc based intelligence. How is that experience?
Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice? No. While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead. I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on March 16, 2008, 11:50:10 AM
Check this out: Tracy Morgan on SNL :-D
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454 (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454)
LMAO
+k
Hillary was no Laura Bush.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/
I guess none of this counts as experience?
imo she does have more experience than Obama. Introducing bills is not the only measure of Senate experience.
That said, I don't think the experience differential is as great as she makes it out to be. McCain has more than both combined.
But, Cheney and Rumsfeld are very experienced. Look where that got us.
Quote from: Sophist on March 16, 2008, 12:08:50 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 16, 2008, 11:25:34 AM
Basically, what mattstick said.
I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.
But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.
Again, 5 bills written by her in 6 years as a senator (she's been running since 2006), and all 5 bills are completely whimsical. She didn't attend one NSA meeting with Bill, or even have basic security clearance for CIA, FBI, etc based intelligence. How is that experience?
Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice? No. While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead. I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.
OK, I respect the reasoning despite disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm looking forward to seeing your bracket even more now.
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 16, 2008, 04:38:45 PM
OK, I respect the reasoning despite disagreeing with your conclusion.
I don't find it to be particularly compelling. Comparing attendance in a classroom or a church are a far cry from living daily life in the White House.
living in the white house alone doesn't prove much, although she was involved with several efforts (as are many 1st Ladies, probably Hillary more than most with the possible exception of Eleanror Roosevelt)
How her living in the White House provides her with foreign policy expertise is totally beyond me. Visiting other countries with the Pres doesn't cut it.
Quote from: Sophist on March 16, 2008, 12:08:50 PM
Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice? No. While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead. I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.
I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 08:53:28 AM
I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...
Well, I have no worries about McCain answering the 3am phone call. Senior Citizens are always up that early.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 17, 2008, 09:16:47 AM
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 08:53:28 AM
I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...
Well, I have no worries about McCain answering the 3am phone call. Senior Citizens are always up that early.
But we have to remember--he's also a cranky old man with a bad temper. He might not be at his best at 3am...
from the Boston Globe
QuoteMany voting for Clinton to boost GOP
Seek to prolong bitter battle
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | March 17, 2008
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
A sudden change of heart? Hardly.
Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.
Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.
"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."
Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.
Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.
But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.
Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."
"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."
He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."
Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.
Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.
"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."
Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."
In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.
John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.
"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."
Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.
"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."
Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.
It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.
Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."
"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."
Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.
If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.
"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.
Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.
"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.
Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.
:lol: Joke's on them--it won't work the way they want it to. The dems (party and candidates both) will see eventually the danger in a protracted ugly campaign.
Quote from: slslbs on March 17, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur bitter and petty old man, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."
FYP
^^
:-D
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 17, 2008, 10:17:25 AM
:lol: Joke's on them--it won't work the way they want it to. The dems (party and candidates both) will see eventually the danger in a protracted ugly campaign.
I'm biased, but imo Hillary wants to win, no matter what. Maybe she's using some of her statements as a negotiating stance, but I don't see her backing down for anything.
Quote from: mattstick on March 16, 2008, 02:10:52 PM
Hillary was no Laura Bush.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/
I guess none of this counts as experience?
If your going to use the person in question as a source, then I get to boost my resume as well to further my argument. :-P
QuoteShe traveled the globe speaking out against the degradation and abuse of women and standing up for the powerful idea that women's rights are human rights.
Speaking one's opinion is important, and I agree that the issue needs to be addressed, and Clinton brought it to attention, and that's good. I'm glad she made those speeches, but that only helps her case as an orator, not a politician. Little has been done to improve the rights of those in the third world so no accomplishment occurred, which makes that point moot.
QuoteIn the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly. Thanks in part to her efforts, the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs)
Every major bill passed under the Clinton administration:
Quote* 1993-02-05 - Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
* 1993-08-10 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 - Raised income tax rates; income tax, top rate: 39.6%; corporate tax: 35%
* 1993-09-21 - creation of the AmeriCorps volunteer program
* 1993-11-30 - Brady Bill
* 1994-09-13 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, part of an omnibus crime bill, the federal death penalty was expanded to some 60 different offenses (see Federal assault weapons ban)
* 1996-02-01 - Communications Decency Act
* 1996-02-08 - Telecom Reform Act: eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups.
* 1996-02-26 - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform bill
* 1996-03-14 - authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists.
* 1996-04-09 - Line Item Veto Act
* 1996-04-24 - Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
* 1996-08-20 - Minimum wage Increase Act
* 1996-09-21 - Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law
* 1997-08-05 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
* 1998-10-28 - Digital Millennium Copyright Act
* 1998-10-31 - Iraq Liberation Act
Every Bill was inspired by a senator not a Clinton. The only bill drafted and later voted on, by Hillary was the health care reform bill. I'll give her credit for that, and for sticking to her guns for it. She received an abundance of insight into how fucked up partisan politics can be at times.
QuoteShe was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.
Launching a not for profit institution is noble but not presidential. I admire her for using her time and money, but she didn't run the not for profit, so no experience was gained from it (other than the bureaucratic mess of paper work). I ask how did she battle big drug companies? She didn't propose legislation or enforce any law, since a first lady has no jurisdiction or legal standing. She spoke out against them, but again no bills or proposed changes other than health care.
QuoteHillary's 1995 book It Takes A Village, about the responsibility we all have to help children succeed, became an international best seller. Hillary has donated the proceeds -- more than a million dollars -- to children's causes across the country.
Hillary's autobiography, Living History, was also a best seller. It has been translated into 12 languages and sold over 1.3 million copies.
Nothing to qualify for presidency here. Again, its just her compassion on display, which is a good trait for any leader to have, but that's not the discussion.
QuoteIn 2000, Hillary was elected to the United States Senate from New York. As Senator, Hillary has continued her advocacy for children and families and has been a national leader on homeland security and national security issues.
Simply voting on bills doesn't equate to leading the charge on the issue.
QuoteAfter the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for front line workers at Ground Zero. And she continues to work for resources that enable New York to grow, to improve homeland security for New York and other communities, and to protect all Americans from future attacks.
The funds part is inaccurate, as the state Governor and or city mayor is the only person who sanctions federal aid via money, relief, etc. Further, who wouldn't give money after 9/11? Her language makes it sound as if the federal government was reluctant to give funds, so its a moot point by her.
The remainder of the resume on her page points out the bills she has cosponsored throughout the years, and while they are important, they don't really display any leadership qualities, just solid judgment calls on her part. I have no beef with that, as I understand that politics is about political stability and these bills give her just that.
So to summarize:
If someone votes for Hillary because they agree with her politics, then I get that and respect that. If the only reason was to have a woman as president, I get that, while it is a simple reason, it is a valid one. The only invalid argument about her is her experience, and I think the facts show this. Quote from: mattstick on March 16, 2008, 04:52:50 PM
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 16, 2008, 04:38:45 PM
OK, I respect the reasoning despite disagreeing with your conclusion.
I don't find it to be particularly compelling. Comparing attendance in a classroom or a church are a far cry from living daily life in the White House.
You do see the forms of the arguments are the same? In order for the arguments to be valid, all forms of it must hold. So if you dismiss mine, but accept Hillary's living condition as valid, it creates a faulty syllogism and in essence it means your wrong, since you imply that two truth functioning values exist for the same form. Based on categorical logic, it is a valid form, which is why the argument holds true.
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 08:53:28 AM
Quote from: Sophist on March 16, 2008, 12:08:50 PM
Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice? No. While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead. I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.
I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...
Yes. He is a major fluffer of his career. Military service doesn't equate to military knowledge in my opinion.
Quote
You do see the forms of the arguments are the same? In order for the arguments to be valid, all forms of it must hold. So if you dismiss mine, but accept Hillary's living condition as valid, it creates a faulty syllogism and in essence it means your wrong, since you imply that two truth functioning values exist for the same form. Based on categorical logic, it is a valid form, which is why the argument holds true.
Graduate from College, get a job and see what the real world is like. Put all your scholastic reasoning aside (we're not in a court of law or a classroom) and think about this for a second....
Do you really think that Hillary
WORKING AS FIRST LADY in the White House is the same as attendance in a classroom or a church? To further refute your incredibly inane banter... Without first hand knowledge of what she did you can't even make that comparison, so regardless of whether the forms are correct - you're really just trying to put something into a logical argument that doesn't belong there.
Now turn off Fox News, turn down whatever GOP AM-Radio station you're listening to and take off your Republican hat for 10 seconds and try to think outside of party lines for a minute...
Look at the initiatives Hillary launched while
WORKING in the White House... aren't these important things? Maybe the kind of things that you want your President to be doing? You can build an illustrious Cabinet (btw, another rather terrible oversight in the process of electing a US president is that their Cabinet is chosen after they are elected) to take care of economic issues (McCain's plan), military issues and what have you - Hillary's legitimate attempts at creating compassionate government would be amazingly refreshing considering the last 8 years.
Doesn't the fact that Hillary took a job where the expectations are mostly to make tea and greet dignitaries then changed it into a position for her to launch social programs show great
LEADERSHIP?
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 01:23:56 PM
Graduate from College, get a job and see what the real world is like. Put all your scholastic reasoning aside (we're not in a court of law or a classroom) and think about this for a second....
Don't give me that bullshit Matt, your better than that. To reduce an argument to employment is illogical and unrelated in every way to Hillary. That is who we are discussing and who the discussion should remain about.
I voted for Obama in the primary election this year (check this forum, you will see it). I don't watch fox news or listen to AM talk radio, but thanks for the stereotype. I get my news from the internet (Drudgereport, Mediamatters, and Real Clear Politics are my primary sources). I learned a long time ago that the main tv/radio news channels filter information and i don't care for that. I'd rather read a story and then google the facts to confirm it.
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 01:23:56 PM
Look at the initiatives Hillary launched while WORKING in the White House... aren't these important things? Maybe the kind of things that you want your President to be doing? You can build an illustrious Cabinet (btw, another rather terrible oversight in the process of electing a US president is that their Cabinet is chosen after they are elected) to take care of economic issues (McCain's plan), military issues and what have you - Hillary's legitimate attempts at creating compassionate government would be amazingly refreshing considering the last 8 years.
Doesn't the fact that Hillary took a job where the expectations are mostly to make tea and greet dignitaries then changed it into a position for her to launch social programs show great LEADERSHIP?
I never said she made tea or crumpets or anything a 1950's housewife would do. For the last time, please quit implying these sexist undertones. I credit her where credit is do in my last post. The universal health care plan was huge and took massive planning and effort. I gave her credit for heading that up and putting up an excellent effort.
You can't exchange the terms Leadership and Experience as liberally as you do. Both words have unique connotations. I can be a natural leader, but have no experience. It is feasible. Hillary is a leader, I never denied that, I denied her amount of experience. There's a difference to me. You seem to be taking the extreme here, which isn't what I'm getting at. Slslbs hits the nail on the hammer with regards to the experience point:
Quote from: slslbs on March 16, 2008, 05:02:12 PM
living in the white house alone doesn't prove much, although she was involved with several efforts (as are many 1st Ladies, probably Hillary more than most with the possible exception of Eleanror Roosevelt)
How her living in the White House provides her with foreign policy expertise is totally beyond me. Visiting other countries with the Pres doesn't cut it.
Matt,
Her experience level is a euphemism, and that's my point. It has nothing to do with her politics, like I stated above, I understand why people back her for her policies. If you'll step back from hurling the insults and really see what I'm saying, you'll note that
a) I agree with many of her policies
b) I'd vote for her before McCain (She would be stronger with national defense, and reduce the deficit more than any republican)
c) I feel most people overdue the experience point, which is why I went off on it. I'd even say my language was too strong in some areas, and perhaps that is why you had a virtual conniption in your last post. No need for that.
Have a wonderful day.
The real world will change your perspective on a lot of things, including the usefulness of logical arguments. It wasn't personal, just a reaction to what you were writing.
Yes my post was purposefully incendiary - obviously I don't know you or your viewing and listening habits, but you were walking the line of Conservative talk radio there for a while...
Finally, by your standards it seems like the only people qualified for President are former Presidents. If Hillary's White House work experience doesn't translate you that's fine - but she's certainly been around the office and shown great leadership - not much more you can ask for in this race.
another interesting (and theoretically neutral) pov on her experience
I put the "bottom line" points in bold if you don't feel like reading the whole thing
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html
QuoteThursday, Mar. 13, 2008
Assessing Clinton's "Experience"
By Karen Tumulty, Michael Duffy and Massimo Calabresi
In her race to win the democratic nomination against a first-term Senator from Illinois, Hillary Clinton has put the criterion of experience front and center. She often references what she says is 35 years of work that qualifies her to run the country. And the most important achievements Clinton cites are the ones she claims from her years as First Lady — a job that carries no portfolio but can wield enormous influence.
The nature of Hillary Clinton's involvement was always a matter of great sensitivity in her husband's White House. After her disastrous 1994 foray into health-care reform, Bill Clinton's aides went out of their way to downplay her role in Administration decision making. She rarely appeared at meetings in which officials hashed out important policy trade-offs, but when the discussion centered on issues that were among her priorities, she sent her aides — much the way Vice President Al Gore did. "There were certain issues they kind of owned," recalls Gene Sperling, who headed economic policy in the Clinton White House. The First Lady's top concerns, he says, were children's issues, health care, and foster-care and adoption policies.
Now the former First Lady claims at least a share of the credit for a wide range of the Clinton Administration's signature accomplishments, both domestic and overseas. Does she deserve it? The Clinton and Obama campaigns spent this week arguing that question with dueling memos and talking points.
TIME decided to cut through the spin with a series that will take a closer look at the claims candidates make. As Senator Clinton is fond of saying, It's time to get real. We kick off the series by evaluating three of the achievements she mentions most often:
Children's Health Care
WHAT SHE SAYS
One of her biggest achievements, Clinton often tells voters, is the multibillion-dollar health-care program that provides coverage for children whose parents are too rich for Medicaid but unable to afford health insurance on their own. As one of her campaign ads puts it, "She changed the lives of 6 million kids when she championed the bill that gave them health insurance."
After comprehensive health-care reform went down to defeat in 1994, Clinton and other health-care advocates looked for targeted changes that might win more support. The most likely seemed the issue of providing coverage to children of the working poor. In October 1996, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced a bill to do just that, financed with a 75¢ cigarette-tax increase; in his State of the Union address the following January, Bill Clinton announced a plan to cover 5 million kids.
It was one of several health policies Clinton proposed, including one that would expand coverage for the unemployed. Internally, according to one former White House aide, the First Lady argued that the White House should keep its focus on the more politically popular plan to focus on children.
In May 1997, however, when then Senate majority leader Trent Lott said the children's health plan would blow up their balanced-budget deal, the President abruptly changed course and actively lobbied Democratic lawmakers to vote against it. As a result, the provision failed, and Kennedy was furious at what he considered a betrayal. Hillary defended her husband's decision, telling one audience, "He had to safeguard the budget proposal."
The measure was resurrected a month later, largely through the efforts of Kennedy and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who worked behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and built a coalition of children's advocacy groups to bring public pressure on Congress to pass the measure. Kennedy also privately pressed the First Lady to use her influence at the White House. After Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that August, Kennedy said at a press conference, "Mrs. Clinton ... was of invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program and also as a clear advocate."
THE BOTTOM LINE: The record suggests Clinton did indeed lobby for children's health coverage but that many others were responsible as well. And it also shows that her husband nearly killed the idea before it ever got off the ground.
Northern Ireland
WHAT SHE SAYS
On the campaign trail, Clinton has claimed she "helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland" in the 1990s.
Clinton's words are very carefully chosen. She has never claimed to have actually negotiated the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way toward power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement.
It's a key distinction. There is no question that the First Lady encouraged women from Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods to push their political leaders toward the bargaining table. She traveled to Northern Ireland twice by herself in the mid- to late 1990s and praised those who stood up for peace. She engaged in particular with a group of women peace activists who were largely cut out of the male-dominated negotiations and encouraged them to keep the pressure on.
Some of Clinton's supporters, like former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, say this pressure was instrumental in creating the atmosphere for the eventual peace agreement. But several diplomatic sources who worked on the peace talks say that the women's groups were not nearly as pivotal to the process as Hillary's backers maintain. And Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that Clinton was not involved in the process and her claims to have played a direct role were "a wee bit silly."
Clinton's husband and, to an even greater extent, former Senator George Mitchell were much more involved in those efforts, when the eyeball-to-eyeball negotiations began. Clinton was working on the outside, said several involved in the process. "She was helpful with Vital Voices," said Jean Kennedy Smith, former ambassador to Ireland, referring to a women's organization in the country. "But as far as anything political went, there was nothing as far as I know, nothing to do with negotiations." Smith, who is supporting Obama, suggested the process was well under way by the time Clinton got involved.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Clinton played a role in hearing the concerns of Irish women left out of the peace process, and in encouraging them to put pressure on their countrymen to pursue negotiations. But that does not mean she rolled up her sleeves and conducted or led the talks that resulted in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
Macedonia Refugees
WHAT SHE SAYS
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," Clinton has asserted when asked to identify an example of her foreign policy experience.
Clinton's shorthand version of her role in the 1999 refugee crisis in Macedonia is accurate but oversimplified. She did discuss open borders with the President and Prime Minister of Macedonia on May 14, 1999. (Borders between that country and Kosovo had been opening and closing for weeks.) She did support requests for economic help that the Macedonians were making.
But keeping the borders open was a key U.S. diplomatic project at the time, and her initiative was but a part of the larger effort. During the NATO war with neighboring Serbia that spring, the fate of Kosovars fleeing Serbian ethnic cleansing was a pressing issue on the international stage. If a flood of refugees overwhelmed Macedonia, a wider regional war could erupt. No one, however, wanted to leave the Kosovars to the mercy of the Serbs. So finding a temporary home for them was crucial.
When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But they were wrong. "She was quite at ease and professional," says a diplomat who served in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, at the time. Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership.
When the Prime Minister complained about American companies terminating textile contracts with local firms, Clinton promised to urge the businesses to change course. Five weeks after her trip, Clinton returned to the country with a pledge from Liz Claiborne to support textile manufacturing there.
THE BOTTOM LINE: In the case of Macedonia, Clinton engaged in personal diplomacy that brought about change. But securing the return of American business partners is not the same as the opening of borders to thousands of refugees. That accomplishment was a result of broader U.S. and European efforts during the war.
Quote from: mattstick on March 18, 2008, 12:03:45 PM
The real world will change your perspective on a lot of things, including the usefulness of logical arguments. It wasn't personal, just a reaction to what you were writing.
You are assuming though that I have never worked or that I perceive academia as reality. The past two semesters are the first time in my life I haven't had a job. Before that, I worked in retail at Office Depot(Summer 2006-Summer 2007), which I was underpaid and overworked for almost a year. I averaged 40 hours a week and 15 hours an semester. The job before that had me at Pikes Nursery (a regional plant vendor), where I did logistics. It was a night job, and I was in community college during the day (about a year before I joined here, spring 2004 -summer 2005). My last two years of high school, I would work part time during school and full time during summer for a paper distribution plant. I have spent most of my life as an entry level grunt. I had filed as a dependent until I quit working (my folks were willing to let me live with them while I finish my degree). I've tasted the real world, and it sucks without a college education (that is the extent of my knowledge on that subject), which is why I'm happy this is my last semester.
Quote from: mattstick on March 18, 2008, 12:03:45 PM
Yes my post was purposefully incendiary - obviously I don't know you or your viewing and listening habits, but you were walking the line of Conservative talk radio there for a while...
Finally, by your standards it seems like the only people qualified for President are former Presidents. If Hillary's White House work experience doesn't translate you that's fine - but she's certainly been around the office and shown great leadership - not much more you can ask for in this race.
Not at all Matt. In 2004, I voted libertarian in the election and my candidate had little experience (one term as a state senator, which is far less than most candidates. My main qualification for president is policy and the possibility of carrying out those policies. Her time in the White house prepared her for certain things (mainly partisan politics), and that is good.
I just don't like it as her main selling point, I see it as similar to McCain and his military "experience".
I didn't ask for a resume. If you want to stick to your guns, that's fine - but the "facts" and "logic" you were putting forth reek of naiveity. At least on my end...
Quote from: Sophist on March 18, 2008, 11:48:26 AM
Quote from: mattstick on March 17, 2008, 01:23:56 PM
Graduate from College, get a job and see what the real world is like. Put all your scholastic reasoning aside (we're not in a court of law or a classroom) and think about this for a second....
Don't give me that bullshit Matt, your better than that. To reduce an argument to employment is illogical and unrelated in every way to Hillary. That is who we are discussing and who the discussion should remain about.
You're better too, phan. Don't sell your grammar short, homeslice!
Oh, man, don't get me started on spelling and punctuation on the interwebs. It's just about enough to make an English teacher strip naked, set his hair on fire, and run screaming through the halls of his school.
But in all honesty, the regular users of the 'paug are on average the best proofreaders in all my limited online social network experience.
Anyone hear about Obama's speech on race?
I haven't watched the whole thing, although I intend to. It seems like a landmark in his campaign thus far- what do y'all think of it?
I read it.
great speech. spoke about things a lot of people don't have the guts to say.
That was amazing.
Thank you for sharing it.
How is he going to separate himself from the words of his pastor? i think that if you have know a minister through church for 30 years, you should know his views and opinions of the world, particularly if you are runnig for president. I think that may cost him the election.
I don't know if it's gonna cost him the election, but it'll be very interesting to see how he handles it and how it all shakes out.
I'd say it's handled in that speech.
Move On.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 19, 2008, 04:08:29 PM
I'd say it's handled in that speech.
Move On.
I'd like to think you're correct, but we all know that this isn't going away any time soon.
Only on TV.
It's a non-issue. He says he's not party to that sort of attitude and speech. what more does anyone want?
I have friends in my life who have done some things that I don't even remotely approve of but, they're my family. Should I reject them completely because I don't agree with an aspect of who they are? Who here can say that they don't have associates in their circles that they are 100% proud of 100% of the time? Few of us, I suspect. Humans are like that.
Wringing hands and saying "this isn't going away" is what keeps it from going away.
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 19, 2008, 04:15:01 PM
Only on TV.
It's a non-issue. He says he's not party to that sort of attitude and speech. what more does anyone want?
I have friends in my life who have done some things that I don't even remotely approve of but, they're my family. Should I reject them completely because I don't agree with an aspect of who they are? Who here can say that they don't have associates in their circles that they are 100% proud of 100% of the time? Few of us, I suspect. Humans are like that.
Wringing hands and saying "this isn't going away" is what keeps it from going away.
Sorry, I meant it's not just gonna go away on TV and in the newspapers.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on March 18, 2008, 07:43:31 PM
Anyone hear about Obama's speech on race?
I haven't watched the whole thing, although I intend to. It seems like a landmark in his campaign thus far- what do y'all think of it?
I did see it. It was an incredible speech in my opinion and I think Obama did a magnificent job hammering home the crucial points.
Here is the full transcript for those that missed it and can't watch the youtube clip:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/index.html)
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 19, 2008, 04:15:01 PM
I have friends in my life who have done some things that I don't even remotely approve of but, they're my family. Should I reject them completely because I don't agree with an aspect of who they are? Who here can say that they don't have associates in their circles that they are 100% proud of 100% of the time? Few of us, I suspect. Humans are like that.
Oh i feel you on this. We are all humans. Just in my neck of the woods (literally) this is a giant topic of concern, and it will be drudged up until the end. I like the boy. I have since 04. but not as much as i like Juan Williams.
Quote from: Bobafett on March 20, 2008, 08:42:11 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on March 19, 2008, 04:15:01 PM
I have friends in my life who have done some things that I don't even remotely approve of but, they're my family. Should I reject them completely because I don't agree with an aspect of who they are? Who here can say that they don't have associates in their circles that they are 100% proud of 100% of the time? Few of us, I suspect. Humans are like that.
Oh i feel you on this. We are all humans. Just in my neck of the woods (literally) this is a giant topic of concern, and it will be drudged up until the end. I like the boy. I have since 04. but not as much as i like Juan Williams.
Well, we knew all along that there were people all over, maybe especially in the deep south, who would object to Obama's candidacy.
His longstanding friendship with the inflammatory Rev. Wright just gives cover for a lot of people's tacit racism--
or simple xenophobia.
Anyone who looks rationally at U.S. history but can't sympathize with a descendant of slaves who thinks or says "God damn America" has a problem, and it's not a problem with patriotism (or absence of it) in the descendant of slaves.
Obama did an excellent job of addressing exactly these concerns in the speech. It will be tragic if much of the ensuing public conversation is centered on the statements of this pastor, and not the candidate's own reasoned speech on the issue.
Quote from: sunrisevt on March 20, 2008, 09:35:44 AM
Anyone who looks rationally at U.S. history but can't sympathize with a descendant of slaves who thinks or says "God damn America" has a problem, and it's not a problem with patriotism (or absence of it) in the descendant of slaves.
Obama did an excellent job of addressing exactly these concerns in the speech. It will be tragic if much of the ensuing public conversation is centered on the statements of this pastor, and not the candidate's own reasoned speech on the issue.
QFT
well said.
Richardson to endorse Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html?eref=rss_topstories (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.richardson/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
So the aftermath of the Obama speech seems to be resting nicely into the nuance of partisan politics, and the desired outcome yielded by the republicans is one where normal ideological standards are being permeated into a blind form of collectivist Straw Man arguments, in which reality is blurred by ideological lines. One of the firm stances of conservative politics is the focus of individualism, and it seems conservative pundits like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc are applying collectivist agendas to discredit Obama all the while arguing for what they normally oppose (the notion that groups all think alike and this is just).
As it has been pointed out here, racially biased undertones are prevalent in such talking points, which is just sad to me. Further to lump the views of two citizens, who do have opposite ideological agendas, as now having the same agenda/view is beyond irrational, it is illogical, and reeks of nothing but partisan talking points. If one actually researches Black Libertarian Theology and juxtaposes it to American Liberalism, it is obvious that the two views aren't even remotely compatible. All in all, it is a poor attempt to discredit Obama and make something out of nothing.
Finally, the notion that Obama is being an apologist is also silly to me. As I value the level of free speech we have in this country, and to attempt to silence an individual because he is publicly denouncing America is just stupid. Such silence is done by claiming Rev. White is being unpatriotic, and I ask then: Were the founding fathers unpatriotic to England in their rhetoric, which denounced the tyrannical atrocities of England? I think not, as Jefferson said himself that dissent is one of the highest forms of patriotism. Such rhetoric allows for the creation of better ideals for society.
OK, here's my question...
In the speech by the Rev Jeremiah Wright after 9/11 about "America's Chickens have come home to roost"... what exactly is untrue about what he is saying?
Quote
"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.
"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.
"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.
"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.
"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.
"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.
"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.
"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Is this just too hard for Americans to here? Rings pretty true to me.
I don't think it is a question of facts per se, but more a question of applying positive/negtive karma to the United States. This seems to be his point that bad shit happened because we brought such shit to other countries. I tend to agree that 9/11 is the product of bad policy abroad, but I do think that it wasn't the only factor involved in creating 9/11.
Remember the run up to the Iraq war? Everyone who opposed it was considered anti-American. Not only on Fox news, but many other places as well.
There was a popular bumper sticker in the 60's - "America-Love it or Leave it"
I think, as do you, that these people are missing the point. We should be able to disagree with our countries policy and debate them. In fact, we should be encouraged to. But, to many, that is unpatriotic.
To shift gears, last night on CNN they showed Rev Wright's entire sermon, not just the sound bite. I had passed out by then, but my wife said that in the context if the entire speech, his comments were not inflammatory at all.
Problem is, this country is ruled by the sound bite, not the entire thought.
If us 'paugers could run the country, it would be a better place. :-)
Quote from: slslbs on March 24, 2008, 07:27:54 PM
If us 'paugers could run the country, it would be a better place. :-)
So true :wink:
Yeah, it's the rule of the sound bite that scares me most. Well, the larger issue of which that is a part--the growing stupidity of public debate. That a speech as artful as Obama's is treated so crassly by cable news ... if we can't do better than that as a society, we're doomed.
::group hug::
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_kennedy/2008/03/clinton_under_fire.html (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_kennedy/2008/03/clinton_under_fire.html)
QuoteClinton under fire
Dan Kennedy
March 25, 2008 7:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan_kennedy/2008/03/clinton_under_fire.html
The last few weeks have been kind to Hillary Clinton - but that's starting to change. Clinton has been caught telling a lie so flagrant, so self-serving and so unnecessary that it takes your breath away. The media are on to her, and they're beginning to unload.
Here's how it unfolded. On March 17, at a speech at George Washington University, Clinton spoke about a terrifying mission to Tuzla, Bosnia that she had undertaken on behalf of her husband, the then-president, in March 1996.
"I remember landing under sniper fire," she said. "There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." Wow. Now there's a woman you want answering that red phone at 3am.
Except that it never happened. I could quote the comedian Sinbad, who was along for the ride, but let's cut to the chase. There's video from CBS News. It shows Hillary and Chelsea Clinton calmly walking off the plane. They were greeted by various dignitaries, including an eight-year-old Bosnian girl, whom Hillary smilingly embraces. No sniper fire. No heads-down sprint through a hail of bullets. Just the sort of good-will tour a first lady and her daughter might undertake provided there was no danger of anyone's getting hurt.
To make matters worse, Clinton's lie was being exposed just as the tide was starting to shift toward Barack Obama again.
Make no mistake: Obama's candidacy has been permanently diminished now that we know more about his longstanding relationship with his ranting former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. But Obama's thoughtful speech on race last week was well received, thus limiting the damage.
Over the weekend, Obama was endorsed by longtime Clinton retainer Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a representative of two vital constituencies: Latinos and superdelegates. Richardson even had the temerity to suggest that Clinton should get out of the race. That, in turn, led Clinton consigliere James Carville to call Richardson's endorsement an "act of betrayal" worthy of Judas, a remark that caused millions to rack their brains over whether they may have missed any Jesus-like qualities in Hillary Clinton over the years. Of course, it's possible that by the time this ends she'll claim to have walked on water.
Ever since Clinton's victories in Texas and Ohio on March 4, the media had been going easier on her. There's no question they had been relentlessly negative, especially in comparison to Obama. A now-famous Saturday Night Live skit may have goaded them into toughening up their coverage of Obama. Or maybe it was just overdue.
Clinton's Bosnia lie has reminded the media that the Clintons are utterly shameless and will say anything. The Washington Post, declaring that her sniper claim was "simply not credible", bestowed upon her its coveted "Four Pinnochios", a designation reserved for "whoppers". The pro-Obama Jed Report put together a brutal mash-up of Clinton's March 17 remarks and the CBS News footage that had been viewed more than 133,000 times as of Monday evening. It's going to be rough for Clinton this week and perhaps beyond.
Moreover, there's a sense that the media may have overcorrected in their coverage of Obama this month. Just the other day, Fox News host Chris Wallace took a few of his colleagues to task for "somewhat distorting" Obama's characterisation of his grandmother as "a typical white person". When the folks at GOP-TV start fighting among themselves over such things, one can only imagine what the conversation is like in the newsrooms of the so-called liberal media.
By Monday evening, Clinton was saying that she "misspoke" on Bosnia, which, of course, she hadn't. The only credible explanation for her incredible remarks is that she lied and got caught. Frankly, if she really believes she and her then-teenage daughter had come under sniper fire that day in Tuzla - well, on second thought, keep the red phone away from that woman, please.
^ More testament to why I dislike that woman.
Now she's joined the fray about Rev. Wright, telling people that if she were in Obama's position she would have left the church. The funny thing is that John McCain and Mike Huckabee have both defended Obama, under the obvious premise that just because you know someone doesn't mean that you think like them.
I guess her experience isn't what she says it is.
Best part was when confronted, she said "I misspoke. I'm human"
:roll:
Quote from: slslbs on March 25, 2008, 10:31:00 PM
Best part was when confronted, she said "I misspoke lied. I'm human"
That's what she meant to say :evil:
I almost expected her to say
Well, Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse Meeeeee
As Bill Maher pointed out, the best part is when Sinbad chimed in and noted, That there was no way that trip was dangerous... after all, they sent SINBAD!
O'Reilly Shoves Obama Staffer:
What a douche. What horrible network.
My 666th post :evil: :evil:
^^^That story's a couple of months old, but it's a good YouTube piece on Fox "News" attempts at hatchet jobs on Obama.
It's also a good reminder that Bill O'Reilly is, at his core, a weak character with a small mind and shriveled soul.
Ever since he ran a story in 2004 under the header "AARP Too Liberal?" I've wanted to do something awful to him. I want to hit Dane Cook with a hammer, but that's just because he irritates me.
I want to kick O'Reilly in his shrunken little nuts until he goes down, and then jump up and down on his knees.
Colbert said it best in his speech at the Washington Press Club - Fox news, where you hear both sides of the story.
The President's side and the Vice President's side.
for those of you who haven't seen it
Best roast ever. EVER.
Obama and Clinton are both coming to Missoula this weekend. This race is so tight that candidates are actually soliciting votes in Montana. The Clinton meeting is at the Hilton and costs $150-$250 to attend. The Obama meeting is in the Harry Adams Field House and is free to the public, with a free ticket. The Obama campaign office is across the street from my house, and they were giving out those tickets there today. I didn't even open the shades and see what was going on until all the tickets were gone though :|.
On the more humorous side, I took this picture in a parking lot next to the campaign office. I guess the owners of the parking lot will be voting for Clinton :lol:.
anyone watch the debate? we're kinda tired of the campaign, but watched anyway.
the 1st 45 min - hr were a waste, focused on all the bs so far.
I would give Hillary a slight edge on the 2nd hr, which is when they spoke about the issues. Barack did make some good points, but she just "looked better".
I also think George and Charlie were a bit tougher on Barack and easy on Hillary.
nope. The consensus in the living room last night was American Idol, but I did read a couple of reviews and they say the same as you.
I think the folks in your LR made a better choice :|
Quote
After addressing the NAACP yesterday in Detroit, Jeremiah Wright travels to the heart of the media beast -- the National Press Club in DC -- where he has been speaking this morning. At this point, no matter one's political inexperience, Wright has to know he's not helping his friend; his decision to go public and defend his reputation at this point in the campaign is doing nothing to help Obama, if anything, it's leading some to believe he's actually trying to sabotage him. He's hurting him and hurting him very badly. Frankly, it's as selfish of a move as we've seen in some time. Imagine, for example, if Norman Hsu or Vicki Iseman were doing publicity tours right now. Maybe, if there's a silver lining for Obama, he's giving Obama a very easy chance to simply walk away. Remember, Obama didn't toss Wright under the bus, but Wright appears to be doing that to Obama's candidacy. Still, if Wright Vol. 1, "bitter," and Pennsylvania didn't move superdelegates, what will? Nevertheless, Obama seems to be starting off this week in about as bad of shape as we've seen in him in some time.
:|
(http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/oba_clinton.jpg)
creepy.
QuoteIn a defiant appearance before the Washington media, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and rejected those who have labeled him unpatriotic.
"I served six years in the military," Barack Obama's longtime pastor said. "Does that make me patriotic? How many years did (Vice President Dick) Cheney serve?"
QuoteAsked about some of the comments after the terrorist attacks, Wright challenged the reporter questioning him.
"Have you heard the whole sermon? No? The whole sermon?" he responded. When the reporter shook her head, he said, "That nullifies that question."
OK, here's a fun game...
Who said it, Obama or Hillary?
Quote
"You know, tonight, all across ________ and America, teachers are grading papers, and doctors and nurses are caring for the sick, and you deserve a leader who listens to you. Waitresses are pouring coffee, and police officers are standing guard, and small businesses are working to meet that payroll. And you deserve a champion who stands with you."
Quote from: mattstick on April 29, 2008, 05:38:41 PM
OK, here's a fun game...
Who said it, Obama or Hillary?
Quote
"You know, tonight, all across ________ and America, teachers are grading papers, and doctors and nurses are caring for the sick, and you deserve a leader who listens to you. Waitresses are pouring coffee, and police officers are standing guard, and small businesses are working to meet that payroll. And you deserve a champion who stands with you."
Hillary said that during her Pennsylvania primary victory speech last Tuesday.
You had to go and ruin the game, huh?
if you look hard enough, you can find her saying almost anything.
Quote from: mattstick on April 29, 2008, 08:20:08 PM
You had to go and ruin the game, huh?
Huh? I thought the game was "Who said it, Hillary or Obama?"
I was playing by the rules!
Well, you could've just guessed and not revealed the answer.
Quote from: mattstick on April 30, 2008, 10:53:03 AM
Well, you could've just guessed and not revealed the answer.
Sorry, I jumped the gun a little bit.
If you were wondering, I didn't google the answer or look it up on wikipedia...I actually knew it off the top of my head!
....
Feel free to continue the game, I did not intend to ruin it Matty (fresh)!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/04/978795.aspx
Funny that the filly came in second and had to be put down. Won't even touch the winning horses name on this one.
So what do you all think today's primary will mean? I think that if Barack wins both Hillary will have no choice but to drop out, yet something tells me she wouldn't, clinging to MI and FL as she tears the party apart.... :| Opinions?
yea, I'm tired of this campaign :|
Looks like Barack got his mojo back
Hillary is done as far as I'm concerned. She loaned $6.4 million of her own money to her campaign! My respect for her is done forever and if she were an honorable person she would drop out now.
A little math from the Obama campaign:
QuoteWith North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 169 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.
Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 69% of the remaining delegates.
^ There is no way for her to pull this off. Why the hell is she still in it?! :frustrated:
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on May 07, 2008, 05:17:04 PM
Hillary is done as far as I'm concerned. She loaned $6.4 million of her own money to her campaign! My respect for her is done forever and if she were an honorable person she would drop out now.
A little math from the Obama campaign:
QuoteWith North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 169 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.
Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 69% of the remaining delegates.
^ There is no way for her to pull this off. Why the hell is she still in it?! :frustrated:
IMO her only goal now (and for the past month) is to wound Obama as much as possible for the general election. then, when he loses to McCain she can say i told you so to all the Democratic bigwigs and position herself for another run in 2012.
I volunteered for Hillary's campaign here in Charlotte, NC.
I guess you can tell from my post about "Pick My Vote" about how I felt about her "managerial" techniques.
Seriously. Volunteering as little as I did, I had never felt more isolated and more rejected by a group of people whom I was volunteering free expertise, knowledge of my city, and my endorsement. Seriously. I could write an entire book about how poorly I was treated and how underused and underwhelmed I felt.
That is the major reason I voted for Obama. Hillary shot herself in the foot here. There will be no 2012 campaign. And Obama will surprisingly beat out McCain. McCain will probably ask for a recount.
LImbaugh remains an idiot
QuoteLimbaugh effort has muted effect
May 7, 2008
Yesterday's Democratic primary in Indiana was not only a big test for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but also a test for talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed commander in chief of "Operation Chaos."
The primary was open to Republicans and independents, as well as Democrats. Limbaugh urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Clinton to extend the Democratic nomination fight and, he hopes, further damage the eventual nominee.
But according to exit polling in Indiana, Limbaugh's impact appeared muted.
While Republicans made up 11 percent of the primary voters, Clinton won only 52 percent of those Republicans, and 58 percent said that Obama was more likely to defeat John McCain.
On his program yesterday, Limbaugh said that he had received e-mails from GOP voters that they had not been challenged at the polls as he said some Democratic Party officials had threatened. He read one e-mail from one who voted for Clinton: "It was tough. I showered twice . . . but I did it."
Quote from: JimmyWilson on May 07, 2008, 05:39:21 PM
IMO her only goal now (and for the past month) is to wound Obama as much as possible for the general election. then, when he loses to McCain she can say i told you so to all the Democratic bigwigs and position herself for another run in 2012.
She's got no chance in 2012 besides which, she'll be throwing her supprt behind a candidate of true substance... Me.
at this point, she's just after the Veep position...
I think she secured herself for that position the second that she made the Obama for Veep joke...
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on May 10, 2008, 02:10:23 PM
I think she secured herself for that position the second that she made the Obama for Veep joke...
:-D
i just want to see this over with and decided so we can focus on "Get off my lawn!" McCain
Did you guys see that McCain and Obama are already trading barbs? I think it was about comments made about the terrorist group Hamas.
So Hillary wins big in West Virginia. Does anyone even care anymore?
Quote from: antelope19 on May 14, 2008, 10:30:43 AM
So Hillary wins big in West Virginia. Does anyone even care anymore?
This is very very very very very much a big deal.
Of course we care!
WE CARE!
WE CARE.
Btw, tet, I almost spit up when I saw "Get off my lawn" McCain!!!
kudos all around!
Quote from: antelope19 on May 14, 2008, 10:30:43 AM
So Hillary wins big in West Virginia. Does anyone even care anymore?
Quote from: tet on May 10, 2008, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on May 10, 2008, 02:10:23 PM
I think she secured herself for that position the second that she made the Obama for Veep joke...
:-D
i just want to see this over with and decided so we can focus on "Get off my lawn!" McCain
QuoteEdwards backs Obama
By Associated Press | May 14, 2008
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- Democrat John Edwards is endorsing former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
Edwards was to appear with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.
The endorsement comes the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" -- white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.
Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' anti-poverty initiative, which he launched Tuesday with the goal of reducing poverty in the United States by half within 10 years.
When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has said she thinks Clinton has the superior health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.
David "Mudcat" Saunders, a chief adviser for Edwards on rural affairs during his presidential campaign, said the timing of the endorsement couldn't be better given Obama's resounding loss in West Virginia on Tuesday.
"For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss," he added. "The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It's going to be Edwards' endorsement."
Edwards waged a scrappy underdog campaign for the Democratic nomination, always outshone by the historic nature of Obama possibly being the first black nominee and Clinton the first woman. But Edwards was considered their strongest contender, even as he balanced the rigors of the campaign with the personal blow of Elizabeth's returning breast cancer.
Edwards promoted progressive policy ideas and came in second to Obama in Iowa before coming in third in the following three contests and dropping out in New Orleans, the location a reminder of his attention to poverty.
Obama has a total of 1,887 delegates, leaving him just 139 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton has 1,718 delegates, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press.
Edwards has 19 pledged delegates won in three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Most of the those delegates have already been selected, meaning they are technically free to support whomever they choose at the party's national convention, regardless of Edwards' endorsement.
:banana: Hillary's done now...no matter how hard she fights
To people who discredit Hilary for not dropping out of the race, don't you think it's more of a DNC problem?
The fact that there can even still be a race at this point seems absurd to me, but Barack doesn't have enough to clinch at this point, so why should she quit?
Do you also think sports teams should just give up when it seems like they probably won't win? You don't give up until the numbers are clinched, that's how races like this work.
Quote from: mattstick on May 15, 2008, 10:32:38 AM
To people who discredit Hilary for not dropping out of the race, don't you think it's more of a DNC problem?
The fact that there can even still be a race at this point seems absurd to me, but Barack doesn't have enough to clinch at this point, so why should she quit?
Do you also think sports teams should just give up when it seems like they probably won't win? You don't give up until the numbers are clinched, that's how races like this work.
Matt...I don't think it's a DNC problem at all.
I think it is beautiful that every single state gets to have a say in who are future president is. I don't think the process has drawn on too long at all. The thing that I think is a DNC problem is that they haven't done enough "damage control" and "spin maintenance". It would be so easy for them to spin the Democratic race favorably as a triumph for the American political polling process...and I haven't seen that aspect highlighted as much as I would like it to be highlighted...
...then again...who would have thought the Oregon Delegate count would even matter?
--------great election so far!
Quote from: mattstick on May 15, 2008, 10:32:38 AM
To people who discredit Hilary for not dropping out of the race, don't you think it's more of a DNC problem?
The fact that there can even still be a race at this point seems absurd to me, but Barack doesn't have enough to clinch at this point, so why should she quit?
Do you also think sports teams should just give up when it seems like they probably won't win? You don't give up until the numbers are clinched, that's how races like this work.
I think part of the reason folks want her to drop out is that she has been constantly attacking Barack, with the appearance of making him a weaker candidate. so, imo part of the problem is her method.
I'm tired of the back-stabbing, etc, but imo it is pretty cool that everyone is getting involve.
Obama with an absolute majority of delegates- it's officially over. If Hillary does not drop out now every second she wastes is tearing apart the party. Get out lady. :samurai:
I read a Hillary quote on CNN.com that I'm about to paraphrase (.sic)...
...I was wondering if someone can explain to me the fuzzyness or the soundness of her Mathematics and Logic...
She basically inferred that She >>>Has A Majority of The Actual Votes, but A Minority of the Delegates<<<
>>>>is her mathematics sound, fuzzy or just plain wrong?
If it is sound, is it a mark against the Dem. Party in the wake of the Floridian "Hanging Chad" scandal of 2000....does it cause the Dems to fall into a hypocritical quagmire...
If it isn't sound, does it hurt Hillary's career?
>>>>any help here?
oh its fuzzy math alright. :roll:
in terms of the popular vote, she's counting Florida & Michigan and not counting the caucus states. HRC & her supporters are in total denial
Quote from: JimmyWilson on May 21, 2008, 05:47:42 PM
oh its fuzzy math alright. :roll:
in terms of the popular vote, she's counting Florida & Michigan and not counting the caucus states. HRC & her supporters are in total denial
That's what I thought... that's especially lame since Barack wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
QuoteHillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said.
reports are saying that she won't concede the nomination though - she will suspend her campaign and Bill & her will try & twist the superdelegates arms behind the scenes. i am so ready to be done with the Clintons - he was in Missoula on Saturday night at a local bar playing his "aw shucks i'm just a country bumpkin just like you" card - sorry Bill, but Missoula is hardly rural.
"Clinton says she's open to VP"
Fat chance. Go back to Chappaqua Hillary. :samurai:
(http://week4paug.net/tet/baracktoberfest.jpg)
:beers:
Quote from: tet on June 04, 2008, 01:00:27 AM
(http://week4paug.net/tet/baracktoberfest.jpg)
:beers:
*Raises his glass
Obama/Lincoln.
Looks like I was right a year and a half ago!!!!
It's Barack and Roll time bitches! :evil:
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 04, 2008, 07:02:24 PM
It's Barack and Roll time bitches! :evil:
Amen :evil:
Btw anyone watch "So You Think You Can Dance?" I caught a little bit of the show...meh...but did anyone see the guy with the mask? He looked like Bandito Barack!
(http://week4paug.net/tet/demnomnear.gif)
(http://week4paug.net/tet/obamadunk.jpg)
(http://week4paug.net/tet/primarymap.png)
Shocking really... Someone should be fired or FOX should lose their FCC license
Bitch need to get hit with a metal folding chair...
Quote from: mattstick on June 05, 2008, 11:38:58 AM
Shocking really... Someone should be fired or FOX should lose their FCC license
JESUS CHRIST. Thats horrible, and more than one person should be fired imo.
What an idiot. Bitch needs to be shit canned.....and possibly tarred and feathered before.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/hillary_clinton_endorses_barac.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/hillary_clinton_endorses_barac.html)
June 07, 2008
Hillary Clinton Endorses Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Thank you very, very much. Well, this isn't exactly the party I'd planned, but I sure like the company.
(APPLAUSE) And I want to start today by saying how grateful I am to all of you, to everyone who poured your hearts and your hopes into this campaign, who drove for miles and lined the streets waving homemade signs, who scrimped and saved to raise money, who knocked on doors and made calls, who talked, sometimes argued with your friends and neighbors...
(APPLAUSE)
... who e-mailed and contributed online, who invested so much in our common enterprise, to the moms and dads who came to our events, who lifted their little girls and little boys on their shoulders and whispered in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be."
(APPLAUSE)
To the young people...
(APPLAUSE)
... like 13-year-old Anne Riddell (ph) from Mayfield, Ohio, who had been saving for two years to go to Disney World and decided to use her savings instead to travel to Pennsylvania with her mom and volunteer there, as well.
To the veterans, to the childhood friends, to New Yorkers and Arkansans...
(APPLAUSE)
... who traveled across the country, telling anyone who would listen why you supported me. And to all of those women in their 80s and their 90s...
(APPLAUSE)
... born before women could vote, who cast their votes for our campaign. I've told you before about Florence Stein (ph) of South Dakota who was 88 years old and insisted that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Her daughter and a friend put an American flag behind her bed and helped her fill out the ballot.
She passed away soon after and, under state law, her ballot didn't count, but her daughter later told a reporter, "My dad's an ornery, old cowboy, and he didn't like it when he heard Mom's vote wouldn't be counted. I don't think he had voted in 20 years, but he voted in place of my mom."
(APPLAUSE)
So to all those who voted for me and to whom I pledged my utmost, my commitment to you and to the progress we seek is unyielding.
You have inspired and touched me with the stories of the joys and sorrows that make up the fabric of our lives. And you have humbled me with your commitment to our country. Eighteen million of you, from all walks of life...
(APPLAUSE)
... women and men, young and old, Latino and Asian, African- American and Caucasian...
(APPLAUSE)
... rich, poor, and middle-class, gay and straight, you have stood with me.
(APPLAUSE)
And I will continue to stand strong with you every time, every place, in every way that I can. The dreams we share are worth fighting for.
Remember, we fought for the single mom with the young daughter, juggling work and school, who told me, "I'm doing it all to better myself for her."
We fought for the woman who grabbed my hand and asked me, "What are you going to do to make sure I have health care?" and began to cry, because even though she works three jobs, she can't afford insurance.
We fought for the young man in the Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said, "Take care of my buddies over there, and then will you please take care of me?"
(APPLAUSE)
We fought for all those who've lost jobs and health care, who can't afford gas or groceries or college, who have felt invisible to their president these last seven years.
I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams. I've had every opportunity and blessing in my own life, and I want the same for all Americans.
And until that day comes, you'll always find me on the front lines of democracy, fighting for the future.
(APPLAUSE)
The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.
(APPLAUSE)
And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.
(APPLAUSE)
I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.
In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the State Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.
Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I understand -- I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family. And now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love.
We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we're all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake.
We all want an economy that sustains the American dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries, and still have a little left over at the end of the month, an economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared.
We all want a health care system that is universal, high-quality and affordable...
(APPLAUSE)
... so that parents don't have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance.
This isn't just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.
(APPLAUSE)
We all want an America defined by deep and meaningful equality, from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights...
(APPLAUSE)
... from ending discrimination to promoting unionization, to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families.
And we all want to restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, and once again lead by the power of our values...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges, from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.
You know, I've been involved in politics and public life in one way or another for four decades. And during those...
(APPLAUSE)
During those 40 years, our country has voted 10 times for president. Democrats won only three of those times, and the man who won two of those elections is with us today.
(APPLAUSE)
We made tremendous progress during the '90s under a Democratic president, with a flourishing economy and our leadership for peace and security respected around the world.
Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we'd had a Democratic president. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court.
Imagine how far...
(APPLAUSE)
... we could have come, how much we could have achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and accomplished too much.
Now, the journey ahead will not be easy. Some will say we can't do it, that it's too hard, we're just not up to the task. But for as long as America has existed, it has been the American way to reject can't-do claims and to choose instead to stretch the boundaries of the possible through hard work, determination, and a pioneering spirit.
It is this belief, this optimism that Senator Obama and I share and that has inspired so many millions of our supporters to make their voices heard. So today I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes, we can!
(APPLAUSE)
And that together we will work -- we'll have to work hard to achieve universal health care. But on the day we live in an America where no child, no man, and no woman is without health insurance, we will live in a stronger America. That's why we need to help elect Barack Obama our president.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll have to work hard to get back to fiscal responsibility and a strong middle class. But on the day we live in an America whose middle class is thriving and growing again, where all Americans, no matter where they live or where their ancestors came from, can earn a decent living, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we must help elect Barack Obama our president.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll have to work hard to foster the innovation that will make us energy independent and lift the threat of global warming from our children's future. But on the day we live in an America fueled by renewable energy, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we have to help elect Barack Obama our president.
(APPLAUSE)
We'll have to work hard to bring our troops home from Iraq and get them the support they've earned by their service. But on the day we live in an America that's as loyal to our troops as they have been to us, we will live in a stronger America. And that is why we must help elect Barack Obama our president.
(APPLAUSE)
This election is a turning-point election. And it is critical that we all understand what our choice really is. Will we go forward together, or will we stall and slip backwards?
Now, think how much progress we've already made. When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions. Could a woman really serve as commander-in-chief? Well, I think we answered that one.
(APPLAUSE)
Could an African-American really be our president? And Senator Obama has answered that one. (APPLAUSE)
Together, Senator Obama and I achieved milestones essential to our progress as a nation, part of our perpetual duty to form a more perfect union.
Now, on a personal note, when I was asked what it means to be a woman running for president, I always gave the same answer, that I was proud to be running as a woman, but I was running because I thought I'd be the best president. But...
(APPLAUSE)
But I am a woman and, like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us.
(APPLAUSE)
I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows.
To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us...
(APPLAUSE)
Let us resolve and work toward achieving very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits, and there are no acceptable prejudices in the 21st century in our country.
(APPLAUSE)
You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories...
(APPLAUSE)
... unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States. And that is truly remarkable, my friends.
(APPLAUSE)
To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.
Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on.
(APPLAUSE)
As we gather here today in this historic, magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it...
(APPLAUSE)
... and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time.
That has always been the history of progress in America. Think of the suffragists who gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848 and those who kept fighting until women could cast their votes.
Think of the abolitionists who struggled and died to see the end of slavery. Think of the civil rights heroes and foot soldiers who marched, protested, and risked their lives to bring about the end of segregation and Jim Crow.
(APPLAUSE)
Because of them, I grew up taking for granted that women could vote and, because of them, my daughter grew up taking for granted that children of all colors could go to school together.
Because of them, Barack Obama and I could wage a hard-fought campaign for the Democratic nomination. Because of them and because of you, children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the president of the United States. And so...
(APPLAUSE)
... when that day arrives, and a woman takes the oath of office as our president, we will all stand taller, proud of the values of our nation, proud that every little girl can dream big and that her dreams can come true in America.
And all of you will know that, because of your passion and hard work, you helped pave the way for that day. So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself, "If only, or, "What if," I say, please, don't go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.
(APPLAUSE)
Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.
(APPLAUSE)
To my supporters and colleagues in Congress, to the governors and mayors, elected officials who stood with me in good times and bad, thank you for your strength and leadership.
To my friends in our labor unions who stood strong every step of the way, I thank you and pledge my support to you.
To my friends from every stage of my life, your love and ongoing commitment sustained me every single day.
To my family, especially Bill and Chelsea and my mother, you mean the world to me, and I thank you for all you have done.
(APPLAUSE)
And to my extraordinary staff, volunteers and supporters...
(APPLAUSE)
... thank you for working those long, hard hours. Thank you for dropping everything, leaving work or school, traveling to places that you've never been, sometimes for months on end. And thanks to your families, as well, because your sacrifice was theirs, too. All of you were there for me every step of the way.
Now, being human, we are imperfect. That's why we need each other, to catch each other when we falter, to encourage each other when we lose heart. Some may lead, some may follow, but none of us can go it alone.
The changes we're working for are changes that we can only accomplish together. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that belong to us as individuals. But our lives, our freedom, our happiness are best enjoyed, best protected, and best advanced when we do work together.
That is what we will do now, as we join forces with Senator Obama and his campaign. We will make history together, as we write the next chapter in America's story. We will stand united for the values we hold dear, for the vision of progress we share, and for the country we love.
There is nothing more American than that.
And looking out at you today, I have never felt so blessed. The challenges that I have faced in this campaign...
(APPLAUSE)
... are nothing compared to those that millions of Americans face every day in their own lives.
So today I'm going to count my blessings and keep on going. I'm going to keep doing what I was doing long before the cameras ever showed up and what I'll be doing long after they're gone: working to give every American the same opportunities I had and working to ensure that every child has the chance to grow up and achieve his or her God- given potential.
I will do it with a heart filled with gratitude, with a deep and dividing love for our country, and with nothing but optimism and confidence for the days ahead.
This is now our time to do all that we can to make sure that, in this election, we add another Democratic president to that very small list of the last 40 years and that we take back our country and once again move with progress and commitment to the future.
Thank you all. And God bless you, and God bless America.
(APPLAUSE)
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a U.S. Senator from New York, is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
I'm so glad Hillary is done. I admire her tenacity but she's simply not presidential material in my book.
it will be interesting to see who he picks for a running mate.
imo the best thing for Barack and Hillary both would be to have someone else as VP
Quote from: susep73 on June 07, 2008, 11:10:35 PM
I'm so glad Hillary is done. I admire her tenacity but she's simply not presidential material in my book.
Agreed.
It was really nice to see a race come down, partly, to results in Montana though. We've been having our primary candidates chosen for us, de facto, for a long time.
Thats one thing I'll have to give Hillary, tenacity.
That was an excellent speech from a remarkable woman.
'twas
its gonna be interesting to see which way her career turns from here. she certainly earned a lot of political capital this year. I thought she was gonna blow it but looks like she is acting pretty smart.
I think her career hangs in the balance of the election. If Obama wins and becomes president, her career is going to be on hold for the next eight years. If McCain wins, then I bet my bank account that Hillary is back to campaigning stat.
Quote from: Sophist on June 09, 2008, 08:48:24 AM
I think her career hangs in the balance of the election. If Obama wins and becomes president, her career is going to be on hold for the next eight years. If McCain wins, then I bet my bank account that Hillary is back to campaigning stat.
QFPosterity
Dead-on.
I suppose, but isn't she still a US Senator? Hardly seems like your career is "on hold" if you're in the Senate.
I almost feel like that was one of the most obvious observations one could make, of course she's not going to be running for President again if Obama wins.
That said, I'm not even sure it's that likely she would run again in 4-years given the massive financial blunders her campaign has made.
Well, he didn't say she was unemployed...
I suspect she will go back to the Senate, but besides veep other possibilities would be cabinet post. might make a good HEW.
Quote from: mattstick on June 09, 2008, 10:18:27 AM
I suppose, but isn't she still a US Senator? Hardly seems like your career is "on hold" if you're in the Senate.
I almost feel like that was one of the most obvious observations one could make, of course she's not going to be running for President again if Obama wins.
That said, I'm not even sure it's that likely she would run again in 4-years given the massive financial blunders her campaign has made.
I don't see her settling for just senator. She is ambitious (which I see as a strength), and I feel she can't accomplish the goals she has set in the senate; however, electing another democrat after Obama would make it feasible to accomplish those goals. So I see her making the necessary plans to be president someday.
Realistically, the goals she stated in her speech are huge changes in national policy that will be very difficult to pass in two terms as president (assuming an Obama win this fall), and the DNC is going to need another front runner in 2016.
I don't see her being president ever. :-D
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=46a816dc-f843-41ec-9fe4-fbeac17bcfca)
QuoteThe New Yorker is hardly the optimal vehicle for reaching the conservative intelligentsia. But, last year, Barack Obama cooperated with a profile for that magazine where he seemed to be speaking directly to the right. Because he paid obeisance to the virtues of stability and continuity, his interlocutor, Larissa MacFarquhar, came away with the impression that the Illinois senator was an adherent of Edmund Burke: "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative."
As The New Yorker's assessment shot across blogs, many conservatives listened eagerly. A broad swath of the movement has been in open revolt against George W. Bush--and the Republican Party establishment--for some time. They don't much care for the Iraq war or the federal government's vast expansion over the last seven-and-a-half years. And, in the eyes of these discontents, the nomination of John McCain only confirmed the continuation of the worst of the Bush-era deviations from first principles.
But it was hardly inevitable that this revolt would translate into enthusiasm for the Democratic standard-bearer. After all, you could see similar signs of unhappiness four years ago, and none of that translated into mass defections to the John Kerry camp. And, despite Ann Coulter's vow to campaign for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, the old bête noir of the right would have never attracted many conservatives. That's what makes the rise of the Obamacons such an interesting development. Conservatives of almost all ideological flavors (even, gasp, some supply-siders) have been drawn to Obama--out of a genuine affection and a belief that he may actually better embody movement ideals than McCain.
There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan and the legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. But you probably have not have heard of many of the Obamacons--and neither has the Obama campaign. When I checked with it to ask for a list of prominent conservative supporters, the campaign seemed genuinely unaware that such supporters even existed. But those of us on the right who pay attention to think tanks, blogs, and little magazines have watched Obama compile a coterie drawn from the movement's most stalwart and impressive thinkers. It's a group that will no doubt grow even larger in the coming months.
The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement. And it's not just Andrew Sullivan. Milton and Rose Friedman's son, David, is signed up with the cause on the grounds that he sees Obama as the better vessel for his father's cause. Friedman is convinced of Obama's sympathy for school vouchers--a tendency that the Democratic primaries temporarily suppressed. Scott Flanders, the CEO of Freedom Communications--the company that owns The Orange County Register--told a company meeting that he believes Obama will accomplish the paramount libertarian goals of withdrawing from Iraq and scaling back the Patriot Act.
Libertarians (and other varieties of Obamacons, for that matter) frequently find themselves attracted to Obama on stylistic grounds. That is, they believe that he has surrounded himself with pragmatists, some of whom (significantly) come from the University of Chicago. As the blogger Megan McArdle has written, "His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive exercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion while rectifying specific outcomes."
In nearly every quarter of the movement, you can find conservatives irate over the Iraq war--a war they believe transgresses core principles. And it's this frustration with the war--and McCain's pronouncements about victory at any cost--that has led many conservatives into Obama's arms. Francis Fukuyama, the neoconservative theorist, recently told an Australian journalist that he would reluctantly vote for Obama to hold the Republican Party accountable "for a big policy failure" in Iraq. And he seems to view Obama as the best means for preserving American power, since Obama "symbolizes the ability of the United States to renew itself in a very unexpected way."
You can find similar sentiments coursing through the Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich's seminal Obamacon manifesto in The American Conservative. He believes that the war in Iraq has undermined the possibilities for conservative reform at home. The prospects for a conservative revival, therefore, depend on withdrawing from Iraq. Thus the necessity of Obama. "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one," Bacevich concludes.
How substantial is the Obamacon phenomenon? Well, it has even penetrated National Review, the intellectual anchor of the conservative movement. There's Jeffrey Hart, who has been a senior editor at the magazine since 1968 and even wrote a history of the magazine, The Making of the American Conservative Mind; and Wick Allison, who once served as the magazine's publisher.
Neither man has renounced his conservatism. Both have come away impressed by Obama's rhetorical acumen. This is a particular compliment coming from Hart, who wrote speeches for both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They both like that Obama couches his speeches in a language of uplift and unity. When describing his support for Obama, Allison pointed me in the direction of a column that his wife (who has never supported a Democrat) wrote in The Dallas Morning News: "He speaks with candor and elegance against the kind of politics that have become so dispiriting and for the kind of America I would like to see. As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs."
But, if you're looking for the least likely pool of Obamacons, it would be the supply-siders. And you can even find some of those. Take Larry Hunter, who helped put together the economics passages in the Contract with America and served as chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He concedes that Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but dismisses it as electioneering. Of far greater importance, in Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."
I know what Hunter and the rest of the Obamacons are talking about. As a conservative, I share their disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country. But, while I am sympathetic to the Obamacons and have a number of friends that are, I am not one of them. I'm not ready to join the other side.
Still, I have enjoyed watching the phenomenon, which has the potential to remake the political landscape. It will also produce some of the good comedy that inevitably accompanies strange bedfellows. The blogger Dorothy King, an archeologist and strong conservative, recently outed herself as an Obamacon. This was a culturally awkward position for her. She wondered, "Do I now, as a newly minted Obamaphile liberal elitist, have to serve my guests Chablis? Or would any old chardonnay do? ... Am I even meant to admit to going to the supermarket? Should I pretend to only go to the local Farmers' Market?" There, undoubtedly, will be much more of such dislocation in the months to come.
Bruce Bartlett is the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.
Interesting read that I thought was worth sharing.
interesting
QuoteAnd, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse."
agreed, but I'm not sure the Dems are much better.
still, what initially impressed me most about Barack, which seems to hold true for the Obamacons, is the way he thinks (or the way he says he thinks).
thanks
for the answers to any rumors
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
glad to see that site. Thanks for sharing.
Indeed. Nice link.
Thanks. I was really thinking that Michelle Obama liked to use the word "whitey" before you gave us the information in that link!
Thank Ron Burgandy for the TRUTH!
so Obama is going to give up public financing, saying he can make more $ from small donors on the web. From that standpoint, it will likely be beneficial. Why should he run with one hand tied behind his back?
but, he "broke his word".
for Someone who is running as a "new kind of politician" who will bring honesty and integrity, not a great way to start.
thoughts?
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 11:12:36 AM
so Obama is going to give up public financing, saying he can make more $ from small donors on the web. From that standpoint, it will likely be beneficial. Why should he run with one hand tied behind his back?
but, he "broke his word".
for Someone who is running as a "new kind of politician" who will bring honesty and integrity, not a great way to start.
thoughts?
My first thought is that insanity must be king when "84 million dollars isn't enough to run a presidential campaign"...
I believe he made the right decision, and he will take some crap for changing his mind but I believe McCain forced that issue and made him declare his intentions too early. So he has to eat his words right now...but he will blow McCain away with $$$ this fall so who cares?
I thought it was interesting that Barack Obama has already outspent everyone in the world in his quest to become President.
He should have really kept some more of that Moolah that he threw around like it was water to have kept this years convention afloat. 3-10 million dollars shaved off of B.O.'s budget could really be used by the DNC right now....
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 02:35:34 PM
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
absolutely true! it takes some dough to fight the Clinton machine... But he outraised and outspent her, hard to think he wouldn't do the same to McCain...
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 02:35:34 PM
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
I haven't been convinced that him getting past Hillary is a good thing...
...I know there is deep Obama sentiment on the 'paug (and in the rest of America...)...
...I know the dirty dealings of Hillary and Bill et al...
...I also know that Obama seems dirtier to me in a lot of ways than even Hillary and Bill...
I haven't liked Obama's tone in months, and I think his spending habits during this campaign reek of Reagan/Bush/etc. I know it took him a lot of money to beat Hillary, I'm still in the camp that is trying to decide if his ends justify his means.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 20, 2008, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 02:35:34 PM
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
I haven't been convinced that him getting past Hillary is a good thing...
...I know there is deep Obama sentiment on the 'paug (and in the rest of America...)...
...I know the dirty dealings of Hillary and Bill et al...
...I also know that Obama seems dirtier to me in a lot of ways than even Hillary and Bill...
I haven't liked Obama's tone in months, and I think his spending habits during this campaign reek of Reagan/Bush/etc. I know it took him a lot of money to beat Hillary, I'm still in the camp that is trying to decide if his ends justify his means.
I hear what you are saying...I was never convinced either of them were the best thing. But what is also clear on the 'paug and in the rest of America (see my post about 17% thinking the country is headed in the right direction) is that 8 years of Bush and his cronies is 8 years too many. And someone called him "Four More Years McCain" on here I believe...
Until we can truly embrace third parties and let them have an equal share of time in this process...they will only continue to serve as the distraction which will inevitably pull votes from one or both of the major parties and result in very close elections where nobody can even win 51% of the popular vote...
We must not get distracted this time around...we can't let the Nader's take the votes that are so needed to ensure we don't have 4 more years like the 7+ we just experienced. If the democrats were running a literal donkey I could probably take more pride in voting for it than McCain, who will no doubt continue and build on every failed policy of the current administration which has been a model for failure.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 20, 2008, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 02:35:34 PM
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
I haven't been convinced that him getting past Hillary is a good thing...
...I know there is deep Obama sentiment on the 'paug (and in the rest of America...)...
...I know the dirty dealings of Hillary and Bill et al...
...I also know that Obama seems dirtier to me in a lot of ways than even Hillary and Bill...
I haven't liked Obama's tone in months, and I think his spending habits during this campaign reek of Reagan/Bush/etc. I know it took him a lot of money to beat Hillary, I'm still in the camp that is trying to decide if his ends justify his means.
well, to Obama, getting the $ was justified.
as far as the ability to raise the $, it was all on the net. He has taken no $ from lobbyists or PACs. He informed the DNC that they are to do the same. He is spending a lot of cash, but that is because of private, not corporate, donations. Can't say that about Reagan/Bush. Hell, the Clintons had their house in Westchester furnished by donors, and they had a fund to collect for legal bills they owed after Bill's terms were up. This is not the same league.
whether you like his ideas or not, that's a different story. But he won't be going into office (if he wins) owing the oil companies, insurance companies, pharma, etc.
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 05:16:10 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 20, 2008, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: slslbs on June 20, 2008, 02:35:34 PM
true, but he had to get past Hillary first. If he didn't, the surplus wouldn't do him any good
I haven't been convinced that him getting past Hillary is a good thing...
...I know there is deep Obama sentiment on the 'paug (and in the rest of America...)...
...I know the dirty dealings of Hillary and Bill et al...
...I also know that Obama seems dirtier to me in a lot of ways than even Hillary and Bill...
I haven't liked Obama's tone in months, and I think his spending habits during this campaign reek of Reagan/Bush/etc. I know it took him a lot of money to beat Hillary, I'm still in the camp that is trying to decide if his ends justify his means.
well, to Obama, getting the $ was justified.
as far as the ability to raise the $, it was all on the net. He has taken no $ from lobbyists or PACs. He informed the DNC that they are to do the same. He is spending a lot of cash, but that is because of private, not corporate, donations. Can't say that about Reagan/Bush. Hell, the Clintons had their house in Westchester furnished by donors, and they had a fund to collect for legal bills they owed after Bill's terms were up. This is not the same league.
whether you like his ideas or not, that's a different story. But he won't be going into office (if he wins) owing the oil companies, insurance companies, pharma, etc.
I don't have much time. I didn't say anything about his ability to raise money, I talked about his ability to spend money. His budgeting skills and his diplomacy need a lot of work.
-----you do realize that the individual donors are employed by the companies that you are saying he doesn't owe don't you?-----
I'll extrapolate these thoughts later.
i'm pretty much an athiest (or an agnostic, at best), but for some reason, i have faith in Obama. i've never really had faith in anything before! this is gonna sound totally cliché, but don't you just want to hope, for once? maybe he'll be awful, who knows, but the fact is Washington is run by old people who are out of touch with reality/science/responsibility. we need a young President who will lead this nation forward, not backward.
and, you will see a LANDSLIDE victory in November, shocking no one who already believes what we will accomplish.
Sad news...but not at all surprising.
Audit: Dems, liberals passed over for jobs
Report confirms meddling by Bush administration in the Justice Department
The Associated Press
updated 6:00 p.m. ET, Tues., June. 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - Ivy Leaguers and other top law students were rejected for plum Justice Department jobs two years ago because of their liberal leanings or objections to Bush administration politics, a government report concluded Tuesday.
In one case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In another, a Georgetown University student who had previously worked for a Democratic senator and congressman didn't make the cut.
Even senior Justice Department officials flinched at what appeared to be hiring decisions based — improperly and illegally — on politics, according to the internal report.
"Individuals at the department were rejecting any of our candidates who could be construed as left-wing or who were perceived, based on their appearances and resumes and so forth, as being more liberal," Kevin Ohlson, deputy director of the department's executive office of immigration review, complained to Justice investigators.
The report marked the culmination of a yearlong investigation by Justice's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility into whether Republican politics were driving hiring polices at the once fiercely independent department.
The investigation is one of several that examine accusations of White House political meddling within the Justice Department. Those accusations were initially driven by the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006 and culminated with the ouster of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general last September.
The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006.
As early as 2002, career Justice employees complained to department officials that Bush administration political appointees had largely taken over the hiring process for summer interns and so-called Honors Program jobs for newly graduated law students. For years, job applicants had been judged on their grades, the quality of their law schools, their legal clerkships and other experiences.
But in 2002, many applicants who identified themselves as Democrats or were members of liberal-leaning organizations were rejected while GOP loyalists with fewer legal skills were hired, the report found. Of 911 students who applied for full-time Honors jobs that year, 100 were identified as liberal — and 80 were rejected. By comparison, 46 were identified as conservative, and only four didn't get a job offer.
The political filtering of applicants ebbed for the three years between 2003 and 2005, the inquiry found, then resumed by 2006.
Of 602 Honors candidates that year, 150 were identified as liberal — including 83 who were cut. Five of 28 self-described conservatives were rejected.
Investigators blamed two political appointees on a three-person screening committee for the preferential treatment. It also singled out one of them, former deputy attorney general staff chief Michael Elston, for failing to make sure the hirings were proper — and giving evasive and misleading answers about why they were not.
An attorney for Elston, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Although federal law prohibits discriminating against government job applicants based on their politics, it's unlikely that any of those involved in the hiring process will be penalized since they no longer work at the department. A Justice official said the department is not considering pressing criminal charges or taking or civil actions against them.
Democrats quickly seized on the report to bludgeon the Bush administration for playing politics with a department sworn to uphold the law fairly.
"This is the first smoking gun," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We believe there will be more to come. This report shows clearly that politics and ideology replaced merit as the hiring criteria at one of our most prized civil service departments."
Gonzales' successor, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, said he agrees with all the audit's recommendations to prevent politics from influencing the screening process and has already moved on them.
"I have also made clear, and will continue to make clear, that the consideration of political affiliations in the hiring of career department employees is impermissible and unacceptable," Mukasey said in a statement.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
^^^
agreed, I always assumed it was SOP
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
Excellent point. I remember a time when these two sides could sit in the same room and accomplish things (whether it be two politicians or two family members) without it turning into a fight.
If I recall...W ran the first time on the simple platform that he was "A uniter, not a divider." Maybe it was just an easy catch phrase for him that he couldn't screw up (though he had to have botched it at least once) but he insisted he would unite the parties like noone before him. Same promise they all make I know...
But I don't think we as a nation have ever been this divided...this split down the middle on so many issues and in so many ways. And instead of fellow Americans...we have "The enemy". Crazy.
Quote from: flufhed on June 25, 2008, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
Excellent point. I remember a time when these two sides could sit in the same room and accomplish things (whether it be two politicians or two family members) without it turning into a fight.
If I recall...W ran the first time on the simple platform that he was "A uniter, not a divider." Maybe it was just an easy catch phrase for him that he couldn't screw up (though he had to have botched it at least once) but he insisted he would unite the parties like noone before him. Same promise they all make I know...
But I don't think we as a nation have ever been this divided...this split down the middle on so many issues and in so many ways. And instead of fellow Americans...we have "The enemy". Crazy.
Yup.
You just contradicted yourself. :-D
Agreeing that Democrats are enemies of Republicans validates my original point, which you disagreed with.
Quote from: Sophist on June 25, 2008, 05:09:27 PM
You just contradicted yourself. :-D
Agreeing that Democrats are enemies of Republicans validates my original point, which you disagreed with.
No I did not. What I agreed with is that the attitude that some people possess Democrats are the enemies of Republicans is crazy.
The attitude is crazy to me because Democrats and Republicans are not in fact enemies.
I hope this clarifies your misinterpretation of my words.
:-D
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: flufhed on June 25, 2008, 04:51:17 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
Excellent point. I remember a time when these two sides could sit in the same room and accomplish things (whether it be two politicians or two family members) without it turning into a fight.
If I recall...W ran the first time on the simple platform that he was "A uniter, not a divider." Maybe it was just an easy catch phrase for him that he couldn't screw up (though he had to have botched it at least once) but he insisted he would unite the parties like noone before him. Same promise they all make I know...
But I don't think we as a nation have ever been this divided...this split down the middle on so many issues and in so many ways. And instead of fellow Americans...we have "The enemy". Crazy.
Yup.
Either you didn't read his post or your running circles around yourself.
Every politician claims to be the one who will "cross" party lines, but the reality is much different. Go talk to a liberal or conservative and you'll quickly discover some level of disdain within for the other side. Go read the comments on media matters and you'll see an abundance of hatred for the right. Listen to Air America and hear liberals bash republicans 24/7. Conservatives jack off to Rush bashing the left. We don't have parties, we have relative collectivism.
You must have missed the part where he called that attitude "crazy".
That is what I was agreeing with, perhaps my brevity led you to an erroneous conclusion lacking clarity, but allow me to extrapolate...
You're missing the entire point of my statement, and the point of my clarification. Instead of telling me what I believe I am saying, perhaps you should listen to what it is that I am actually saying. Democrats and Republicans are not enemies, even though some members of both groups believe that they are. The attitude of these members that they are enemies of their fellow Americans is what I find to be "Crazy", because realistically, they are not in fact enemies.
That is what my "yes" meant. Perhaps you did not interpret my "yes" correctly, hopefully now you understand what I meant when I said "yes".
:-D
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
they don't act that way - haven't since GHW Bush was in office, maybe even longer
Quote from: slslbs on June 25, 2008, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
they don't act that way - haven't since GHW Bush was in office, maybe even longer
That is extremely problematic and worrisome. I don't want to feel as if my neighbor is my enemy because we don't like the same candidate. Likewise, I don't want my neighbor to see me as the enemy because we don't like the same candidate.
QuoteListen to Air America and hear liberals bash republicans 24/7. Conservatives jack off to Rush bashing the left. We don't have parties, we have relative collectivism.
OK...wait a fucking minute...
There is somewhere that I can go where they bash republicans 24/7? Why isn't it a major network?
I won't even touch conservatives jacking off to Rush...except to say...
No, that's just too easy...
(and there is further proof of the visible hatred between two sides. Hatred breeds enemies...and that's where we are)
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 05:52:03 PM
Quote from: slslbs on June 25, 2008, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
they don't act that way - haven't since GHW Bush was in office, maybe even longer
That is extremely problematic and worrisome. I don't want to feel as if my neighbor is my enemy because we don't like the same candidate. Likewise, I don't want my neighbor to see me as the enemy because we don't like the same candidate.
Yup.
i am still of the belief that we are all americans... to see that point in action just look at what we do in the face of tragedy...
see, 9/11 aftermath... katrina aftermath... take what you want from both of those tragedies but i will take with me the images of americans helping americans with no regard to race, creed, or political affiliation.
perhaps thats naive but thats my take
Quote from: jedifunk on June 25, 2008, 06:56:43 PM
i am still of the belief that we are all americans... to see that point in action just look at what we do in the face of tragedy...
see, 9/11 aftermath... katrina aftermath... take what you want from both of those tragedies but i will take with me the images of americans helping americans with no regard to race, creed, or political affiliation.
perhaps thats naive but thats my take
That is the thing, what faux and I are arguing. This perception exists of "enemies' because it is real, but it shouldn't be. It's stupid. Those two historical disasters you mention are exactly proof that in times of trouble and need we are pretty good about helping each other out. It would be sick to think anyone in either of those scenarios was checking political affiliations before they rescued someone. I doubt it happened.
However...you don't have to look far to find this happening. This latest bump on this thread and this whole discussion spawned from an article I found about how democrats and other liberals were passed over for political jobs in favor of less qualified republicans. After Katrina, you didn't have to look hard to find comments suggesting the level and quality of the governments response varied due to the political makeup of the state... And I can't even begin to go into 9/11 now and how the government "handled" it.
Bottom line, and this thread is the road to november...this shit has to stop now. And "4 More Years McCain" will be just that, 4 more years of this same shit. OBAMA '08 baby!!!
Quote from: slslbs on June 25, 2008, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on June 25, 2008, 04:44:55 PM
Quote from: Sophist on June 24, 2008, 09:25:24 PM
makes sense to me. Why hire the enemy? It sucks that it is happening, but it is expected, and I'll bet good money that if Obama is in the White House for the next term, he will do the same.
Um. Democrats and Republicans weren't enemies the last time I checked...
They were both subsets of the United States of America. They're on the same team.
they don't act that way - haven't since GHW Bush was in office, maybe even longer
to clarify, I was referring to Pubs and Dems in Congress; not citizens who happen to be registered to a party.
There has been a lot of unity since all the disasters. Imo the followers of talk radio nazis are in the minority. a vocal one, but minority
This is great!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7dVgjIDLE0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I7dVgjIDLE0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
for anyone who hasn't heard yet
good solid choice, not earth shattering
QuoteBiden is Obama's VP choice
Foreign policy credentials boost ticket
By Liz Sidoti and Nedra Pickler, Associated Press | August 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama has selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware to be his vice presidential running mate, a Democratic official said early today, balancing the party's ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign and defense issues.
Biden, who has twice sought the White House, is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record, and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
Across more than 30 years in the Senate, he has served at various times not only as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, but also as head of the Judiciary Committee, with its jurisdiction over anticrime legislation and constitutional issues.
The official who spoke did so on condition of anonymity, preferring not to preempt a text-message announcement the Obama campaign promised for this morning.
CNN and the Washington Post also reported early today that Obama had picked Biden.
Obama's campaign arranged a debut for the newly minted ticket today outside the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.
The Democratic National Convention meets next week in Denver to hand Obama his long-sought presidential nomination, and then confirm Biden.
Republican nominee John McCain's campaign early today derided the pairing of Obama and Biden. "There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing - that Barack Obama is not ready to be president," said McCain spokesman Ben Porritt.
Biden slowly emerged as Obama's choice across a long day and night of political suspense as other contenders gradually fell away.
First Virginia Governor Tim Kaine let it be known that he had been ruled out. Then came word that Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana had also been passed over.
Several aides to Senator Hillary Clinton - who was Obama's closest rival for the presidential nomination - said they believed she also was out of contention. They added that the Obama campaign had never requested financial or other records from her.
Other finalists in the veep sweepstakes were Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Texas Representative Chet Edwards.
Among those on the short list, Biden brought the most experience in defense or foreign policy - areas in which Obama is rated relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Senator John McCain.
Biden voted in 2002 to authorize the Iraq invasion, which Obama opposed from the start. Since then, he's become a firm critic of the conflict and pushed through a resolution declaring that President Bush's troop increase - now considered a military success - was "not in the national interest."
A native of Scranton, Pa., Biden also has working-class roots that could benefit Obama, who lost the blue-collar vote to Clinton during their competition for the presidential nomination.
Biden, 65, was elected to the Senate at the age of 29 in 1973. He entered the 1988 Democratic presidential primary promising to "rekindle the fire of idealism in our society," but he quit the race three months later after he was caught lifting lines from a speech by a British Labor Party leader.
As a two-time presidential candidate, Biden has been well-vetted. "To the best of my knowledge, anything that is embarrassing about my past is pretty well public record," he said in a Los Angeles Times profile last year.
He lives modestly and is among the least affluent members of Congress. For his entire career in Washington, Biden has made a daily 80-minute commute on Amtrak from Delaware, and is, by all accounts devoted to his family, which includes three surviving children and five grandchildren.
"Very few people deserve to be called an exemplar of anything, but he deserves to be called an exemplar regarding his relationship with his family," said John Marttila, a Boston-based consultant who has worked on Biden campaigns dating back to his first run for Senate in 1972. "It's the center of his life."
Six weeks after his upset victory in '72, Biden suffered a devastating loss when a car carrying his wife and three children was struck by a tractor-trailer truck as they drove to shop for a Christmas tree. His wife, Neilia, and their 13-month-old daughter, Naomi, were killed, and their toddler sons, Joseph R. "Beau" Biden 3d and Robert H. "Hunter" Biden, were critically injured but fully recovered.
Beau Biden, elected attorney general of Delaware in 2006, is a captain in the Delaware Army National Guard. His unit is scheduled to be deployed in Iraq this fall. Hunter Biden practices law in Washington, D.C.
In 1977, Biden married the former Jill Jacobs, who teaches English at Delaware Technical and Community College. They have a daughter, Ashley, who is a social worker.
Brian C. Mooney of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
So why exactly are people allowed these crazy hats at these conventions?
Quote from: mattstick on August 26, 2008, 10:11:09 PM
So why exactly are people allowed these crazy hats at these conventions?
This is as close to 'cutting loose' as some of these square will ever know.
Sad thing, really.
BTW, Hillary hit it out of the park tonight.
Great speech.
I thought it was good not great, but she did her job to unify the party and support Obama.
Sweet Orange pant-suit.
3PIC.
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 26, 2008, 11:09:32 PM
BTW, Hillary hit it out of the park tonight.
Great speech.
Agreed.
Can you smell what Barack is cooking?
Great speech from Biden. I don't really dig the call and response type stuff that the crowd really wants to get into but Biden really drove the points about McCain home.
Still hoping Barack takes some time tomorrow night to lay out specifics, especially his economic plans.
I have always liked Biden. I am in the camp of if you have something to say, say it. Truth at all time as truth breeds awareness.
agreed, although that philosophy has gotten me into trouble more than once.
All the speeches were very good. I like Biden. Hopefully we'll have a change.
I enjoyed last night's speeches as well.
On a side note, I had a discussion, yesterday, with an attorney who is well versed in areas of energy policy.
He has personally met with both McCain & Obama's energy policy advisors and had some interesting insights.
The nutshell is this:
Obama has a comprehensive plan with many points across the spectrum as is needed at this time of transition.
McCain plans to drill for oil and to think about coming up with other plans.
i was really impressed with Biden's speech last night. never heard him before, and i think he really delivered a powerful case for Obama.
Pres. Clinton, as always, pwnd.
i'm very excited for tonight, though McCain's VP pick will probably conveniently leak out just in time for the post-speech discussions.
FYI, full text of Clinton's speech, with video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/27/bill-clinton-democratic-c_n_121941.html
isn't your next 20 minutes worth watching one of the greatest orators in history make a case for the most important election in our lifetime?
Quote from: tet on August 28, 2008, 10:58:47 AM
FYI, full text of Clinton's speech, with video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/27/bill-clinton-democratic-c_n_121941.html
isn't your next 20 minutes worth watching one of the greatest orators in history make a case for the most important election in our lifetime?
It was worth it last night...
i sadly missed the first 10 minutes of it so was glad to catch it today (Yanks made it interesting against the Sox for a few innings, which grabbed my attention).
Yonder is playing the DNC tonight along with Will I Am, Sheryl Crow, Jennifer Hudson and Stevie Wonder.
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/14893/YMSB-To-Play-Obama's-Party
reminds me - I was gonna comment the other day and forgot- pretty good selection of music Monday. Stevie, EWF, James Brown.
sure beats 2nd gen Fleetwood Mac
Quote from: mattstick on August 27, 2008, 11:02:55 PM
Can you smell what Barack is cooking?
Great speech from Biden. I don't really dig the call and response type stuff that the crowd really wants to get into but Biden really drove the points about McCain home.
Still hoping Barack takes some time tomorrow night to lay out specifics, especially his economic plans.
The specifics to his tax plan can be found here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html)
I think his tax plan is well thought out. While the rich will lose some money to higher taxes under Obama, they actually lose more money under McCain. I find that to be ironic.
"We cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
Brilliant. The last few minutes were amazingly passionate and inspired.
WTF is this crappy country song though?
Great speech. Matt's right, last few minutes gave me the chills.
The country song won't change my vote but it was a huge bringdown...
The should have cut to Baba O'Reily or something epic like that.
It was a great speech. He hit all the points that he had to.
I do think that his speech 4 years ago was better.
i too had chills those last few minutes - just an incredible moment in our history, one that we will all tell our grandchildren about.
According to MSNBC that song was a Brooks & Dunn song that GWB used to play after his '04 campaign stops.
I'd hope that people on the fence could see that whether you disagree with Obama on Abortion, Gun Control or any other issue he is the obvious choice for the Presidency.
amazing speech
same feeling the last few minutes
it boggles my mind that almost half the voting public will vote for McCain
i thought the speech was fantastic. and i hate political speeches.
mccain could not be looking more dwarfish and meaningless at this point.
it stuns me to imagine any thinking person voting for such a man.
(i realize many unthinking persons will)
last summer i bet a friend $20 that obama would be the next president. he and everyone else thought i was nuts. we shall see...
Quote from: mattstick on August 28, 2008, 11:13:56 PM
According to MSNBC that song was a Brooks & Dunn song that GWB used to play after his '04 campaign stops.
BRILLIANT!!!
i so love that move
and 50% won't vote for McCain, you can bet most of the Independents have just secured this historic election for Obama. they are a very big 10-12% voting block, and as CNN astutely pointed out, many are pretty angry with this administration.
QuoteSaid McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds in a statement: "Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama. When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harm's way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President."
Quote from: Sophist on August 28, 2008, 07:56:57 PM
Quote from: mattstick on August 27, 2008, 11:02:55 PM
Can you smell what Barack is cooking?
Great speech from Biden. I don't really dig the call and response type stuff that the crowd really wants to get into but Biden really drove the points about McCain home.
Still hoping Barack takes some time tomorrow night to lay out specifics, especially his economic plans.
The specifics to his tax plan can be found here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html)
I think his tax plan is well thought out. While the rich will lose some money to higher taxes under Obama, they actually lose more money under McCain. I find that to be ironic.
It's one thing to lay it out on a website, but the specific economic plans he laid out last night resembled a State of the Union address, it showed him as a President, rather than a Candidate.
Sarah Palin, McCain's VP pick?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/542389855_811a187e7b.jpg)
It is looking that way. Our Gov in MN leaked that it's pretty much not him this morning. I've thought Romney would be an unlikely choice anyway.
I'd never heard of her; I still thought that old crank Murkowski was Gov of Alaska.
Her bio kinda slays.
Well MSNBC is all over the map saying that she's supposed to unveil a new Alaska quarter at the State Fair today...
I'm thinking Lieberman, which is a brutal pick.
Quote from: mattstick on August 29, 2008, 07:40:27 AM
Sarah Palin, McCain's VP pick?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/542389855_811a187e7b.jpg)
Personally, I'd rather see Sarah Silverman as a VP candidate. But I guess to each his own. :-D
Quote from: mattstick on August 29, 2008, 07:40:27 AM
Sarah Palin, McCain's VP pick?
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1398/542389855_811a187e7b.jpg)
NBC News is confirming that Sarah Palin is the VP pick for the GOP.
Can't wait for the Palin vs. Biden debate.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/dayglored/Sarah-Palin-Miss-Wasilla-1984.jpg)
(http://home.comcast.net/~kilroyreport/Sarah_w_Bridge.JPG)
VPILF?
How pissed is Hillary right now?
I think it's a pussy move.
A friend and coworker (and woman) noted that she's a bit insulted by the obvious pandering.
So you're saying you don't think she's qualified for the job?
EDIT: Personally, I don't know enough about her to make a decision one way or another. I'll need to do some research.
A quick look over her wikipedia article...she looks like a clever pick. The pandering aspect is obnoxious, but she seems to be the 'maverick' her buddy McBush pretends to be... high approval rating in Alaska also
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 11:10:47 AM
So you're saying you don't think she's qualified for the job?
EDIT: Personally, I don't know enough about her to make a decision one way or another. I'll need to do some research.
No idea if she's qualified.
It would have been far smarter to find woman from a state with some actual electoral votes...
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 11:10:47 AM
So you're saying you don't think she's qualified for the job?
EDIT: Personally, I don't know enough about her to make a decision one way or another. I'll need to do some research.
No idea if she's qualified.
It would have been far smarter to find woman from a state with some actual electoral votes...
agreed.
she's known as a maverick
has no national experience so one questions her qualifications to be commander in chief
I suspect she is very bright, talented etc, but to me this is McCain obviously going after the "disaffected" Hillary supporter. Unfortunately, despite Hillary's speech, I suspect there are a lot of women who are pissed off and won't vote for Obama just to get back at the Dems, or because they take the whole thing as a personal affront.
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2008, 11:47:40 AM
she's known as a maverick
has no national experience so one questions her qualifications to be commander in chief
I suspect she is very bright, talented etc, but to me this is McCain obviously going after the "disaffected" Hillary supporter. Unfortunately, despite Hillary's speech, I suspect there are a lot of women who are pissed off and won't vote for Obama just to get back at the Dems, or because they take the whole thing as a personal affront.
Any woman who votes for McCain is a moron. Enjoy your ultra-conservative Supreme Court!
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2008, 11:47:40 AM
she's known as a maverick
has no national experience so one questions her qualifications to be commander in chief
I suspect she is very bright, talented etc, but to me this is McCain obviously going after the "disaffected" Hillary supporter. Unfortunately, despite Hillary's speech, I suspect there are a lot of women who are pissed off and won't vote for Obama just to get back at the Dems, or because they take the whole thing as a personal affront.
Any woman who votes for McCain is a moron. Enjoy your ultra-conservative Supreme Court!
SER.
Cheated on the woman who waited for his ass while he was in a POW camp?
Really?
This is the kind of person we're supposed to respect?
And the defense of "that was 30 years ago" only flies if we can say it about his military service too.
McCain speaking less than 12 hours after Obama's speech is just embarrassing... guy just seems Old and In The Way as he looks down at his notes and gives these corny pandering smiles...
Someone on another board mentioned how perfect it would be for Tina Fey to play her on SNL...
I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate
^^^
:-) looks just like her. Maybe it really is Tina Fey
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 11:59:42 AM
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2008, 11:47:40 AM
she's known as a maverick
has no national experience so one questions her qualifications to be commander in chief
I suspect she is very bright, talented etc, but to me this is McCain obviously going after the "disaffected" Hillary supporter. Unfortunately, despite Hillary's speech, I suspect there are a lot of women who are pissed off and won't vote for Obama just to get back at the Dems, or because they take the whole thing as a personal affront.
Any woman who votes for McCain is a moron. Enjoy your ultra-conservative Supreme Court!
SER.
Cheated on the woman who waited for his ass while he was in a POW camp?
Really?
This is the kind of person we're supposed to respect?
And the defense of "that was 30 years ago" only flies if we can say it about his military service too.
Agree 100%. I don't understand how a Hillary supporter could NOT vote for Obama. I actually don't know how anyone can vote with the GOP considering the mess they made the last 8 yrs.
Edit-just watched the tail end of her speech. FWIW, she's not a great speaker, imo.
Palin: "The women of America aren't finished and we can shatter that glass ceiling after all"
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2008, 12:44:14 PM
Edit-just watched the tail end of her speech. FWIW, she's not a great speaker, imo.
I was thinking more along the lines of "brutal", rather than "not great".
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Stupidest reason to cast a ballot ever.
Fortunately they have some cooling off time ahead.
this makes mccain no more appealing than having a bull mastiff as his running mate would to me.
and i love those dogs.
I can't see how he thinks making this move is really gonna sway Hilary supporters to his side.
I'm voting Obama, fwiw. made that decision a long time ago.
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I just can't wait for Biden to own her ass in the debates :evil: Ser. There's no way she can keep up with him, on any level.
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on August 29, 2008, 01:05:46 PM
I just can't wait for Biden to own her ass in the debates :evil: Ser. There's no way she can keep up with him, on any level.
SER
i said here a few days ago how impressed i was with Biden's speaking ability. i think he's really great in front of an audience, not necessarily at the same level of Obama (few are), but he will destroy her in any VP debates.
I'm sure Benson destroyed Dan Quayle in '88 too...
he sure did - wasn't even close
I'm also reminded of a story about one of the Eisenhower - Stevenson elections (before I was born - I'm not that old). Stevenson was told "you have the vote of every thinking man in the country". His answer - I still need a majority vote to win.
Quote from: mattstick on August 29, 2008, 12:45:36 PM
Quote from: slslbs on August 29, 2008, 12:44:14 PM
Edit-just watched the tail end of her speech. FWIW, she's not a great speaker, imo.
I was thinking more along the lines of "brutal", rather than "not great".
It was ugly to me, but there are so many people that are going to just eat that s up.
You've probably seen it but if I can quote wikipedia. "She hunts, eats moose burgers, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane. Palin holds a lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association. She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it."
AND a kid going to Iraq in the fall and a Down Syndrome baby?
Kaboom.
Quote from: tet on August 29, 2008, 01:09:19 PM
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on August 29, 2008, 01:05:46 PM
I just can't wait for Biden to own her ass in the debates :evil: Ser. There's no way she can keep up with him, on any level.
SER
i said here a few days ago how impressed i was with Biden's speaking ability. i think he's really great in front of an audience, not necessarily at the same level of Obama (few are), but he will destroy her in any VP debates.
Biden has got it going on, for sure. After listening to her though, I found myself thinking I hope he can keep his cool with her in the debates; chicks like that can be frustrating as hell.
The bar is so low for her in the debates, even if she makes a few points that resonate, she comes out lookin' good.
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I find this hard to believe. Especially, with a woman as VP.
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I find this hard to believe. Especially, with a woman as VP.
not every woman is a supporter of pro-choice....
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I find this hard to believe. Especially, with a woman as VP.
Although you wouldn't know it from the last few years, the VP doesn't actually have any power, except on the rare occassion that there is a tie vote in the Senate.
After reading what I missed in this thread, I now see what you were referring to. My bad. :roll: :-D I read today she is pro-life and agree with what you said.
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on August 29, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I find this hard to believe. Especially, with a woman as VP.
not every woman is a supporter of pro-choice....
I'm thinking Palin is an example of this...
Seriously, she has a newborn (April 2008) Downs baby... Many mothers leave their jobs in order to care for their child when this happens. She went back to work three days after the delivery. How inappropriately ambitious must she be to join this campaign. (imo)
She supports teaching of Creationism in schools
She opposes Same-Sex marriage
Rush Limbaugh loves her
You just explained why. A typical hard line conservative, who happens to be a woman.
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 02:02:23 PM
She supports teaching of Creationism in schools
that right there scares me more than anything else about the woman
Quote from: JimmyWilson on August 29, 2008, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 02:02:23 PM
She supports teaching of Creationism in schools
that right there scares me more than anything else about the woman
You mean the fact that she believes in magic and wants it taught in school?
Yeah. Creepy.
Quote from: alcoholandcoffeebeans on August 29, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on August 29, 2008, 01:49:11 PM
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: danje on August 29, 2008, 12:47:21 PM
Let it be known there are crazy Hillary supporters that will be voting for McCain. My friend's mom is one of them. It is pure spite.
Tell her she can look forward to her fellow women losing control over their own bodies.
I find this hard to believe. Especially, with a woman as VP.
not every woman is a supporter of produce....
True. However, the point being that all women shouldn't be forced to follow the morality of the religious right. This is the problem I see. Her personal view is irrelevant to me, its that she (like most republicans) wants to ban abortion all together, which is derived from her religious beliefs rather than doing what is best for the country, which in my humble opinion is leaving morality to each individual. Regulating morality (sex, drugs, abortion, etc) makes the religious right "feel" better about their god, and their "mission," and again the "mission" should and can be accomplished without me. Consequently, religion is nothing without control of humanity.
Which ties into:
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 02:02:23 PM
She supports teaching of Creationism in schools
She opposes Same-sex marriage
Again, the same concept. Attempting to apply a universal standard of morality upon a society that is constructed by the notions of secular humanism is nothing short of applying authoritarian tactics upon the people.
I want to know how voting for a Political dinosaur like John McCain helps to shatter the glass ceiling for women.
Quote from: mattstick on August 29, 2008, 03:16:37 PM
I want to know how voting for a Political dinosaur like John McCain helps to shatter the glass ceiling for women.
assuming he becomes president:
It doesn't unless he dies, becomes incapacitated, or is impeached. Then the glass ceiling is broken, since Palin would be president.
I don't see that. You're not voting for her - her politics weren't given the seal of approval in the primaries, she's just another appointed woman who does no more to shatter the glass ceiling than Condoleezza Rice.
Wow, tet has been busy...
http://www.vpilf.com/
Quote from: mattstick on August 29, 2008, 03:22:20 PM
I don't see that. You're not voting for her - her politics weren't given the seal of approval in the primaries, she's just another appointed woman who does no more to shatter the glass ceiling than Condoleezza Rice.
I think it depends. For example, I do look at the VP and consider how they would be as president. I'm just as comfortable with a Biden presidency as I am with an Obama presidency. So my vote goes to that ticket. Let us speculate for a moment. Let's assume that McCain choose Lieberman instead. I'm not comfortable with a McCain presidency, but I could live with a Lieberman presidency (possibly swaying my vote as Liberman would counteract the douchery of the religious right). The opposite goes for the religious right, they will tolerate a McCain presidency, but want nothing to do with a socially liberal president like Lieberman. This would result in voters staying home, or voting the Constitution Party Candidate (those who want a chuckle that results in a pants crapping, read the doctrine of this party), or possibly a Barr vote (despite being on the libertarian ticket, he is still opposed to abortion).
This is just my method of reasoning, perhaps I'm alone in this way of thinking, but I presume most voters think this way. I'm not saying McCain did the noble thing here, just that he took a play from the book O' Rove and implemented some Strategery (best "W" impression).
I think people will be excited about her nomination for about, umm.... 15 more minutes.
After that she looks like a dangerously under qualified candidate who's got a smidge of that good ole' GOP craziness to her.
Harriet Myers part deux?
Quote from: JimmyWilson on August 29, 2008, 02:28:59 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 29, 2008, 02:02:23 PM
She supports teaching of Creationism in schools
that right there scares me more than anything else about the woman
Last night in the prelim speeches, I think both Gore and Biden mentioned that we need an administration tat actually believed science. I was thinking they were referring to stem cell research, but certainly this is another (very scary) example.
Anyone who watches Obama's speech and still thinks that this election is about the "lesser of two evils" should just stay home.
History was made last night.
LMAO :lol:
McLame just signed his death warrant.
Caught a second of the O'Reilly Factor as I was flipping through...even the Repubs don't know how to react! All that Karl Rove and BillO could agree on was that it 'stole Obama's speech thunder'... they were like..we'll see how this plays out in the next month or so, it was either really good or horribly stupid.
Oh and btw y'all might like this video:
PAT BUCHANAN even loved it!!
Oh shit look at this, it could be the thing that totally sinks the campaign:
http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/blog2/129 (http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com/blog2/129)
(Rachel Palin Nude Pics?)
Quote from: Hicks on August 29, 2008, 07:36:37 PM
Anyone who watches Obama's speech and still thinks that this election is about the "lesser of two evils" should just stay home.
History was made last night.
QFMFT
nice vid. I never thought I'd see Buchanon say something nice about a Dem
Well now McCain has pissed off Van Halen...
http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/08/mccain-sucks-at.html
Quote from: Rich on August 29, 2008, 08:13:14 PM
LMAO :lol:
McLame just signed his death warrant.
Wait, what happened?
THE PRE-SPEECH OBAMA VIDEO:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183509&title=barack-obama-he-completes-us
Its as touching as it was made out to be... :clap:
Tuesday Sept 2 2008 8:54pm Central - Bush video-conf speech to the RNC airs on PBS but all other "regular TV" networks continue with regularly scheduled programming.
:roll:
RNC says no Bush for you.
[edit: ok I see he's on tape delay style now. Maybe they taped a backup in case he swallowed his tongue or something... either way, move along, nothing to see here. Although, I did like how he referred to the h8rs as the Angry Left]
Rudi Guilliani is a colossal asshole.
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 03, 2008, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: mattstick on September 03, 2008, 10:12:52 PM
Rudi Guilliani is a colossal asshole.
Yes.
Yes he is.
QFMFT
On a related note- why the fuck is the Russia/Georgia conflict a campaign issue? I think McCain should have stayed out of that.
It's just so sad and desperate.
This idiot (Guiliani) just called America "A shining city on a hill".
Quote from: mattstick on September 03, 2008, 10:28:03 PM
This idiot (Guiliani) just called America "A shining city on a hill".
I laughed when he said that.
What kind of world do we live in where an arena of people will start chanting "Hockey Mom" ?
THIS BITCH IS CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So many stupid attempts at low blows...
Notice She lacks the class and respect to even state Obama's name.
Anybody else think that sounded like a high school running for student body president speech?
I had to shut it off...couldn't stop chanting "FOUR MORE YEARS!" and woke the house up
:-P :lol:
That bitch is nanners. What scares me most about her is the fact that she 'hadn't really been paying attention' to Iraq, and the impression that she barely knows anything about our national politics beyond the dreck Rick Davis and Co. have fed her...seriously.
More beef against her- Stop telling that horrible lie about saying "no thanks" to Congress about the bridge to nowhere.
Quote"Palin said Alaska's congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she 'would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge."
Ketchikan Daily News 9/2006
...oh and THIS:
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/liar.jpg)
OH AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
Posted From DailyKos.com
QuotePalin 451 Hotlist
by Plutonium Page
Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:20:27 AM PDT
Sarah Palin: Separatist, former mayor of a village, and a wannabe book-burner:
[Former Wasilla mayor John Stein] says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Full Story: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2/111944/3298 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2/111944/3298)
THIS LADY MAKES ME CRAZY. But on a lighter note... I think McCain lost the election.
Quote from: Hicks on September 03, 2008, 11:12:46 PM
Anybody else think that sounded like a high school running for student body president speech?
Keith Olbermann just compared her to Tracey Flick, Reese Witherspoon's character from Election.
Quote from: mattstick on September 03, 2008, 11:17:01 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 03, 2008, 11:12:46 PM
Anybody else think that sounded like a high school running for student body president speech?
Keith Olbermann just compared her to Tracey Flick, Reese Witherspoon's character from Election.
Nice, Olbermann always tells it like it is, some of the other analysis was completely ridiculous. That was far from a moving or even intelligent speech.
what bothered me most wasn't her, but the whole tone of anger and fear from the convention.
FOUR MORE WARS! FOUR MORE WARS!
There oughta be a Pinocchio meter on TV as people give these speeches to help us filter out the BS and lies
Absolutly unbelievable the shit the Repulican party tries to shovel down the throats of the American public...
QuoteThe only difference between a hocky mom and a pit bull is lip stick
Well I guess she'll be tough enough to run the country without any experience with that kind mentality... LOL
AP Fact Check of last night's speeches:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
Quote
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
[/quote]
Nice thanks mattstick.
I don't know how you all feel, but I feel really fired up in the wake of that speech...obviously not for her but rather so vehemently against her...Do you think this will further excite the Obama base? Does it need to be more fired up after that amazing convention? We'll see how this plays out...I think this has really ended all chances of a McCain presidency. Who knows though...hopefully no October surprises.
thanks Mattstick
the question I ask myself is how an independent, undecided person who is sick of the partisan BS in Washington will see this. I can't imagine the answer is McCain.
Quote from: slslbs on September 04, 2008, 09:55:41 PM
thanks Mattstick
the question I ask myself is how an independent, undecided person who is sick of the partisan BS in Washington will see this. I can't imagine the answer is McCain.
Anybody on the fence at this stage of the game isn't playing with a full deck IMO, so who knows what their thought process may be.
"I know these are tough times for many of you"....
Must be nice having 7 homes bro.
Worst speaker ever, I'm pretty sure he's trying to sell me a '96 Saturn.
"Let's help bad teachers find other jobs!"
Yeah! Four More Wars! Four More Wars!
Is this the least inspiring Presidential nomination speech ever?
he's not even a good orator and his speech was too long.
I disagree with many of his policies but I respect him for taking the high road, saying "we, both parties" screwed things up (he's right about that) and especially his calls for bipartisanship.
interesting that the calls for the end of partisan bickering got lukewarm applause at best.
I only caught the end of his speech (5 mins), but it seemed like McCain at his best fwiw...not that it changes any of my opinions on his policies, but it's nice to see he stayed away from the type of politics that his running mate engaged in yesterday. I'll watch the full some other time.
Quote from: mattstick on September 04, 2008, 10:50:51 PM
Is this the least inspiring Presidential nomination speech ever?
It really was. I'm not scared of him alone, but unfortunately He is just a GOP puppet at this point, and Palin seems to be worse than Bush.
Quote from: mattstick on September 04, 2008, 10:24:29 PM
"I know these are tough times for many of you"....
Must be nice having 7 homes bro.
Worst speaker ever, I'm pretty sure he's trying to sell me a '96 Saturn.
I'm pretty sure he's not trying to sell you anything. :-D
Quote from: Hicks on September 04, 2008, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 04, 2008, 09:55:41 PM
thanks Mattstick
the question I ask myself is how an independent, undecided person who is sick of the partisan BS in Washington will see this. I can't imagine the answer is McCain.
Anybody on the fence at this stage of the game isn't playing with a full deck IMO, so who knows what their thought process may be.
And Hicks, for one, my parents are still very much on the fence. Both are staunch republicans, but after seeing what has gone on for the last 8 years, I really, truly believe they won't make their decisions(one way or another) until after the debates. I really could see one of them voting for Obama. They know the importance of this election and aren't one to fall for all the BS. I think the way they are going about this is completely reasonable.
Quote from: slslbs on September 04, 2008, 11:06:45 PM
he's not even a good orator and his speech was too long.
I disagree with many of his policies but I respect him for taking the high road, saying "we, both parties" screwed things up (he's right about that) and especially his calls for bipartisanship.
interesting that the calls for the end of partisan bickering got lukewarm applause at best.
partisan bickering is the entire repub strategy, so certainly that line didn't get the applause. they want rudy screaming '9/11!' mccain's entire speech was basically saying, 'look at what a swell guy i've been all these years. yes, let's go down memory lane and bask in the glory that WAS me.'
as mccain's campaign manager said, they're not going to run on any issues, they're running purely on personality. like they do every four years. and why not? it keeps paying off. tar and feather the other guy and it doesn't matter that only a tiny minority of people actually like your policies. why hasn't bush been able to do anything for years now? because there's so little support for virtually everything the repub party now stands for.
how sad was that speech? i almost fell asleep. have you read about that mysterious backdrop? the strange sort of mansion? turns out it's an LA high school. to be precise, Walter Reed high school. looks like some idiot tech guy, instead of grabbing a photo of the Walter Reed veteran's hospital, grabbed the high school instead. talk about amatuer hour. nice work with the return of the sickly green background, too.
palin's speech actually made me physically ill. watching this religious nutcase spew out a tired litany of repub talking points in the voice of tracy flick was just stunning. and they ate it up! it's fucking sad.
love the way she and herr rudy mocked obama's community organizing. could these people possibly be more enormous scumbags? i guess the next two months will tell. i'm betting they'll try.
McCain is ahead in the polls :frustrated:
People must actually think Pallin is a good choice :frustrated:
hopefully, this will change after the debates
Quote from: slslbs on September 09, 2008, 05:46:31 PM
McCain is ahead in the polls :frustrated:
People must actually think Pallin is a good choice :frustrated:
hopefully, this will change after the debates
its a set up by the media so when the GOP starts playing dirty by manipulating voting machines and other dirty tricks, the general public won't be surprised if McCain pulls it off.
Quote from: cactusfan on September 05, 2008, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: slslbs on September 04, 2008, 11:06:45 PM
he's not even a good orator and his speech was too long.
I disagree with many of his policies but I respect him for taking the high road, saying "we, both parties" screwed things up (he's right about that) and especially his calls for bipartisanship.
interesting that the calls for the end of partisan bickering got lukewarm applause at best.
partisan bickering is the entire repub strategy, so certainly that line didn't get the applause. they want rudy screaming '9/11!' mccain's entire speech was basically saying, 'look at what a swell guy i've been all these years. yes, let's go down memory lane and bask in the glory that WAS me.'
and the democrats have been bipartisan? pfffffffffft, not even close. The "issues" are decisive and each party performs with the committee guiding the puppet strings. Both sides spew out the same shit and the docile masses eat it up like a reality television show. Why do you think Palin's daughter was the center of the political world for 48 hours? Most people are too stupid to understand policy (especially economic or foreign). So name calling works better and consequently is more entertaining. I'll grant you the republicans are dirtier, but the democrats plant subtle linguistic jabs. If you remove the semantics of partisan language, it is the same insult from both sides at a very basic level.
on that note, the pig / lipstick comment was not the smartest thing Obama could have said, to say the least.
It's a metaphor!
yes, and true also.
still, he could have been more careful with his metaphors
Quote from: slslbs on September 10, 2008, 10:26:39 AM
yes, and true also.
still, he could have been more careful with his metaphors
True.
Simple minded people don't understand metaphors.
Quote from: slslbs on September 10, 2008, 08:56:54 AM
on that note, the pig / lipstick comment was not the smartest thing Obama could have said, to say the least.
McCain said the same thing about Hillary, it's amusing that they are making something out of Obama's use of the same phrase now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR8IhMMhe8w
Interesting - I didn't know that. still...
It certainly isn't surprising that the pubs would criticize the dems for something the pubs did in the past - happens all the time.
another interesting item is that Bush and McCain screamed bloody murder last winter after one of the debates. Obama was asked what he would do if he had actionable intel that a key Al Quedah member was in Pakistan. Obama's response - take him out. Pubs response - this guy knows nothing, has no experience, he wants to attack our friends.
guess what happened the other day? the "inexperienced" guy predicted the future, and Bush did exactly what Obama said he would do (and got blasted for).
(http://i34.tinypic.com/116jqxz.jpg)
Selected lipstick double-standard quotes
John McCain:
QuoteMcCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the 1990s.
"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal. (McClatchy-Tribune News Service, October 16, 2007)
John McCain's spokeswoman even wrote a book with that name.
Quote
Public relations expert Torie Clarke has some advice for leaders who are tempted to tailor the truth, a process known in the media world as "spin." She says in a recent book called Lipstick on a Pig that openness is the best way to get your message across.
Torie Clarke honed her public relation skills as a spokeswoman for Senator John McCain, then worked for former President Bush's re-election campaign and was chief spokesperson for the Pentagon in the early years of the current administration. Clarke continues her public relations work in private industry and is a commentator on the CNN cable network. (Voice of America News, March 21, 2006)
Vice President Dick Cheney:
QuoteNow, in the closing days of this campaign, John Kerry is running around talking tough. He's trying every which way to cover up his record of weakness on national defense. But he can't do it. It won't work. As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig. (Applause.) That's my favorite line. (Laughter.) You want to hear it again?
AUDIENCE: Yes!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: As we like to say in Wyoming -- (laughter) -- you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig. (Applause.) (Regulatory Intelligence Data: November 1, 2004)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/9/224132/3242 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/9/224132/3242)
Quote from: bluecaravan521 on September 10, 2008, 03:51:35 PM
Selected lipstick double-standard quotes
Quote from: Sophist on September 09, 2008, 07:27:20 PM
Both sides spew out the same shit and the docile masses eat it up like a reality television show.
So name calling works better and consequently is more entertaining. I'll grant you the republicans are dirtier, but the democrats plant subtle linguistic jabs. If you remove the semantics of partisan language, it is the same insult from both sides at a very basic level.
I so called it, before it became yet another example of both sides echoing the standard platitudes of politics. :wink: + :evil: + :-D = :frustrated: from such verbal loops
This is one of the craziest exchanges I've ever seen... especially Walters comment....
Quote from: mattstick on September 13, 2008, 03:40:12 PM
This is one of the craziest exchanges I've ever seen... especially Walters comment....
OMFG
I'm laughing but it feels like nervous laughing, so I guess :-o
That is one of the most ridiculous clips I have seen.
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that prohibits abortion. :roll:
I think I'm much clearer about the election now. I was a little confused
but let me see if I have this straight:
If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic',
'different' but Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, and you're the
quintessential American story.
If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim but name your
0Akids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
Graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable but attend 5 different
small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first
black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive
that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law
professor, spend 8 years as a state senator representing a district with
over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate Health and Human
Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a
state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the
Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works, and Veteran's Affairs
committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
BUT
If your total resume is: Local weather girl, 4 years on the city council, 6
years as mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as governor
of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the
country's second-highest ranking executive.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2
beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real
Christian but If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and
left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a
Christian.
If you teach responsible, age-appropriate sex educa tion, including the
proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society but If,
while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option
in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed teen
daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a
prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community,
then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent
America's but If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one
DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until
age 25, and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of
Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
OK, NOW I get it!
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 19, 2008, 09:18:20 AM
Graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable but attend 5 different
small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
:roll: :roll:
Where one gets their degree is irrelevant and how long it takes is irrelevant as well. Remember, W got an MBA on time from Harvard (case and point about ivy league education). You can't have it both ways (implying Obama's education is relevant to his resume and discrediting Palin for her education).
Call her out for being a liar, an idiot when it comes to foreign policy and domestic economics, not a bad student.
Quote from: Sophist on September 19, 2008, 09:41:00 AM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 19, 2008, 09:18:20 AM
Graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable but attend 5 different
small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
:roll: :roll:
Where one gets their degree is irrelevant and how long it takes is irrelevant as well. Remember, W got an MBA on time from Harvard (case and point about ivy league education). You can't have it both ways (implying Obama's education is relevant to his resume and discrediting Palin for her education).
Call her out for being a liar, an idiot when it comes to foreign policy and domestic economics, not a bad student.
I agree. It doesn't matter. Those were not personal views but those being expressed by the Republican Party. Calling someone with his education unstable and with hers as well rounded is ridiculous. It's just portrayals that fit the needs of the Party to express content with their choice and discontent with the other party's.
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 19, 2008, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: Sophist on September 19, 2008, 09:41:00 AM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 19, 2008, 09:18:20 AM
Graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable but attend 5 different
small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
:roll: :roll:
Where one gets their degree is irrelevant and how long it takes is irrelevant as well. Remember, W got an MBA on time from Harvard (case and point about ivy league education). You can't have it both ways (implying Obama's education is relevant to his resume and discrediting Palin for her education).
Call her out for being a liar, an idiot when it comes to foreign policy and domestic economics, not a bad student.
I agree. It doesn't matter. Those were not personal views but those being expressed by the Republican Party. Calling someone with his education unstable and with hers as well rounded is ridiculous. It's just portrayals that fit the needs of the Party to express content with their choice and discontent with the other party's.
Well that is politics, and it is quite sad in my opinion. We (society) have moved away from the issues and the election is a popularity contest. Do you really think W would have won on policy alone? I doubt it (even with the "pray the gay away" campaign of 2004 and its attempt to steer people away from the Iraqi debacle).
"Well that is politics, and it is quite sad in my opinion. We (society) have moved away from the issues and the election is a popularity contest. Do you really think W would have won on policy alone? I doubt it (even with the "pray the gay away" campaign of 2004 and its attempt to steer people away from the Iraqi debacle)."
Agreed. The Republicans are very bright individuals, diverting the fact from the entire Iraqi war being a mistake and the knowledge that had already been presented showing Bush had lied about it, and was on some personal mission to correlate what happened on 9/11 to Saddam, and still pull out the win. Amazing. Why? Because he's thype of guy I could go to the bar and have a beer with. Pathetic and genius at the same time.
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise / September 13, 2008
For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago mean you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain...
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
pretty good read!! the republicans always seem to pull this shit...throw low blows all the way threw and then play off questions of the real issues as a way to somewhat slander them...what a joke this woman is too...did you watch Bill Marh on Friday?? the one guy put it best about her...picking her as VP is a mockery and people should be outraged by the pick and McCain should already be a loser because of it....
Werd. Everyone should read that.
Quote from: Hicks on September 22, 2008, 07:56:38 PM
Werd. Everyone should read that.
shit was weak, no R. Kelly or OJ defense :wink: :-o
In all seriousness, it was a great read (it offered an abundance of perspective). Thanks to mattstick for posting it.
White privilege is when you can own nine houses (but only claim seven in public) and a private jet and yet get away with claiming that a man who was raised by a single mother on food stamps is an elitist.
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 23, 2008, 09:54:26 AM
White privilege is when you can own nine houses (but only claim seven in public) and a private jet and yet get away with claiming that a man who was raised by a single mother on food stamps is an elitist.
9 f'ing houses. Trump probably doesn't have 9 houses.
Excellent article. Copied (with rj's add on) and sent to everyone I know.
Honestly, I think everyone on here, if you feel strongly enough about this election, should do all that they can to try and educate those folks that are independent or on the fence about who to vote for with this type of material. Just a quick run through several of these political threads should give you enough information to speak with confidence to anyone that is undecided. Now, those that are set on McCain and the Repulican party...that's another story.
thanks for posting Matt.
Here's a pretty cool link.
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard;_ylt=AsOJVx9ZEjWlPQjvYtZBj0jCw5R4
^^^
interesting.
this may be stating the obvious, but I am pretty sure that we are going to go to bed 11/4 and not know who the next Pres will be.
It's funny how they have "No Data" for D.C.
Anyone who knows anything about the District of Columbia knows that they go Democrat.
It may only be 3 electoral votes but, in this election, three may well make the difference.
Yeah, but if you click on "Markets" vs. polls (just above the listed % points), it shows you that they have data on every state. And actually have Obama with 97% of the vote for DC. I guess they just don't have any poll data though for it, that's all. The prediction markets have Obama with 278 electoral votes, winning the election.
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 23, 2008, 12:54:41 PM
It's funny how they have "No Data" for D.C.
Anyone who knows anything about the District of Columbia knows that they go Democrat.
It may only be 3 electoral votes but, in this election, three may well make the difference.
Same with Mass and Idaho, which will undoubtedly be blue and red respectively.
They go MA blue - nothing for VT
Given that the state legislature in VT put up a motion to impeach W and Cheney, I have a good guess how it will go.
Quote from: slslbs on September 23, 2008, 02:46:49 PM
They go MA blue - nothing for VT
Given that the state legislature in VT put up a motion to impeach W and Cheney, I have a good guess how it will go.
LOL, I was looking at Maryland.
Stupid public education! :-D
I will bet $1 that the Bush Admin produces Osama Bin Laden in the next 42 days.
Quote from: mattstick on September 23, 2008, 09:05:57 PM
I will bet $1 that the Bush Admin produces Osama Bin Laden in the next 42 days.
:?
I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, but seems kinda random. Or am I missing something?
That's the last card the Republicans hold... that and voter fraud.
they actually did that in 72
the headline election day was "Peace is at Hand"
that said, I'd be shocked (and thrilled) if they get Osama.
Quote from: mattstick on September 23, 2008, 09:05:57 PM
I will bet $1 that the Bush Admin produces Osama Bin Laden in the next 42 days.
Honestly,
I think he is dead, and has been for a while.
The pubs have nothing but "fear" on their side.
Fear is a amazing tool of social control.
Bin Laden, if alive, isn't even on the Republican radar anymore. Americans, asides from those military families, are not likely concerned with this anymore. When you are having trouble putting gas in your car, or buying groceries for your family, moral victories aren't going to cut it anymore.
CNN Reports:
Quote-- John McCain suspends campaigning to work on economy, requests postponing Friday debate; asks Obama do the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTQx_DnBTk
If you get a call at three a.m. and need to answer a critical economic question, do you have the answer or, do you need extra days to study up?
lol @ "Neo Con Econ Con"
I was really looking forward to the debate Friday night, so is this officially canceled yet?
that host is hawt btw
Quote from: mattstick on September 24, 2008, 04:16:10 PM
I was really looking forward to the debate Friday night, so is this officially canceled yet?
I hope not. That would be ridiculous. I expect my president to be able to handle more than one thing at a time. You can't just put a war on hold because you're having an economic crisis, or put something even smaller, like a debate on hold because you're oh so necessary in finalizing this bill, that hundreds of others have been doing all week without you anyhow! Come on now, I want to hear a debate on this in the next 48 hours! I am damn surprised it has taken Bush this long to address the nation on this. He must have heard the news channels asking where the president was on all this? Kind of like yesterday when a reporter screamed to McCain after he refused to answer any questions, "So has the Straight Talk Express become the No Talk Express?" and sho nuff two hours later he had his first press conference in 40 days scheduled. Unbelievable.
Regardless of anything going on, we will be electing a president in November. We need to have the debates.
Quote from: GBL on September 24, 2008, 04:43:45 PM
that host is hawt btw
Rachel? Incredible woman- knows her shit better than most others in the business, and is the first openly gay woman to have a primetime news show or something like that. You should watch the Rachel Maddow show, it's on after Countdown.
Shit.
Obama & Biden are appearing together on Saturday a short walk from my house and I have plans to be 50miles away!
Gotta change those plans.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is moving forward with its plan for the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., this Friday, Sept. 26. The plans for this forum have been under way for more than a year and a half. The C.P.D.'s mission is to provide a forum in which the American public has an opportunity to hear the leading candidates for the president of the United States debate the critical issues facing the nation. We believe the public will be well served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled."
Quote from: mattstick on September 25, 2008, 12:01:59 AM
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is moving forward with its plan for the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., this Friday, Sept. 26. The plans for this forum have been under way for more than a year and a half. The C.P.D.'s mission is to provide a forum in which the American public has an opportunity to hear the leading candidates for the president of the United States debate the critical issues facing the nation. We believe the public will be well served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled."
:clap:
Yeah, and McCain has stated, if a the financial crisis hasn't been resolved, he'll still be in Washington. He will not be attending the debate. Ok, why don't you just knock to board over, start kicking and screaming, and throw a tantrum. I am sick of this. I change my mind. This isn't even going to be close with the bullshit these fools keep pulling. Obama is going to whoop his ass. I can't wait to watch both Obama and Biden rip these jackasses up in these debates.
Obama has stated that he'll be at the debate.
also:
Quote
Was Obama blindsided by McCain announcement?
From Ed Hornick
CNN
Shortly after Sen. John McCain announced on Wednesday the suspension of his campaign to tackle the economic recovery plan in Congress, his opponent questioned the timing of his decision.
Sen. Barack Obama said he called McCain about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, "after determining that many of the principles that I had set forth were ones that Sen. McCain adopted as well in terms of how this financial proposal should be structured."
Democratic presidential nominee Obama said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, came up with the idea of issuing a joint statement agreeing on some "broad principles" that he and McCain shared on resolving differences in the rescue plan.
McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Republican senator did not take Obama's call but rather called him back later in the day.
Obama said, "[McCain] called me back at about 2:30 this afternoon after our rally, and I asked him to join me in issuing a joint statement to let this Congress and this administration know where we stand and what we expect from this proposal, because of the past few days, it's been clear that we have come to agree on some broad principles."
Obama added that McCain agreed to the suggestion of issuing a joint statement.
McCain, according Rogers, suggested that the two presidential candidates have a meeting in Washington "to lead a bipartisan effort to solve this problem" and that they both suspend their campaigns and hold off on Friday's presidential debate. Watch McCain's announcement »
Obama said his intent was focused on issuing a joint statement first.
But shortly after the call ended, Obama said, his rival appeared on television announcing the suspension and the subsequent debate no-show.
"I think the only possible miscommunication that might have been how quickly there was an announcement and someone was on television. I think my assumption was that the joint statement would go out initially," Obama said. Watch Obama discuss McCain's announcement »
But McCain, appearing on "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" Wednesday night, challenged Obama's claims that he supported a joint statement.
"This is not the time for statements. ... I think the American people expect more of us. And I would hope that we would respond that way," he said.
"We discussed that we do agree, and I'd be glad to -- to join in a common press release or statement, but now is not the time for statements. Time is now to act," he added.
Asked about political motivation in the news conference, Obama said to check with the other guy.
One Democratic senator wasn't as diplomatic answering the question.
"This was seeking political one-upmanship, and it's going to fail," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, said Wednesday night.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham defended his party's candidate:
"I am proud of my candidate, who wants to suspend the campaign, come back and work with congressional leaders to solve a problem that, if not solved, will lead to a financial meltdown in this country."
Obama added that the conversation was "cordial" and that the two agreed that this was a "very important issue we had to deal with."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/suspend.timeline/index.html
That's dirty pool.
^^^
unfortunately, it's not the 1st time and won't be the last.
UMiss said it spent 5 mill preparing for the debate. Now, compaired to 700 bill, that's small change. But still, seems like they can go to DC, be there to help out, and then go to the debate.
yet another gem from Mr. Biden the other day:
Quote
Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.
To be honest, Palin scares the crap out of me in many ways. But Biden is just making this way too easy on his critics and making himself look foolish. Hell, even John Stewart was ripping him last night on the Daily show for this one. +k to the first person who can identify what is so significanlty wrong with this quote.
IMO, neither one of them is "qualified" to represent our country when it comes to foreign policy. I shutter to think what will happen when either is faced with meeting the leaders of other countries.
Yeah, the TV part. But still, 36 years as a US senator, and head of the Foreign Relations Committee vs. 20 months as the governor of the 47th smallest state in the US? Both sides are going to make ridiculous mistakes, but come on now....John Stewart will tear up either side, as long as it's funny. Speaking of gems though, please see Vee Pee thread for 4 pages worth of Palin gems....
Damn, you beat me to it!
No TV's when Roosevelt was President! :lol: Biden must be going senile!
Quote from: antelope19 on September 25, 2008, 12:23:22 PM
yet another gem from Mr. Biden the other day:
Quote
Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.
To be honest, Palin scares the crap out of me in many ways. But Biden is just making this way too easy on his critics and making himself look foolish. Hell, even John Stewart was ripping him last night on the Daily show for this one. +k to the first person who can identify what is so significanlty wrong with this quote.
IMO, neither one of them is "qualified" to represent our country when it comes to foreign policy. I shutter to think what will happen when either is faced with meeting the leaders of other countries.
Hoover was the President
Quote from: keeb333 on September 25, 2008, 01:10:20 PM
Damn, you beat me to it!
No TV's when Roosevelt was President! :lol: Biden must be going senile!
I'm not saying he's senile. I'm saying he's consistently saying idiotic things that make him seem less than intelligent.
Quote from: JimmyWilson on September 25, 2008, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on September 25, 2008, 12:23:22 PM
yet another gem from Mr. Biden the other day:
Quote
Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people ... this is how we can fix this," Biden said. "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.
To be honest, Palin scares the crap out of me in many ways. But Biden is just making this way too easy on his critics and making himself look foolish. Hell, even John Stewart was ripping him last night on the Daily show for this one. +k to the first person who can identify what is so significanlty wrong with this quote.
IMO, neither one of them is "qualified" to represent our country when it comes to foreign policy. I shutter to think what will happen when either is faced with meeting the leaders of other countries.
Hoover was the President
ding ding ding ding.
This is key part of the statement. Even worse than the TV bit.
In terms of foreign affairs, and representing our country, below is who Biden has met with (sorry it's so long, just trying to prove a point):
Senator Biden/Meetings with World Leaders
This is a partial list of world leaders that Senator Biden has met with at least once over his nearly 36 year career as a United States Senator. As mentioned, this list is not exhaustive. As chairman of the subcommittees on Europe and Africa earlier in his career, the list is certainly much longer. ****The dates listed indicate when the foreign leader was in office.
Iraq
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi (May 2004 - April 2005)
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari (April 2005 - May 2006)
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (April 2006 - Present)
President Jalal Talabani (June 2005 - Present)
Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani (June 2005 - Present)
Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani (March 2006 - Present)
Israel
Prime Minister Golda Meir (March 1969 - June 1974)
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (July 1992 - November 1995)
Prime Minister Shimon Peres (November 1995 - June 1996)
Prime Minister Menachem Begin (June 1977 - October 1983)
Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (October 1986 - July 1992)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (June 1996 - July 1999)
Prime Minister Ehud Barak (June 1996 - July 1999)
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (March 2001 - April 2006)
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (April 2006 - Present)
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (January 2006 - present)
Palestinian Territories
Chairman Yasser Arafat (September 1993 - November 2004)
Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (November 2004 - Present)
Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad (June 2007 - Present)
Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (October 2003 - March 2006)
Jordan
King Hussein (August 1952 - February 1999)
King Abdullah (August 2005-Present)
Egypt
President Hosni Mubarak (October 1981 - Present)
President Anwar Sadat (October1970 - October 1981)
Libya
Prime Minister Col. Muammar Qaddafi (March 1977 - March 1979)
Lebanon
Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri (October 1992 - December 1998)
Prime Minister Najib Mikati (April 2005 - July 2005)
Bahrain
Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (March 1999 - Present)
Syria
President Bashar al-Assad (July 2000 - Present)
Turkey
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (March 2003 - Present)
President Ahmet Sezer (May 2000 - August 2007)
Prime Minister/President* Abdullah Gul (November 2002 - March 2003, Current President)
Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit (January 1999 - May 1999)
Prime Minister Demirel (November 1991 - June 1993)
Greece
President Kostis Stephanopoulos (March 1995 - March 2005)
Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis (March 2004 - Present)
Prime Minister Kostantinos Mitsotakis (April 1990 - October 1993)
Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou (October 1981 - July 1989)
(October 1993 - January 1996)
Cyprus
President George Vassiliou (February 1988 - February 1993)
President Glafcos Clerides (February 1993 - February 2003)
Afghanistan
President Hamid Karzai (December 2001 - Present)
Pakistan
President Asif Ali Zardari (September 2008 - Present)*
Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani (March 2008 - Present)
President Pervez Musharraf (June 2001 - August 2008)
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (December 1988 - August 1990, October 1993 - November 1996)
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (November 1990 - July 1993, February 1997 - October 1999)
India
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (May 2004 - Present)
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (May 1996 - June 1996)
(March 1998 - May 2004)
Sri Lanka
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe (May 1993 - August 1994)
(December 2001 - April 2004)
Russia
President Vladimir Putin (May 2000 - May 2008; current Prime Minister)
President Boris Yeltsin (July 1991 - December 1999)
Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev (March 1990 - December 1991)
Soviet Union President Andrei Gromyko (July 1985 - October 1988)
Premier of the Soviet Union Alexey Kosygin (October 1964 - October 1980)
Premier of the Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev (May 1960 - July 1964)
France
President Jacques Chirac (May 1995 - May 2007)
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin (May 2005 - May 2007)
President Francois Mitterrand (May 1981 - May 1995)
U.K.
Queen Elizabeth (February 1952 - Present)
Prime Minister Tony Blair (May 1997 - June 2007)
Prime Minister John Major (November 1990 - May 1997)
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (May 1979 - November 1990)
Ireland
Prime Minister Bertie Ahern (June 1997 - Present)
Prime Minister John Bruton (December 1994 - June 1997)
Prime Minister Albert Reynolds (February 1992 - December 1994)
Prime Minister Charles Haughey (December 1979 - June 1981)
(March 1982 - December 1982)
(March 1987 - February 1992)
Germany
Chancellor Angela Merkel (November 2005 - Present)
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (October 1998 - November 2005)
Chancellor Helmut Kohl (October 1982 - October 1998)
Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (May 1974 - October 1982)
Italy
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (June 2001 - May 2006)
(May 2008 - Present)
Prime Minister Romano Prodi (May 2006 - May 2008)
Prime Minister Cossiga (July 1989 - April 1992)
Serbia
President of Serbia Boris Tadic (July 2004 - Present)
Prime Minister of Serbia Vojislav Kostunica (March 2004 - Present)
Prime Minister of Serbia Zoran Djindjic (January 2001 - March 2003)
President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic (May 1989 - July 1997)
Yugoslavia
Premier of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito (January 1953 - May 1980)
Croatia
President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman (May 1990 - December 1999)
Slovenia
Prime Minister of Slovenia Janez Drnovsek (December 2002 - Present)
President of Kosovo Ibrahim Rugova (March 2002 - January 2006)
President of Slovenia Milan Kucan (October 1991 - December 2002)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
President of Bosnia Haris Silajdzic (November 2006 - Present)
President of Bosnia Sulejman Tihić (October 2002 - November 2006)
President of Bosnia Alija Izetbegovic (March 1992 - October 2000)
Kosovo (as an independent nation)
President Fatmir Sejdiu (January 2008 - Present)
Prime Minister Hashim Thaci (January 2008 - Present)
Poland
President Lech Walesa (December 1990 - December 1995)
Prime Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz (October 1993 - March 1995)
Czech Republic
President Vaclav Havel (February 1993 - February 2003)
Hungary
Prime Minister Gyula Horn (July 1994 - July 1998)
President Arpad Goncz (August 1990 - August 2000)
Prime Minister Viktor Orban (July 1998 - May 2002)
Finland
Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen (April 1995 - April 2003)
Romania
President Ion Iliescu (December 1989 - November 1996)
Georgia
President Mikheil Saakashvili (January 2004 - Present)
President Eduard Shevardnadze (October 1995 - November 2003)
Kazakhstan
President Nursultan Nazarbayev (December 1991 - Present)
Ukraine
President Viktor Yushchenko (January 2005 - Present)
Canada
Prime Minister Paul Martin (December 2003 - February 2006)
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (September 1984 - June 1993)
NATO
Secretary General Lord George Robertson (October 1999 - January 2004)
Secretary General Javier Solana (December 1995 - October 1999)
Secretary General Manfred Woerner (July 1988 - August 1994)
Secretary General Lord Peter Carrington (June 1984 - July 1988)
China
President Jiang Zemin (March 1993 - March 2003)
Premier Zhu Rongji (March 1998 - March 2003)
Hong Kong
Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa (July 1997 - March 2005)
Taiwan
President Chen Shui-Bian (May 2000 - Present)
Korea
President Kim Dae Jung (February 1998 - February 2003)
Singapore
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (June 1959 - November 1990)
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (November 1990 - August 2004)
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (August 2004 - Present)
Indonesia
President Megawati Sukarnoputri (July 2001 - October 2004)
President Bambang Yudhoyono (October 2004 - Present)
Australia
Prime Minister John Howard (March 1996 - December 2007)
Prime Minister Paul Keating (December 1991 - March 1996)
Philippines
President Gloria Arroyo (January 2001 - Present)
President Fidel Ramos (June 1992 - June 1998)
Vietnam
Prime Minister Phan Van Kai (September 1997 - June 2006)
East Timor
President Ramos Horta (May 2007 - Present)
Tibet
The Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (1950 - Present)
Colombia
President Alvaro Uribe (August 2002 - Present)
President Andres Pastrana (August 1998 - August 2002)
President Cesar Gaviria (August 1990 - August 1994)
Mexico
President Vincente Fox (December 2000 - December 2006)
President Ernesto Zedillo (December 1994 - November 2000)
Bolivia
President Jaime Paz Zamora (August 1989 - August 1993)
South Africa
President Thabo Mbeki (June 1999 - September 2008)
President Nelson Mandela (April 1994 - June 1999)
Liberia
President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf (January 2006 - Present)
Lesotho
Prime Minister Leabua Jonathan (July 1965 - January 1986)
United Nations
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (January 2007 - Present)
Secretary General Kofi Annan (January 1997 - January 2007)
Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali (January 1992 - January 1997)
Vatican City
Pope John Paul II (October 1978 - April 2005)
Slovakia
President Rudolf Schuster (June 1999 - June 2004)
Turkmenistan
President Saparmurat Niyazov (October 1990 - December 2006)
*Senator Biden met with leader before he or she became head of state.
And who has Palin met with? The mayor of Mooseknuckle, Alaska?
"NEW YORK: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska met her first foreign heads of state as she crisscrossed New York City receiving foreign policy tutorials in advance of her vice presidential debate next week with Senator Joseph Biden Jr., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Palin - who scheduled a series of meetings Tuesday with world leaders who were in town for the UN General Assembly - sat down first with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who told her of the need for more troops in his country and bonded with her over his baby son. Then she was whisked up to the Colombian Mission to talk free trade and renewable energy with President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia.
She capped off her day meeting with the éminence grise of Republican foreign policy, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who spoke with her about Georgia, Russia and NATO."
And is carefully being "shielded" from the media. Wonderful.
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 25, 2008, 01:39:49 PM
And is carefully being "shielded" from the media. Wonderful.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/palin-takes-questions-from-press-corps-for-first-time/
Pretty lightweight stuff, imo.
:roll:
Snowball's chance in hell.
Yup. Four questions. Like I said, I have been pretty open to hearing both sides of this, and waiting for responses from those backing McCain, but at this point I'm done. Their entire campaign is a joke. (<- edited version of what I had initially typed) And as much as she did her job in stirring up and exciting the Republican Party, they also set her up for failure. Too bad, better luck next time.
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 25, 2008, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 25, 2008, 01:39:49 PM
And is carefully being "shielded" from the media. Wonderful.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/palin-takes-questions-from-press-corps-for-first-time/
Pretty lightweight stuff, imo.
please excuse my jaw breaking yawn.
Quote from: Sophist on September 25, 2008, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 25, 2008, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 25, 2008, 01:39:49 PM
And is carefully being "shielded" from the media. Wonderful.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/25/palin-takes-questions-from-press-corps-for-first-time/
Pretty lightweight stuff, imo.
please excuse my jaw breaking yawn.
Sounds painful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html
Quote
McCain Leaps Into a Thicket
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: September 25, 2008
Senator John McCain had intended to ride back into Washington on Thursday as a leader who had put aside presidential politics to help broker a solution to the financial crisis. Instead he found himself in the midst of a remarkable partisan showdown, lacking a clear public message for how to bring it to an end.
At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.
In subsequent television interviews, Mr. McCain suggested that he saw the bipartisan plan that came apart at the White House meeting as the proper basis for an eventual agreement, but he did not tip his hand as to whether he would give any support to the alternative put on the table by angry House Republicans, with whom he had met before going to the White House.
He said he was hopeful that a deal could be struck quickly and that he could then show up for his scheduled debate on Friday night against his Democratic rival in the presidential race, Senator Barack Obama. But there was no evidence that he was playing a major role in the frantic efforts on Capitol Hill to put a deal back together again.
On the second floor of the Capitol on Thursday night, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain's closest confidants, complained to a throng of reporters that Democrats were using Mr. McCain as a scapegoat for the failure of the rescue package. But Mr. Graham was met with a barrage of questions on why Mr. McCain never explicitly said he favored the bailout proposal.
The situation was evolving so rapidly that it was all but impossible to judge the political implications; with the government under intense pressure to avoid another breach in confidence in the global financial markets, it was possible that a deal could be struck without further reshaping the campaign and that Mr. McCain could still be able to claim a role in a positive outcome.
Still, as a matter of political appearances, the day's events succeeded most of all in raising questions about precisely why Mr. McCain had called for postponing the first debate and returned to Washington to focus on the bailout plan, and what his own views were about what should be done. Those political appearances are a key consideration for Mr. McCain less than six weeks from Election Day and at a time when some polls suggest he is losing ground against Mr. Obama, especially on handling the economy.
The substance of the financial crisis aside, it was already proving a tough stretch for Mr. McCain. Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his running mate, struggled through questions about her foreign policy credentials during an interview with CBS News. Mr. McCain was lampooned on television by David Letterman.
Mr. Obama might not have fared much better. He had come to Washington only reluctantly, opening himself to criticism by Republicans that he was putting his election bid ahead of the need to resolve the Wall Street crisis, and prompting concern among Democrats that his reaction to the events was simply too measured, considering the stakes.
Still, by nightfall, the day provided the younger and less experienced Mr. Obama an opportunity to, in effect, shift roles with Mr. McCain. For a moment, at least, it was Mr. Obama presenting himself as the old hand at consensus building, and as the real face of bipartisan politics.
"What I've found, and I think it was confirmed today, is that when you inject presidential politics into delicate negotiations, it's not necessarily as helpful as it needs to be," Mr. Obama told reporters Thursday evening. "Just because there is a lot of glare of the spotlight, there's the potential for posturing or suspicions."
"When you're not worrying about who's getting credit, or who's getting blamed, then things tend to move forward a little more constructively," he said.
At the very least, Mr. McCain's actions have shaken up the campaign and the negotiations over the bailout package. It has put him at center stage, permitted him to present himself as putting his country ahead of his campaign — a recurring theme of his candidacy — and put him on deck to, if not help orchestrate a deal, at least be associated with one.
But Mr. McCain is certainly seeing the risks of making such a direct intervention. He now finds himself in the middle of an ideological war that pits conservative Republicans, loath to spending so much taxpayer money on Wall Street, against the Bush White House, which, with the support of Democrats and a sizable number of Republicans, sees a bailout package as essential to averting a potential economic disaster.
While there is no doubt a middle ground, at the moment Mr. McCain finds himself between conservatives that he needs to keep on his side for the election, a group that while long wary of him had rallied to his side after his choice of Ms. Palin as his running mate, or being identified with the failure to complete a plan.
Mr. McCain's actions have put into doubt what was shaping up as a critical moment in the campaign: the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday night in Mississippi. In suspending his campaign, Mr. McCain declared that he would not attend the debate unless a deal was worked out. That threat drew considerable criticism on Thursday, from Mr. Obama's camp, as well as newspaper editorial boards. And as the day went on, Mr. McCain dropped a hint that the ultimatum was not as ironclad as he once said it was.
The debate on Friday night would appear to play to Mr. McCain's strengths: Its subject, by the agreement of the two campaigns and the debate commission, is supposed to be national security and foreign affairs. But the debate's moderator, Jim Lehrer, said Thursday that he did not feel constrained to stick to those two topics, considering what has been going on in the country the past two weeks.
"I am not restrained from asking questions about the financial crisis," Mr. Lehrer said in an e-mail message. "Stay tuned!"
One way or another, it could be in Mr. McCain's interest to get this issue behind him. A New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday found new evidence that the deteriorating economic environment was helping Mr. Obama. Voters who said the economy was the key issue for them were far more likely to support Mr. Obama. And 64 percent of voters expressed confidence in Mr. Obama's ability to make the right decision on the economy, compared with 55 percent who said they were confident in Mr. McCain's ability, according to the poll.
In a finding suggesting the difficult terrain Mr. McCain needs to navigate as Congress considers the Wall Street bailout 52 percent of respondents said Mr. McCain care more about protecting the interests of large corporations, compared with 32 percent who said that he cared most about protecting the interests of ordinary people. By contrast, 16 percent of respondents said that Mr. Obama was more concerned with protecting the interests of large corporations, compared with 70 percent said he was more concerned about ordinary people.
The survey found that Mr. Obama was supported by 47 percent of registered voters, compared with 42 percent for Mr. McCain; essentially the same as a Times/CBS News poll found last week, when Mr. Obama had 48 percent compared with 43 percent for Mr. McCain. The poll, of 936 adults, of whom 844 are registered voters, was taken from Sunday through Wednesday.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama both left the tense hourlong session at the White House through side doors, to avoid waiting reporters. Mr. McCain did a round of interviews timed on the network evening news, using the opportunity to say again and again that he understood the severity of the crisis and believed it would be resolved.
"Again, I hate to be so repetitious — I am confident we'll reach an agreement," he told ABC News. "We have to."
Remember being a kid, and hearing on the news it was going to snow the next day...And getting all excited, and not doing your homework, and not studying for your test the next day, and then waking up the next morning and excited to go sledding, and then you looked out the window, and....NOTHING! Awww man, and you realize you have to go to school, and you didn't even study for your test, and you're not prepared. I think that must be what McCain felt like this morning.
If anyone is interested in the candidate's health plans, and editorial views on each:
McCain
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0807607?query=TOC
Obama
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0807677?query=TOC
editorial on McCain
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0806563?query=TOC
editorial on Obama
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0806561?query=TOC
editorial on lobbying and the health care industry
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/13/1313?query=TOC
John McCain on This Week with George Stephanapoulis (sp?) right now.
Obama on Face the Nation in 5 minutes.
Told you guys we should have gone with Kerry.
Every time Kerry has spoken in the past year it's been butta.
Every time Obama opens his mouth and nothing comes out, I want to scream.
If I hear "from wall street to main street" one more time...I'm going to burst.
At this rate Obama's a one termer (at best).
Kerry was a pathetic excuse for a candidate, I can't say I know anyone who was excited to vote for him.
Then when the results for the election were suspect he immediately rolled over.
What a loser.
Quote from: Hicks on September 28, 2008, 08:09:03 PM
Kerry was a pathetic excuse for a candidate, I can't say I know anyone who was excited to vote for him.
Then when the results for the election were suspect he immediately rolled over.
What a loser.
I thought the same thing four years ago...since that point, I've changed my mind.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on September 28, 2008, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: Hicks on September 28, 2008, 08:09:03 PM
Kerry was a pathetic excuse for a candidate, I can't say I know anyone who was excited to vote for him.
Then when the results for the election were suspect he immediately rolled over.
What a loser.
I thought the same thing four years ago...since that point, I've changed my mind.
Changed your mind about what? People were actually excited about him as a candidate and you just didn't realize it? He didn't really roll over when it looked they fixed Ohio and Florida?
It's not a matter of opinion, he got beaten by an unpopular president in the midst of an unpopular war, I'm glad we have a candidate this time around that is inspiring to at least a portion of the Democrat base.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on September 28, 2008, 07:57:03 PM
Told you guys we should have gone with Kerry.
Every time Kerry has spoken in the past year it's been butta.
Every time Obama opens his mouth and nothing comes out, I want to scream.
If I hear "from wall street to main street" one more time...I'm going to burst.
At this rate Obama's a one termer (at best).
:roll:
He is the most mundane human being I've ever seen.
Quote from: Sophist on September 29, 2008, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on September 28, 2008, 07:57:03 PM
Told you guys we should have gone with Kerry.
Every time Kerry has spoken in the past year it's been butta.
Every time Obama opens his mouth and nothing comes out, I want to scream.
If I hear "from wall street to main street" one more time...I'm going to burst.
At this rate Obama's a one termer (at best).
:roll:
He is the most mundane human being I've ever seen.
Kerry? First of all, dems never go with a previous loser. Even though technically, he shouldn't have lost. Whatever.
Secondly, what speechs have you heard him give lately that were 'butta'....clips please.
Thirdly, all four candidates involved in this election right not have LOTS of go to phrases and made for tv news clips and sound bites. you can't fit an entire speech or policy explanation into a short story on the evening news. that's for YOU as the voter to go out and find.
And fourthly, Sophist, come on now, do you really believe that or were you just being sarcastic?
Kerry is as dry as a tall drink of sand.
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Kerry was such an awful candidate. My wife and I kept discussing during the primary that he had no shot of winning because he was a pompous ass that would drive middle America crazy. Most of the country is in no way, shape or form liberal so you need someone who can play to both sides of the aisle. You also need someone that doesn't seem like a Democratic elite telling people how to live or what their morals should be. Kerry acted like an elitist and seemed to want to shove his views down your throat.
Yeah, as if no republican ever tried to force his views on me... :roll:
So we've seen how out of touch Palin is...
McCain's turn:
Quote from: rowjimmy on September 30, 2008, 08:50:38 AM
Yeah, as if no republican ever tried to force his views on me... :roll:
Completely agree. Just saying. I was traveling a lot at the time and all my customers not in the Northeast or California hated Kerry.
John McCain told the Des Moines Register this week that he always tells "100 percent absolute truth," even in campaign ads. There's one big problem with that bold statement: it's just not true.
McCain has made a number of statements — in paid ads and on the campaign trail — that simply cannot be described as 100 percent accurate. Some aren't even close.
Barack Obama is guilty, too. He falsely accused McCain of wanting to slice Social Security benefits in half and grossly exaggerated his role in writing this year's economic stimulus plan. He also promised to accept public financing — and then proceeded to opt out when it was clear he could raise more money on his own.
But only McCain made this dare: Prove it, he told the Register. The paper did not — Politico will.
With the help of the truth-squad crew over at the invaluable Politifact and factcheck.org, as well as other fact-checking websites, here is a list of some of McCain's biggest whoppers:
1. On "The View," McCain claimed Sarah Palin did not take or request earmarks as governor of Alaska. "Not as governor, she didn't," McCain said. But in her first year in office, she requested $256 million in earmarks from the federal government.
2. Shortly after announcing Sarah Palin as his running mate, the McCain campaign ran an ad claiming, "She stopped the bridge to nowhere" — perhaps the most thoroughly debunked claim about the Alaska governor, who supported the bridge project before changing her position late in the game. Asked about the bridge during her 2006 gubernatorial bid, Palin replied: "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress."
3. At the Republican National Convention, McCain claimed Obama's national health insurance plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor." But according to factcheck.org, Obama's plan does not place burdens on small business, and people would have the option of keeping their existing insurance plans.
4. In a campaign ad, "Dome," McCain claimed Obama's election would result in "painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil," the clear implication being that Obama wants to hike these tax rates. But factcheck.org says Obama hasn't proposed a tax on electricity or home heating oil and wouldn't raise taxes on investments for individuals earning less than $200,000 a year.
It's possible Obama's election would result in these tax rates increasing. But this McCain-Palin claim is a little like the Obama camp's misleading attack on McCain's Social Security plan, tagging his opponent with the most undesirable, unintended and far from certain consequences of his policy proposals.
5. McCain has repeatedly accused Obama of supporting higher taxes on people making as little as $42,000 a year. "Two times, on March 14, 2008 and June 4, 2008, in the Democratic budget resolution, he voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000 per year," McCain said this week. But this is a misleading claim: Obama's votes were for nonbinding resolutions, which supported allowing certain Bush administration tax cuts to expire but didn't actually have the effect of raising taxes.
6. In a July visit to Colorado, McCain told voters: "I want to look you in the eye: I will not raise your taxes nor support a tax increase. I will not do it." Last Sunday, however, McCain acknowledged to ABC's George Stephanopoulos that his health care plan could lead to some people paying taxes on employer-provided health insurance.
"It depends on what plan they have," McCain said. "But that's usually the wealthiest people."
7. McCain's campaign claimed adviser Rick Davis had taken a leave of absence from his firm, Davis Manafort, and vigorously attacked a New York Times story suggesting that Davis had profited from Davis Manafort's relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. "Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006," wrote McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, who called the Times story "demonstrably false."
"Mr. Davis has never — never — been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac."
But Davis Manafort was receiving $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac as recently as August, and while the payments didn't go to Davis personally he still stands to gain from the success of his firm.
8. McCain has boasted of never requesting a single earmark, saying in January: "I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork-barrel project for my state." But he has requested federal funding for special projects back home, including $10 million for a center at the University of Arizona, $5 million for a home-state water project and spending authority to purchase land around Arizona's Luke Air Force Base.
Politifact says it's a matter of debate whether these projects constitute pork-barrel spending — but clearly McCain has searched for federal help in his own backyard.
9. In last Friday's debate, McCain accused Obama of "voting to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan." But Obama has consistently voted in favor of war funding bills, including an earlier version of the bill McCain was discussing. The Illinois senator voted against this particular proposal because it did not push the Bush administration toward a timetable for withdrawal. McCain's comment was technically defensible — but rather too sly to be called "absolute truth."
10. In July, McCain accused Obama of skipping his visit to a military hospital in Germany because he was told he couldn't bring reporters and video cameras. McCain ran an ad saying: "Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." But when pressed to provide evidence that Obama had canceled the visit for this reason, McCain's campaign could not support their claim — and media reports found no evidence that Obama had ever planned to bring media with him.
Can we get a link to that article?
Last night JohnStewart of the Daily Show equated Bush right now to a senior in high school in their second semester who got in "Early Decision" :lol: I found it rather amusing and kind of sad at the same time.
Quote from: antelope19 on October 02, 2008, 12:26:11 PM
Last night JohnStewart of the Daily Show equated Bush right now to a senior in high school in their second semester who got in "Early Decision" :lol: I found it rather amusing and kind of sad at the same time.
The press is treating it the same way, instead of calling the financial crises "Bush's final crisis" they were referring to it as "Obama/McCain's first crisis".
Quote from: mattstick on October 02, 2008, 12:28:32 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on October 02, 2008, 12:26:11 PM
Last night JohnStewart of the Daily Show equated Bush right now to a senior in high school in their second semester who got in "Early Decision" :lol: I found it rather amusing and kind of sad at the same time.
The press is treating it the same way, instead of calling the financial crises "Bush's final crisis" they were referring to it as "Obama/McCain's first crisis".
Yup. I actually agree with the press on this one.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0808.thompson.html
How Fast You
Can Read This
Essay Online
How John McCain's techno-monopolism
will hurt the economy
By Nicholas Thompson
John McCain is an AT&T guy; Barack Obama is a Google guy. And that's one of the most important policy differences between the two.
Think of the Internet as working at different layers. There are all the pipes that go into your home, and then there's all the stuff on your screen—from e-mail to eMule. The telecom companies like AT&T control the pipes; the software companies, like Google, create the stuff.
In an ideal world, both these layers would be sites of great innovation and creativity. But in the United States, that isn't so. The software industry may seem like a team of Gandalfs, constantly producing magic. But the average telecom company resembles Jabba the Hut: it moves slowly and slobbers a lot.
The United States created the Internet, but it's the rest of the world that can really use it. People in Japan are twice as likely as Americans to have broadband connections, and their pipes are ten times as fast. Compared to France, U.S. Internet access is twice as expensive and one-fourth as quick. Since 2000, the United States has gone from fifth in the world to twenty-second in broadband penetration. We have become a nation of buffering YouTube videos.
What went wrong? It's not that telecommunications companies are inherently lazy. Such companies innovate, after all, in East Asia. And it's not just that the United States is a big rural country. That explains some of our lag, but not all. Canada and Australia are thumping us too.
The real reason things went wrong is that we haven't regulated our telecom markets properly. And that's where John McCain comes in.
The problem is primarily the lack of competition among Internet providers. In most places, you have, at best, two choices—the local cable company or the local phone company. And these behemoths know that they don't have to worry about new competitors. With the government's help, they spent decades digging up roads and building lines into everyone's home, creating an infrastructure that no start-up can replicate. Now they sit, fat and happy, neglecting customer service and innovating about as much each year as Google does each Tuesday.
John McCain's culpability is both specific and philosophical. For much of the Clinton and Bush administrations, he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee, overseeing the Federal Communications Commission and the telecom industry. Just before taking the post, he voted against the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the one big effort to solve the problem of anemic competition in the telecom sector. When the act nevertheless passed, he
helped to make sure that its main provision for opening the market—mandating that phone companies lease their local lines to competitors—wasn't enforced. Eventually, he, and the people he put on the FCC, helped to roll that law back. France, by contrast, implemented and enforced just the kind of law that McCain opposed. And now the country mocked here for its thirty-five-hour workweek is far more wired than the United States.
As committee chair, McCain also oversaw, and often encouraged, the incredible competition-stifling consolidation in the telecom industry. The country is now served almost entirely by three local phone, four cellular, and four cable companies. In his tenure as chairman, McCain supported nearly every merger. In 1999, he coauthored a bill that would strip the FCC of its ability to veto telecom mergers.
McCain's mistakes derive partly from a lack of technological curiosity (he doesn't use e-mail) and the presence of all sorts of Bell guys around him. His campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, Senate chief of staff, and chief political adviser have all worked as lobbyists for Verizon or AT&T.
But more blame lies with his philosophy. McCain espouses what he calls a deep belief in free markets and in keeping government off the backs of business. That's all well and good, except for when a market—like telecommunications—requires intervention in order to create competition. Unrestricted freedom for the big guy often means death to the little guy.
Given McCain's poor record on the issue, Obama could ignore the topic and still come out ahead. But the forty-seven-year-old, it turns out, is something of a geek. He presented a sweeping technology plan early in the campaign that is full of good ideas. He suggested that the government
create the post of national "chief technical officer." He proposed taking the money that is now used to subsidize rural telephone use, and spending it on subsidizing rural broadband instead. Not only would people and businesses get Internet access; they'd be able to switch to vastly cheaper Internet phones. Not surprisingly, Obama has won over Silicon Valley. According to opensecrets.org, 555 employees of Google have donated to his campaign, compared to just twenty-six for McCain. When the author of McCain's technology plan, Michael Powell, was pressed to name supporters from the tech world, he came up with the name of one person who's actually written code—and then it turned out that guy didn't even support McCain.
Obama also clearly gets that government has an ongoing role to play in making sure markets work—a fact reflected in the debate over net neutrality. The question here is whether the telecom companies can discriminate over the kind of information that flows over their pipes. AT&T, the other telecom companies, and McCain argue that of course they should. They own the pipes, and in a free market they should be free to do whatever they want. Obama's position is: Hold on a minute. Do we really want the phone and cable companies deciding what kind of software people can use? Do we really want Comcast to, say, decide to start monkeying with your ability to access iTunes.com or Vonage?
Obama, in other words, understands that actual market freedom sometimes requires tough love from the feds. McCain still seems to believe in the chimera of naturally existing total freedom—the freedom for his country to fall further and further behind as AT&T and the other telecom leviathans sit back, ignoring your customer service calls and just watching the $90 monthly checks roll in.
Woah... did that article just call out the Gov't Mule listserv?
Probably not, huh?
iirc eMule is a file sharing service/app.
I believe that you are correct.
good article, thanks mattstick..
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 02, 2008, 12:45:14 PM
good article, thanks mattstick..
where's the link to yours?
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 02, 2008, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 02, 2008, 12:45:14 PM
good article, thanks mattstick..
where's the link to yours?
sorry. for some reason i thought i had posted it already. oh well, here you go:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14208.html
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/parents_of_obama_volunteer?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
Parents Of Obama Volunteer Couldn't Be More Proud, Sick Of Son
OAK PARK, IL—Parents of Obama '08 campaign volunteer Mark Lowe said their son's selfless work for the Illinois senator has shown the 22-year-old to be mature, civic-minded, and absolutely unbearable to talk to. "I remember when I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary, and [Mark] spoke for 30 minutes about how Obama is the next Kennedy, the only candidate capable of bringing real change, and how Hillary embodies everything that's wrong with Washington," David Lowe, 58, said. "It's incredible that he's so passionate about our nation's future, and now he really needs to shut the hell up." Lowe, who spends up to 40 hours a week sending e-mails, making phone calls, and engaging complete strangers in drawn-out discussions about Obama's message of hope as he canvasses door-to-door, is expected to cost the Democratic nominee some 15,000 votes.
:-D
Congrats to that kid. I understand the annoying part though. I've created an email list of about 40 people that I send Obama biased information to, and have definitely caused quite a stir. Some people respond well, and get involved in the discussion, others (i.e. republicans) get upset and start name-calling, whining, etc. and tell me to take them off the list (and never to talk to them again!), which I respect. Their minds are made up, I'm just trying to sway those folks that are on the fence, or at the very least, for fellow Obama supporters, give them good talking points, or at least a good laugh everyday (usually at Palin's expense).
I think it's important that we all start talking to friends, neighbors, whoever will listen, about this election. Maybe I'm too young to be pessimistic and cynical about this whole politics things, but I can tell you if Obama/Biden lose this election, I will definitely be pushed that way and become numb to it. But it'll be all good, cause if all goes well in the next few weeks, I'll have a ticket stub in my hand!
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 02, 2008, 05:08:29 PM
Congrats to that kid.
um, that was from The Onion... :roll:
Lol
Never fails to get a serious response from an Onion article.
Watch this map over the next few days.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Currently, they show Obama on track to win Virginia :-o
Also, McCain has pulled out of Michigan.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/02/mccain_gives_up_on_michigan.html
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Back to your old trolling ways I see.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're funny.
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Back to your old trolling ways I see.
That's not a troll at all. That's my true opinion. It's a lot easier to dismiss an opinion you disagree with as a "troll" than to actually address the opinion as reasonable and valid.
The current political situation is nauseating (to say the least).
I thought that Obama was very inspiring when he announced his candidacy. Like the value of the stock market, my opinion of him has fizzled as time goes on.
I'm very frustrated with a lot of the prevailing attitudes in our country, just like Obama purports to... what I have found during the political season is that people do not really want to change their attitudes, they just want to act like they do.
Obama's candidacy represents that to me. He says he is for change, and yet he does not have any desire to actually inact a change. Likewise, his supporters purport the same types of behaviors. His supporters (I've found) are as close minded as Bush's supporters were.
The prevailing attitude to me seems to be "you're either with us or you are against us". Obama's supporters are not immune to this lack of insight.
For some reason this inherent hypocrisy in the Obama camp seems lost on a lot of his supporters. His rhetoric is not even really that fancy.
Obama's pick of Joe Biden (someone I have an infinite amount of respect for...) was a calculated effort to attract voters like me. That's the way I've seen a lot of Obama's moves...clearly calculated. Obama's campaign has had the opposite effect on me from that which I thought it would, instead of solidifying my support for the Democratic party, he's caused me to become an independent. The ignorance portrayed by him through his lack of true leadership, the mindlessness displayed by his constituency and the ignorance encouraged by the "us or them" mentality of his pseudo-unifying campaign have caused me to become an independent.
While I do not support a McCain/Palin ticket, this is (for me) clearly a "lesser of two evils" situation. Obama is the lesser of the two evils for me, but he's clearly not much better than Bush.
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Back to your old trolling ways I see.
That's not a troll at all. That's my true opinion. It's a lot easier to dismiss an opinion you disagree with as a "troll" than to actually address the opinion as reasonable and valid.
The current political situation is nauseating (to say the least).
I thought that Obama was very inspiring when he announced his candidacy. Like the value of the stock market, my opinion of him has fizzled as time goes on.
I'm very frustrated with a lot of the prevailing attitudes in our country, just like Obama purports to... what I have found during the political season is that people do not really want to change their attitudes, they just want to act like they do.
Obama's candidacy represents that to me. He says he is for change, and yet he does not have any desire to actually inact a change. Likewise, his supporters purport the same types of behaviors. His supporters (I've found) are as close minded as Bush's supporters were.
The prevailing attitude to me seems to be "you're either with us or you are against us". Obama's supporters are not immune to this lack of insight.
For some reason this inherent hypocrisy in the Obama camp seems lost on a lot of his supporters. His rhetoric is not even really that fancy.
Obama's pick of Joe Biden (someone I have an infinite amount of respect for...) was a calculated effort to attract voters like me. That's the way I've seen a lot of Obama's moves...clearly calculated. Obama's campaign has had the opposite effect on me from that which I thought it would, instead of solidifying my support for the Democratic party, he's caused me to become an independent. The ignorance portrayed by him through his lack of true leadership, the mindlessness displayed by his constituency and the ignorance encouraged by the "us or them" mentality of his pseudo-unifying campaign have caused me to become an independent.
While I do not support a McCain/Palin ticket, this is (for me) clearly a "lesser of two evils" situation. Obama is the lesser of the two evils for me, but he's clearly not much better than Bush.
that's a lot words you've used to say little at all.
he does not have any desire to enact change? and you've intuited this how? you're saying he's lying about what he wants to accomplish. on what do you base this?
can you point to supporters of ANY political candidate EVER who do not think their candidate is the best? isn't that what being a supporter is? what do you expect people to say? "gee, i like obama, but mccain's pretty great too, and that palin, i have to admit, what a clever gal! i guess really it doesn't matter whether it's another four years of republican leadership, which gosh, hasn't been the best, but gee, maybe a dem in office would be exactly the same, only, you know, i think it's time to give the other guys a try is all, so heck, that's why i support obama." you can't be serious.
and when you say obama is the same as bush, how on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously? i hate to break this to you-- and i'll add here that i belong to no political party-- bush is an idiot. he's not 'a regular guy,' he doesn't simply talk a little simple, he's actually a very stupid man. he is also a war criminal. he is the worst president since-- since i don't know, maybe some guy in the 1800s i don't know much about.
if nothing else, we know obama is smart. wouldn't it be nice to have a smart president again?
as for the VP pick, you respect biden, but because obama picked him, it's therefore a calculated move and you don't approve. interesting, uhh, logic, i guess we'll call that. i hate to break the news, but if don't calculate what you're doing in a presidential campaign, you lose. i think i would rather have the calculation in picking a VP be "i'm going to pick the smart, experienced, talented person who will truly add to my administration," as opposed to, "i'm going to pick the pretty religious zealot so the religious zealots which now make up the backbone of what was once the conservative party will stop hating me."
both candidates are a part of the machine. they have to be, unfortunately. but to look at these people and say obama is the same as bush and barely better than mccain is to prove yourself blind.
Quote from: cactusfan on October 03, 2008, 08:04:01 PM
but if don't calculate what you're doing in a presidential campaign,
(http://www.gov.state.ak.us/photos/Gov-Palin-2006_Official.jpg)
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
While I do not support a McCain/Palin ticket, this is (for me) clearly a "lesser of two evils" situation. Obama is the lesser of the two evils for me, but he's clearly not much better than Bush.
don't you think it's a bit early to make that determination?
just remember what Rock Ridge did when their new Sheriff came into town... they loved him later!
The Sheriff is Near?
NO! The Sheriff is a...
(http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/blazing-saddles-555.jpg)
wow, can't believe i had this image and forgot to use it
(http://week4paug.net/tet/demnomnear.gif)
lmao at the last two posts. :lol: :-D
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Back to your old trolling ways I see.
That's not a troll at all. That's my true opinion. It's a lot easier to dismiss an opinion you disagree with as a "troll" than to actually address the opinion as reasonable and valid.
The current political situation is nauseating (to say the least).
I thought that Obama was very inspiring when he announced his candidacy. Like the value of the stock market, my opinion of him has fizzled as time goes on.
I'm very frustrated with a lot of the prevailing attitudes in our country, just like Obama purports to... what I have found during the political season is that people do not really want to change their attitudes, they just want to act like they do.
Obama's candidacy represents that to me. He says he is for change, and yet he does not have any desire to actually inact a change. Likewise, his supporters purport the same types of behaviors. His supporters (I've found) are as close minded as Bush's supporters were.
The prevailing attitude to me seems to be "you're either with us or you are against us". Obama's supporters are not immune to this lack of insight.
For some reason this inherent hypocrisy in the Obama camp seems lost on a lot of his supporters. His rhetoric is not even really that fancy.
Obama's pick of Joe Biden (someone I have an infinite amount of respect for...) was a calculated effort to attract voters like me. That's the way I've seen a lot of Obama's moves...clearly calculated. Obama's campaign has had the opposite effect on me from that which I thought it would, instead of solidifying my support for the Democratic party, he's caused me to become an independent. The ignorance portrayed by him through his lack of true leadership, the mindlessness displayed by his constituency and the ignorance encouraged by the "us or them" mentality of his pseudo-unifying campaign have caused me to become an independent.
While I do not support a McCain/Palin ticket, this is (for me) clearly a "lesser of two evils" situation. Obama is the lesser of the two evils for me, but he's clearly not much better than Bush.
If that's really how you feel you should vote Nader and enjoy your conservative Supreme Court.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 03, 2008, 09:28:45 PM
The Sheriff is Near?
NO! The Sheriff is a...
(http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazing_saddles/blazing-saddles-555.jpg)
why do i always get the broken one?
Among Letterman's top 10 "Messages Left on Sarah Palin's Answering Machine": "It's John McCain. I had to go to bed. How'd it go?" and "It's President Bush. If you're at the debate, who's watching Russia?"
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: Hicks on October 03, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on October 03, 2008, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on September 29, 2008, 11:28:44 PM
oh wait, sorry sophist, now i see. you were referring to kerry. oh yeah. agreed.
funny according to the republicans we can't win ever, kerry too dry and boring, obama too hopeful and inspiring?
Obama's not very inspiring. Obama= a more eloquent bush.
Back to your old trolling ways I see.
That's not a troll at all. That's my true opinion. It's a lot easier to dismiss an opinion you disagree with as a "troll" than to actually address the opinion as reasonable and valid.
The current political situation is nauseating (to say the least).
I thought that Obama was very inspiring when he announced his candidacy. Like the value of the stock market, my opinion of him has fizzled as time goes on.
I'm very frustrated with a lot of the prevailing attitudes in our country, just like Obama purports to... what I have found during the political season is that people do not really want to change their attitudes, they just want to act like they do.
Obama's candidacy represents that to me. He says he is for change, and yet he does not have any desire to actually inact a change. Likewise, his supporters purport the same types of behaviors. His supporters (I've found) are as close minded as Bush's supporters were.
The prevailing attitude to me seems to be "you're either with us or you are against us". Obama's supporters are not immune to this lack of insight.
For some reason this inherent hypocrisy in the Obama camp seems lost on a lot of his supporters. His rhetoric is not even really that fancy.
Obama's pick of Joe Biden (someone I have an infinite amount of respect for...) was a calculated effort to attract voters like me. That's the way I've seen a lot of Obama's moves...clearly calculated. Obama's campaign has had the opposite effect on me from that which I thought it would, instead of solidifying my support for the Democratic party, he's caused me to become an independent. The ignorance portrayed by him through his lack of true leadership, the mindlessness displayed by his constituency and the ignorance encouraged by the "us or them" mentality of his pseudo-unifying campaign have caused me to become an independent.
While I do not support a McCain/Palin ticket, this is (for me) clearly a "lesser of two evils" situation. Obama is the lesser of the two evils for me, but he's clearly not much better than Bush.
WOW. I have so much to say to this but not enough time right now.
To start with, who's close minded? I've been saying for weeks, someone please open my eyes to why I should vote for McCain/Palin. I haven't had anyone step up to the plate except bvaz, so please. Get serious.
Secondly, us against them? Do you understand how republicans play to the polarizing of the nation, and use fear to divide? Do you have any understanding, that that is their strategy, to further polarize the nation, because they know their side will come out in huge numbers to vote. If you are trying to be open and bipartisan, a lot of folks standing in the middle will lean the other way, which scares the shit out of them!
Third, if you equate Obama to a lesser Bush, what do you consider McCain, his fraternal twin?
Fourth, Lack of true leadership? What does having 100K people show up to a speech in a country you are not even running for office in 4 thousand miles away mean to you?
Mindlessness displayed by his constituency? Who's mindless, those following his critical thinking, or those following the dude that picked a corrupt governor hockey mom? which reminds me, calculating? get the f out of here? what was palin, a solid choice based on knowledge?
Seriously, I could go on and on, but I don't even have the time right now, but don't worry, I will continue this diatribe. You can trust that. In the meantime, if you're so worried about rhetoric, take some time and actually read some plans and policies, when you find faults in them, or things you disagree with or would like to further discuss, I'd be much obliged. Please visit http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Faux I'm not gonna jump in to fight you on your points, but I'd like to point out specific examples of Obama's strongest supporters, getting angry with him and utterly disagreeing with his ideas:
A few months ago the FISA Bill was up for a vote. Obviously many members of the left were against this bill, but Obama voted for it. There was outrage in the progressive community, Markos (of www.dailykos.com) even stopped posting on his own website because he was so outraged, yet didn't want to impact other people's opinions of Obama.
This is not as lockstep of a coalition as you perceive in my opinion. I'm not sure who gave you this impression, and I'm 100% certain that for many people Obama can do nothing wrong and will argue against any logical criticism. However, this is no different than for any other political candidate. I think Obama is an incredible candidate, heck I'll probably be working the phones and possibly heading up to NH to canvass for him next weekend. But do I acknowledge his flaws? Of course, and I'm not afraid to say them. I totally disagree with his position against gay marriage (whether or not that's what he really believes is questionable), and am appalled at his vote in the Chicago State Senate against granting rights to 'born-alive' survivors of abortion. However- I still think he will be an incredible president, a true unifier and a sign of a new era in politics...or maybe I'm just overly optimistic.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Notice Virginia is now showing a lead for Obama at 51% vs McCain @ 45%
That's Obama's to lose still but it's promising.
Also, Democrat Mark Warner is in good position to win Repulbican, John Warner's vacant senate seat.
Sweet.
Oh, and Look at Florida, too.
I tend to think this map is the most accurate, but it is looking promising.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
RCP = pro-GOP polling station as of late.
electoral-vote.com is far more unbiased i find, and a lot more accurate
Quote from: tet on October 07, 2008, 01:52:25 PM
RCP = pro-GOP polling station as of late.
electoral-vote.com is far more unbiased i find, and a lot more accurate
not at all. The linked articles lean right, but the polling is unbiased.
Quote from: tet on October 07, 2008, 01:52:25 PM
RCP = pro-GOP polling station as of late.
electoral-vote.com is far more unbiased i find, and a lot more accurate
I don't know about you but I've been burned too many times, so I look at the most conservative map to avoid getting my hopes up prematurely.
I like the RCP map better because they leave states as toss ups when the candidates are separated by the margin of error or less.
suit yourselves, but they are clearly biased.
take a gander at this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html
Tonight's debate is going to be ugly. They are both going to be in full-on attack mode. I am very curious to see how each candidate handles it.
Quote from: antelope19 on October 07, 2008, 03:06:49 PM
Tonight's debate is going to be ugly. They are both going to be in full-on attack mode. I am very curious to see how each candidate handles it.
If McCain tries to attack Obama's character or his integrity in front of a Town Hall full of people concerned about the economy his campaign is dunzo.
Quote from: tet on October 07, 2008, 02:53:44 PM
suit yourselves, but they are clearly biased.
take a gander at this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/real-credibility-problems.html
in fairness, the follow-up article goes on to apologize for the personal attacks on the site and the people running it, but still calls into question their objectivity in selecting which polls to include (and which to exclude). he stresses the need for a FAQ which would adequately explain the selection process, but there is none and he cannot get a clear answer from the owner of the site.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/rcp-follow-up.html
(http://i35.tinypic.com/2n1cb4n.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3215/2899171384_8da604ea91.jpg)
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01XY1SD5l92nG/610x.jpg)
(http://yeswecanholdbabies.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/baby-surprised.jpg)
John McCain, How Low Can You Go?
hope you all are playing the debate drinking game. just one thing alone will get you wasted.....my friend, my friend....anytime mccain says it, social!!!!!! ha ha ha, what a f-ing clown.
You've gotta drink on "fundamental"
I'm not going to attempt the game tonight.
Too much work-week left ahead of me.
ha ha ha, ok, we're adding fundamental to the list....my friends...he just did it again!!!!!!!
so it took me like an hour to read this (distractions, not slow reading pace) but it obviously sheds a very negative light on McCain, one that contrasts his campaign and public personae.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
Quote from: mattstick on October 08, 2008, 11:19:25 AM
so it took me like an hour to read this (distractions, not slow reading pace) but it obviously sheds a very negative light on McCain, one that contrasts his campaign and public personae.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
haven't read it yet but, I love how the "posted" date is 8 days in the future.
I like the biscuits, and I like what brownie has done with headcount, but man, these kids just make me shake my head....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5985719&page=1
John Stossel is an asshole.
Quote from: Hicks on October 11, 2008, 12:44:19 PM
John Stossel is an asshole.
Tell us how you really feel. :-D
Finding attendees at a Disco Biscuits concert who are less than worldly and informed seems a bit like an amateur magic trick.
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0146l.jpg)
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 11, 2008, 11:57:35 AM
I like the biscuits, and I like what brownie has done with headcount, but man, these kids just make me shake my head....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5985719&page=1
Quote"Is it elitist to say only some people should do brain surgery?" Caplan said. "The bottom line is, if you don't know what you're doing, you are not doing the country a favor by voting."
Straw man Argument in its finest form.
Quote from: Sophist on October 13, 2008, 08:19:39 AM
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 11, 2008, 11:57:35 AM
I like the biscuits, and I like what brownie has done with headcount, but man, these kids just make me shake my head....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5985719&page=1
Quote"Is it elitist to say only some people should do brain surgery?" Caplan said. "The bottom line is, if you don't know what you're doing, you are not doing the country a favor by voting."
Straw man Argument in its finest form.
I don't know about this argument. Because at what level do you say someone is knowledgeable enough to vote? Do you think you should have to pass a test? Maybe be better informed on the issues of the current election? I mean there are plenty of people that are going to go out there and vote based on some ridiculously silly reasons, like they don't like someones name.
Which brings me to my next point. I am completely terrified about this Obama/Biden ticket. Seriously, you change one letter in Obama's name and you get Osama, his middle name is Hussein, and if you drop the n, l, a in Bin Laden, you get Biden. We are seriously screwed if these guys get elected. I've changed my vote to McCain/Palin, mavericks at their finest.
(i'm joking of course, my point being people are morons)
That was my point. A straw man argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) is an informal logical fallacy. Its a bad argument by the author of the article. He's reaching to make his point, and failing to really tackle the issue of voter accountability. Further, you go to medical school to perform operations, no training or schooling is required for voting. To assimilate the two actions is absurd.
http://www.headcount.org/blog/?p=62 (http://www.headcount.org/blog/?p=62)
On Friday at 10pm, 20/20 will run a piece on the youth vote called "Maybe It's Your Civic Duty Not To Vote," in which they suggest that uninformed voters - primarily young people - not turn out to the polls. In talking to the youth group,HeadCount, featured in the piece, it is clear that 20/20 and Stossel were less interested in discovering the truth about young voters while filming their piece than in crafting a hatchet job meant to cast doubt on the growing youth vote.
You can view the 4 minute segment here.
There is a lot that is wrong with this piece. Yes, there are many uninformed voters, but that category is not limited to young people, who are unfortunately the main target of this piece. Anyone who has ever watched Jay Leno could tell you that many Americans are uninformed about current events. Unfortunately, some see that as an excuse to rob people of their constitutional rights, and Stossel and ABC are happy to play along.
But all is not as it appears in this report. In talking with HeadCount, the group featured in the piece, it's clear that Stossel and 20/20 were not interested in giving the young people they interviewed a fair shake. They had a narrative to their story and stuck by it - facts be damned. More than that, they worked -um, creatively - to make sure their point of view dominated the piece. Here's a list of inaccuracies and selective editing that viewers won't see:
At 1 minute into the piece, Stossel interviews two voters who can accurately answer questions about American civics, after which, far more concert-goers and "regular folks" are shown who are unable to answer similar questions. According to HeadCount, this is not an accurate representation of the percentage of interviewees who successfully answered the questions. Far more concert-goers were knowledgeable than implied by the report.
At minute 1:20, the report shows a girl saying that there are only 12 Senators in the US. The only problem? She wasn't responding to a question about the number of US Senators, but about the number of Supreme Court Justices. Yes, she was still incorrect, but Stossel and 20/20 manipulated the footage to make her appear even less knowledgeable than she actually was.
Staffers at HeadCount say that this is often the case with the featured interviewees, who were asked not a single question, as the report implies, but many. Many interviewees were knowledgeable about some issues, but less so when it came to other issues. The young voter responses included in the report were cherry-picked by Stossel and ABC producers to highlight only the incorrect answers.
At 1:42, Stossel asks Marc Brownstein if voters should be "knowledgeable" (whatever that means) before casting a ballot. Brownstein replies that "there are a lot of of uneducated voters out there." But that wasn't all he said. In the full interview, Brownstein went on to explain that HeadCount distributes nonpartisan issue sheets at the tables alongside the voter registration materials the organization offers each night. That educational effort was completely left out of Stossel's report.
Also cut out of the full report were interviews with very knowledgeable young HeadCount staffers, teachers, and youth activists - generally the most informed portion of the pool of interviewees.
HeadCount staffers who followed the camera crew throughout the day offered interesting coda to those interviews. During the filming, Andrew Sullivan, a Harvard graduate and producer of the piece, mistakenly tried to correct one young concert goer who was asked about the length of single term for a congressional representative. The young concert-goer, correctly, said two years. Sullivan, incorrectly, tried to tell them it was four. I guess Sullivan won't be voting this year?
All of this is par for the course for John Stossel, who has often had a rocky relationship with the truth. Here are just a few examples pulled from his Wikipedia page:
Controversies
[edit] Galbraith and Stossel
Liberal economist James K. Galbraith said that Stossel, in a story on laissez-faire economics in September 1999, used an out of context clip of Galbraith to make it seem that Galbraith had said nearly the opposite of what he meant. Stossel denied that Galbraith's views had been misrepresented but changed the words with which he introduced the Galbraith clip in rebroadcasts of the program.[27][28][29]
[edit] Organic Vegetables
A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on 20/20 included statements by Stossel that tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria. The Environmental Working Group objected to his report, mainly questioning his statements about bacteria, but also managed to determine that the produce had never been tested for pesticides. They communicated this to Stossel, but after the story's producer backed Stossel's recollection that the test results had been as described, the story was rebroadcast months later, uncorrected, and with a postscript in which Stossel reiterated his claim. Later, after a report in The New York Times confirmed the Environmental Working Group's claims, ABC News suspended the producer of the segment for a month and reprimanded Stossel. Stossel apologized, saying that he had thought the tests had been conducted as reported. However, he asserted that the gist of his report had been accurate.[30][31][32][33][34]
[edit] Televangelist Lifestyle
In a March 2007 segment about finances and lifestyles of televangelists, 20/20 aired a clip of a TV minister originally broadcast by the Lifetime Network in 1997. The clip made it seem that the minister was describing his wealth in extravagant terms, when actually, he was telling a parable about a rich man. ABC News twice aired a retraction and apologized for the error. The minister filed a lawsuit against Stossel, his source for the clip, 20/20, and ABC for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.[35][36]
Stossel, who is a self-proclaimed libertarian (a position that obviously does not extend to the freedom to vote for one's leaders), and frequent contributor to the conservative website Townhall.com, closes out the piece by highlighting the work of fellow libertarian Byan Caplan, an econ professor who made his bones espousing an elitist view of democracy in which only a select few should cast their ballots:
"Maybe 75 percent of people can name the vice president. ... The public's knowledge of politics is shockingly low," economist Bryan Caplan said.
In his book "The Myth of the Rational Voter," Caplan argues that people who know little about our government ought to stay home on Election Day.
But aren't Americans always told it's their civic duty to vote?
"This is very much like saying, 'It's our civic duty to give surgery advice,'" Caplan said. "Now, we like to think that political issues are much less complicated than brain surgery, but many of them are pretty hard. If someone doesn't know what he's talking about, it really is better if they say, 'Look, I'm just gonna leave this in wiser hands.'"
But isn't it elitist to say only some people should vote?
"Is it elitist to say only some people should do brain surgery?" Caplan said. "The bottom line is, if you don't know what you're doing, you are not doing the country a favor by voting."
Voting is serious business. Democracy works best when people educate themselves. So maybe instead of telling people things like "Rock the Vote," these groups should say "Rock or Vote."
All Americans - young and old - may not be experts on the every issue, but they are experts on their own lives. They know that they're not getting enough help. That tuition is too high and grants are too low. That they need to drive to work, and heat their house or apartment, but energy prices are too high. That they are one broken leg away from bankruptcy and that getting a loan to buy a house just became that much more unattainable. And let's face it, it's not as if the experts have that great a track record when it comes to the issues of the day, whether we're talking about the subprime housing market, the war in Iraq, or ending our addiction to fossil fuels.
Democracy is for all of us, not just a select few. As a nation, we eliminated the idea of literacy tests decades ago, and rightly so. Kudos to HeadCount for pushing back on this argument to the extent that was possible within the piece, and shame on Stossel and ABC for enabling it. Young voters have faced a hostile media for decades, always pining about youth apathy. Now, on the cusp of a record breaking turnout, for a major media outlet to question the validity of those votes on such flimsy grounds, in opposition our constitutional rights, is the height of irresponsibility. Dare I say it, it's unamerican.
If you would like to express your displeasure about this piece to ABC, send a polite but firm email to the producer, Andrew Sullivan, outlining your concerns: Andrew.G.Sullivan [at] abc [dot] com
nice. i like that blog entry quite a bit. thanks for finding and posting it.
a nice perspective on McCain, the psuedo maverick:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
and a nice summary from one reader:
QuoteA fascinating article for me, for many reasons. Firstly, it is astounding how family connections have given us some of the most unqualified politicians of our time--George W. being on my mind. It's fairly clear that McCain would be nothing without it. Secondly, I find the whole article to be rather dis-illusioning--and I say that in the best sense of the word, as in, removing illusions. It's not just McCain, but we have a whole government owned by lobbyists and run by political families who are willing to do their bidding. Finally, I'm glad that the Rolling Stone had the balls to say what nobody will say about McCain's POW experience: He became a POW because he was a bad pilot, not because he was a hero. And surviving the experience does not make him a hero. He was certainly no exceptional POW, and he didn't seem to learn anything useful from it.
My personal observation: McCain has ran his campaign similar to how he has conducted his life: erratically, and in a self-interested, misleading manner. Selecting Palin after having met her--ONCE? Switching strategy weekly! Our country deserves better. I feel like he would run the country just like he has run his campaign. God help us if he's elected.
I believe I posted that earlier. Great read.
Heard a good line from Biden today...
"it's hard to be a Maverick when you've been a wing man for so long"
Obama's Economic Speech, the complete text:
We meet at a moment of great uncertainty for America. The economic crisis we face is the worst since the Great Depression. Markets across the globe have become increasingly unstable, and millions of Americans will open up their 401(k) statements this week and see that so much of their hard-earned savings have disappeared.
The credit crisis has left businesses large and small unable to get loans, which means they can't buy new equipment, or hire new workers, or even make payroll for the workers they have. You've got auto plants right here in Ohio that have been around for decades closing their doors and laying off workers who've never known another job in their entire life.
760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Unemployment here in Ohio is up 85% over the last eight years, which is the highest it's been in sixteen years. You've lost one of every four manufacturing jobs, the typical Ohio family has seen their income fall $2,500, and it's getting harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month. At this rate, the question isn't just "are you better off than you were four years ago?", it's "are you better off than you were four weeks ago?"
I know these are difficult times. I know folks are worried. But I also know this - we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. Because we are the United States of America. We are the country that has faced down war and depression; great challenges and great threats. And at each and every moment, we have risen to meet these challenges - not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.
We still have the most talented, most productive workers of any country on Earth. We're still home to innovation and technology, colleges and universities that are the envy of the world. Some of the biggest ideas in history have come from our small businesses and our research facilities. It won't be easy, but there's no reason we can't make this century another American century.
But it will take a new direction. It will take new leadership in Washington. It will take a real change in the policies and politics of the last eight years. And that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America.
My opponent has made his choice. Last week, Senator McCain's campaign announced that they were going to "turn the page" on the discussion about our economy so they can spend the final weeks of this election attacking me instead. His campaign actually said, and I quote, "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." Well Senator McCain may be worried about losing an election, but I'm worried about Americans who are losing their jobs, and their homes, and their life savings. They can't afford four more years of the economic theory that says we should give more and more to millionaires and billionaires and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. We've seen where that's led us and we're not going back. It's time to turn the page.
Over the course of this campaign, I've laid out a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. I'll reform our tax code so that 95% of workers and their families get a tax cut, and eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000. I'll bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses by investing in preventative care, new technology, and giving every American the chance to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves. We'll ensure every child can compete in the global economy by recruiting an army of new teachers and making college affordable for anyone who wants to go. We'll create five million new, high-wage jobs by investing in the renewable sources of energy that will eliminate the oil we currently import from the Middle East in ten years, and we'll create two million jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, schools, and bridges.
But that's a long-term strategy for growth. Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency that requires urgent action. We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now - who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills. We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class and we need to do it now. Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners. It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S.
We've already lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year, and some experts say that unemployment may rise to 8% by the end of next year. We can't wait until then to start creating new jobs. That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years.
To fuel the real engine of job creation in this country, I've also proposed eliminating all capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses and start-up companies, and I've proposed an additional tax incentive through next year to encourage new small business investment. It is time to protect the jobs we have and to create the jobs of tomorrow by unlocking the drive, and ingenuity, and innovation of the American people. And we should fast track the loan guarantees we passed for our auto industry and provide more as needed so that they can build the energy-efficient cars America needs to end our dependence on foreign oil.
We will also save one million jobs by creating a Jobs and Growth Fund that will provide money to states and local communities so that they can move forward with projects to rebuild and repair our roads, our bridges, and our schools. A lot of these projects and these jobs are at risk right now because of budget shortfalls, but this fund will make sure they continue.
The second part of my rescue plan is to provide immediate relief to families who are watching their paycheck shrink and their jobs and life savings disappear. I've already proposed a middle-class tax cut for 95% of workers and their families, but today I'm calling on Congress to pass a plan so that the IRS will mail out the first round of those tax cuts as soon as possible. We should also extend and expand unemployment benefits to those Americans who have lost their jobs and are having a harder time finding new ones in this weak economy. And we should stop making them pay taxes on those unemployment insurance benefits as well.
At a time when the ups and downs of the stock market have rarely been so unpredictable and dramatic, we also need to give families and retirees more flexibility and security when it comes to their retirement savings.
I welcome Senator McCain's proposal to waive the rules that currently force our seniors to withdraw from their 401(k)s even when the market is bad. I think that's a good idea, but I think we need to do even more. Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) - up to a maximum of $10,000 - without any fine or penalty throughout 2009. This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college.
The third part of my rescue plan is to provide relief for homeowners who are watching their home values decline while their property taxes go up. Earlier this year I pushed for legislation that would help homeowners stay in their homes by working to modify their mortgages. When Secretary Paulson proposed his original financial rescue plan it included nothing for homeowners. When Senator McCain was silent on the issue, I insisted that it include protections for homeowners. Now the Treasury must use the authority its been granted and move aggressively to help people avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. We don't need a new law or a new $300 billion giveaway to banks like Senator McCain has proposed, we just need to act quickly and decisively.
I've already proposed a mortgage tax credit for struggling homeowners worth 10% of the interest you pay on your mortgage and we should move quickly to pass it. We should also change the unfair bankruptcy laws that allow judges to write down your mortgage if you own six or seven homes, but not if you have only one. And for all those cities and small towns that are facing a choice between cutting services like health care and education or raising property taxes, we will provide the funding to prevent those tax hikes from happening. We cannot allow homeowners and small towns to suffer because of the mess made by Wall Street and Washington.
For those Americans in danger of losing their homes, today I'm also proposing a three-month moratorium on foreclosures. If you are a bank or lender that is getting money from the rescue plan that passed Congress, and your customers are making a good-faith effort to make their mortgage payments and re-negotiate their mortgages, you will not be able to foreclose on their home for three months. We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet.
Finally, this crisis has taught us that we cannot have a sound economy with a dysfunctional financial system. We passed a financial rescue plan that has the promise to help stabilize the financial system, but only if we act quickly, effectively and aggressively. The Treasury Department must move quickly with their plan to put more money into struggling banks so they have enough to lend, and they should do it in a way that protects taxpayers instead of enriching CEOs. There was a report yesterday that some financial institutions participating in this rescue plan are still trying to avoid restraints on CEO pay. That's not just wrong, it's an outrage to every American whose tax dollars have been put at risk. No major investor would ever make an investment if they didn't think the corporation was being prudent and responsible, and we shouldn't expect taxpayers to think any differently. We should also be prepared to extend broader guarantees if it becomes necessary to stabilize our financial system.
I also believe that Treasury should not limit itself to purchasing mortgage-backed securities - it should help unfreeze markets for individual mortgages, student loans, car loans, and credit card loans.. And I think we need to do even more to make loans available in two very important areas of our economy: small businesses and communities.
On Friday, I proposed Small Business Rescue Plan that would create an emergency lending fund to lend money directly to small businesses that need cash for their payroll or to buy inventory. It's what we did after 9/11, and it allowed us to get low-cost loans out to tens of thousands of small businesses. We'll also make it easier for private lenders to make small business loans by expanding the Small Business Administration's loan guarantee program. By temporarily eliminating fees for borrowers and lenders, we can unlock the credit that small firms need to pay their workers and keep their doors open. And today, I'm also proposing that we maintain the ability of states and local communities that are struggling to maintain basic services without raising taxes to continue to get the credit they need.
Congress should pass this emergency rescue plan as soon as possible. If Washington can move quickly to pass a rescue plan for our financial system, there's no reason we can't move just as quickly to pass a rescue plan for our middle-class that will create jobs, provide relief, and help homeowners. And if Congress does not act in the coming months, it will be one of the first things I do as President of the United States. Because we can't wait any longer to start creating new jobs; to help struggling communities and homeowners, and to provide real and immediate relief to families who are worried not only about this month's bills, but their entire life savings. This plan will help ease those anxieties, and along with the other economic policies I've proposed, it will begin to create new jobs, grow family incomes, and put us back on the path to prosperity.
I won't pretend this will be easy or come without cost. We'll have to set priorities as never before, and stick to them. That means pursuing investments in areas such as energy, education and health care that bear directly on our economic future, while deferring other things we can afford to do without. It means scouring the federal budget, line-by-line, ending programs that we don't need and making the ones we do work more efficiently and cost less.
It also means promoting a new ethic of responsibility. Part of the reason this crisis occurred is that everyone was living beyond their means - from Wall Street to Washington to even some on Main Street. CEOs got greedy. Politicians spent money they didn't have. Lenders tricked people into buying home they couldn't afford and some folks knew they couldn't afford them and bought them anyway.
We've lived through an era of easy money, in which we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits; to borrow instead of save.
Now, I know that in an age of declining wages and skyrocketing costs, for many folks this was not a choice but a necessity. People have been forced to turn to credit cards and home equity loans to keep up, just like our government has borrowed from China and other creditors to help pay its bills.
But we now know how dangerous that can be. Once we get past the present emergency, which requires immediate new investments, we have to break that cycle of debt. Our long-term future requires that we do what's necessary to scale down our deficits, grow wages and encourage personal savings again.
It's a serious challenge. But we can do it if we act now, and if we act as one nation. We can bring a new era of responsibility and accountability to Wall Street and to Washington. We can put in place common-sense regulations to prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. We can make investments in the technology and innovation that will restore prosperity and lead to new jobs and a new economy for the 21st century. We can restore a sense of fairness and balance that will give ever American a fair shot at the American dream. And above all, we can restore confidence - confidence in America, confidence in our economy, and confidence in ourselves.
This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test. Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession?
Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?
This is one of those moments. I realize you're cynical and fed up with politics. I understand that you're disappointed and even angry with your leaders. You have every right to be. But despite all of this, I ask of you what's been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history. I ask you to believe - to believe in yourselves, in each other, and in the future we can build together.
Together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves.
We can do this. Americans have done this before. Some of us had grandparents or parents who said maybe I can't go to college but my child can; maybe I can't have my own business but my child can. I may have to rent, but maybe my children will have a home they can call their own. I may not have a lot of money but maybe my child will run for Senate. I might live in a small village but maybe someday my son can be president of the United States of America.
Now it falls to us. Together, we cannot fail. Together, we can overcome the broken policies and divided politics of the last eight years. Together, we can renew an economy that rewards work and rebuilds the middle class. Together, we can create millions of new jobs, and deliver on the promise of health care you can afford and education that helps your kids compete. We can do this if we come together; if we have confidence in ourselves and each other; if we look beyond the darkness of the day to the bright light of hope that lies ahead. Together, we can change this country and change this world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.
just got back from a family dinner at my uncle's, who is a very influential, shall we say, consultant? (nobody actually knows exactly what the fuck he does, ok?) the consensus on the inside is that Obama will win with a majority, barring any catastrophic news. the polls coming out Wednesday will be even stronger for him, and now the RNC is virtually conceding defeat by pulling money from McCain to put behind some precious Senate seats because they are terrified that the Democrats will not only control the White House but actually get up to the magic 60 - something that is looking more and more likely every day. if they don't get up to 60 this year, they will for sure in 2010, according to him - but 58 or 59 is a strong possibility.
there is a better chance of the House getting to be +100 on the Dem side than McCain's statistical probability of winning this election. Obama caught the perfect storm (economy, slow/erratic reaction from McCain following it), used the debates to frame himself as someone who is ready to lead, and at this point it would take another perfect storm for McCain to even attempt a comeback.
the message i got was: not only is this election over, but Conservatism is over.
That sounds great. Let's hope Obama doesn't suffer from the Bradley effect, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Get out and vote people!
Is anyone else sensing racial tensions rising as election day approaches? It really sucks to say it, but honestly, I'm def. feeling it on local talk radio, news, etc. :|
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 14, 2008, 10:38:21 AM
That sounds great. Let's hope Obama doesn't suffer from the Bradley effect, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Get out and vote people!
Yeah, i was reading about this a few weeks ago, when Obama was only up by 3-5% points, and they were saying really, even asides from the margin of error, that wasn't good enough because there was likely 6-8% of voters that were going towards McCain but wouldn't admit it in polling. But now with him with a much larger lead, I think it does look like a little more favorable outcome for him.
What bothers me more is this polarization that exists in the country; does it seem even more extreme this year than elections past?
And in terms of racial tensions, hell yeah, I was thinking about that too recently. Like what is going to be the effect of Obama winning in the African American community? The international community? How about him losing, when to so many he seems the clear choice? and appears to be leading in all polls...What kind of a message would that send to the US population? the rest of the world?
But Obama doesn't have a larger lead.
In Virgina, he's polling an average of 3 points ahead, in Florida: 4 points, in Ohio: 2.
That's 60 electoral votes, right there...
National polls don't really mean shit. It's all about individual states and their electoral votes.
Yeah, I know it all comes down to the states, and my reference was to national polls, and in state races where it is 2-4% points, that doesn't really count for much. My point though was between the margin or error and that hidden bias not being revealed in polls, Obama needs more like a 6-10% point lead to really have any state on lockdown. (note: those %'s are just my numbers, not necessarily taken from any news source)
edit: i don't remember where we had this site listed in another thread, but here it is again. it's pretty good breaking it down state by state and giving the most recent numbers http://www.electoral-vote.com/
My somewhat hopefully opinion is that the Bradley "effect" will be negated by new voters and younger "cell phone" voters who don't get polled.
I'm really starting to think it's going to be a Blue landslide.
Quote from: mattstick on October 14, 2008, 03:25:14 PM
I'm really starting to think it's going to be a Blue landslide.
That's what I've been thinking for a few weeks now, but I don't want to get my hopes up. stranger things have happened. or is that things have happened to strangers. and strange people happen to have things. or things are stranger when everybody's a stranger. i don't know but i just googled stranger and just found this list (not in any way related to politics, the election, or % points, but hilarious nonetheless!!!) (yes, i am bored at work)
http://strangeplaces.net/weirdthings/fingers.html
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 14, 2008, 03:18:56 PM
Yeah, I know it all comes down to the states, and my reference was to national polls, and in state races where it is 2-4% points, that doesn't really count for much. My point though was between the margin or error and that hidden bias not being revealed in polls, Obama needs more like a 6-10% point lead to really have any state on lockdown. (note: those %'s are just my numbers, not necessarily taken from any news source)
edit: i don't remember where we had this site listed in another thread, but here it is again. it's pretty good breaking it down state by state and giving the most recent numbers http://www.electoral-vote.com/
electoral-vote.com is where I got my numbers.
Anyway, I guess I thought your point was that he had it locked down...
Especially when you said this:
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 14, 2008, 11:53:56 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 14, 2008, 10:38:21 AM
That sounds great. Let's hope Obama doesn't suffer from the Bradley effect, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Get out and vote people!
Yeah, i was reading about this a few weeks ago, when Obama was only up by 3-5% points, and they were saying really, even asides from the margin of error, that wasn't good enough because there was likely 6-8% of voters that were going towards McCain but wouldn't admit it in polling. But now with him with a much larger lead, I think it does look like a little more favorable outcome for him.
Well, looking at those numbers then from electoral-vote.com, lets say you give McCain ALL those states that are listed as Barely Dem (i.e. where Obama has a 4% point lead or less), Obama still comes up with 280. I don't remember what it looked like three or four weeks ago, but it was a lot closer than that for sure. But like I said, I'm not going to get my hopes up, as much as it seems like it could be a blowout, it could end up being really, really close too.
In any case, also taken from that same website:
U.S. Government Will Nationalize the Banks
Just a week after announcing that it was absolutely essential for the government to buy up all the toxic mortgages and that no other solution was possible, treasury secretary Henry Paulson has now ditched his plan and is going to (partially) buy the banks. This move effectively nationalizes them. The British government did this over the weekend and it led to a huge stock market rally in Europe. Paulson too caused the Dow Jones index to jump 936 points yesterday, its biggest one-day gain in history. While Paulson will never admit it, the plan to buy the banks was originally proposed by the liberal Democrats. However, he steamrollered them into submission and they voted for his plan because without it, he said, the sky would fall. Government ownership of the banks is a hallmark of socialism, of course. Who would have thought that the October surprise was for the Bush administration to come out of the closet and become overt socialists three weeks before a hotly contested election? The reaction of the Republican rank and file is yet to come. No doubt this subject will get a lot of play in tomorrow's third and final presidential debate.
OMFG what a maverick!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html)
John McCain's newest adviser lobbied for...guess who? Saddam Hussein! How bold is that? Picking an adviser who lobbied for a terrorist state- NO ONE would have seen that coming. I mean, to some, that sounds like sheer stupidity, but when you put country campaign first, you see the world through an entirely different frame of reference. This is even smarter than the time he picked that Beauty Pagent Winner for his Vice Presidential Candidate.
[/snark]
But seriously- WTF? For the man who claims to be fighting special interests, what a fucking hypocrit!
I think he's just getting pretty desperate at this point. check this one out: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14564.html)
QuoteJohn McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday's debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.
"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time."
McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate."
Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.
Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful" about the relationship.
For the record, BlueCaravan, he didn't pick a beauty pageant winner; he picked a runner-up.
As for the Ayers thing, Obama better be prepared with the Annenberg connection as a comeback.
Damn my bad rj... But in all honesty, has the MSM even picked up on this? Lobbyist for Telecom is one thing...but for Saddam? That's a new low.
I just hope it's in Obama's arsenal tomorrow night...
FYI, those better polls i mentioned for Obama that are to be published in tomorrow's Times: 14% lead
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/opinion/polls/main4522273.shtml
Obama wins!!!
http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3750501
Seriously. these guys have only been wrong twice in since 1940... that's something.
What matters isn't the poll lead. Just the lead in certain states. It is closer in those, but he is still in the lead.
Quote from: Guyute on October 15, 2008, 09:11:16 PM
What matters isn't the poll lead. Just the lead in certain states. It is closer in those, but he is still in the lead.
Yes.
But.
In order to make certain that the election cannot be stolen, it cannot be less than an 8% lead once the votes are counted.
Turnout is everything.
The following is not literally true but it is an example of what I mean:
If Obama wins say 100% of the vote in California and New York, he may have !4% more of the vote and still lose VA and FLA and lose the election.
This is why the electoral college is a farce.
Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/exclusive_verizon_gave_cell_to.html
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2008, 11:43:16 AM
Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/exclusive_verizon_gave_cell_to.html
McCain knows how to use a cell phone?
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 16, 2008, 12:14:59 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 16, 2008, 11:43:16 AM
Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/exclusive_verizon_gave_cell_to.html
McCain knows how to use a cell phone?
yes, as long as it's one of these:
(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/motorola.jpg)
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 15, 2008, 10:23:01 PM
Quote from: Guyute on October 15, 2008, 09:11:16 PM
What matters isn't the poll lead. Just the lead in certain states. It is closer in those, but he is still in the lead.
This is why the electoral college is a farce.
no kidding. i can't believe we still use it.
sadly, the electoral college isn't going anywhere for a looooooong time
My current blog post:
http://www.rowjimmy.com/archives/213
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 17, 2008, 01:08:39 PM
My current blog post:
http://www.rowjimmy.com/archives/213
:clap:
Heard that Powell was supporting Obama, but a public endorsement is huge
QuoteColin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer | October 19, 2008
WASHINGTON --Colin Powell, a Republican who was President Bush's first secretary of state, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday and criticized the tone of Republican John McCain's campaign.
Powell said both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.
"It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that," Powell, interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of his longtime friend, the Arizona senator.
"But I firmly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with the changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue basically the policies that we have been following in recent years," Powell said.
"I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change and that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama, not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Sen. John McCain."
Powell's endorsement has been much anticipated because he is a Republican with impressive foreign policy credentials, a subject on which Obama is weak. At the same time, he is a black man and Obama would be the nation's first black president.
Powell said he was cognizant of the racial aspect of his endorsement, but said that was not the dominant factor in his decision. If it was, he said, he would have made the endorsement months ago.
Powell also expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate and McCain's and Palin's decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers.
He said McCain's choice of Palin raised questions about judgment.
"I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States," Powell said.
Powell, as secretary of state, helped make the case before the United Nations for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, launched in March 2003. A retired general, he also was the nation's top military commander, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the first Gulf war under President George H.W. Bush.
McCain disagreed with Powell's decision and said he has been endorsed by four other former secretaries of state, all veterans of Republican administrations: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig.
"Well, I've always admired and respected Gen. Powell. We're longtime friends. This doesn't come as a surprise," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."
Asked whether Powell's endorsement would undercut his campaign's assertion that Obama is not ready to lead, McCain said: "Well, again, we have a very, we have a respectful disagreement, and I think the American people will pay close attention to our message for the future and keeping America secure."
Powell said he does not plan to campaign for Obama.
------
Quite huge.
If it gets enough coverage.
so far, home page of the Boston Globe, NYT, and CNN websites.
granted, this is all the East Coast Liberal Media Elite, but lack of coverage won't be a problem.
Even Fox News has talked about it non-stop.
Leading Democratic strategist expects McCain is going to get a bump in the last couple weeks, but not enough to overcome Obama.
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/stupidity_will_suffice/
It's not so much that McCain's campaign has been purposefully sleazy as they've been meanderingly, pointlessly sleazy. It's the "fuck it, whatever" guide to Republican politics, with no particular focus except putting anything out there to win a daily news cycle. Obama was a conspirator in voter fraud for a weekend, a terrorist for about three days, until he was a socialist because some plumber in Ohio said so.
Before that he was a celebrity and presumptuous, a race-baiter, a shady community organizer, sexist, inexperienced, a baby killer, a sex predator and a dozen other things. You wonder why McCain/Palin supporters feel like they can go to rallies and talk about Obama being a Jew-bought Islamic radical cokehead forced abortionist communist? Because it's the standard that the campaign's set by having ridiculously drawn out public conversations designed to draw full attention to the charges while laboring under the pretense that they're "debating" over using the smear.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/23/campaign_myths/
The punditocracy's Seven Biggest Blunders of the 2008 election
Guess what? The Conventional Wisdom has blown it again in handicapping Obama vs. McCain in the homestretch.
Oct. 23, 2008 | This has been a campaign season when the conventional wisdom has fared about as well as Bob Barr's prospects for moving into the Oval Office.
During the primaries, the political prediction business -- all those glib quasi-certainties spouted by TV talking heads and embedded in the opening paragraphs of newspaper and magazine articles -- gave us such fantasies as Rudy Giuliani masquerading as a serious presidential candidate and mistakenly consigned John McCain to the GOP dust heap. Remember when Hillary Clinton was prematurely anointed as the nominee or the dire warnings that a protracted Clinton-Obama primary fight would, in a typical burst of Democratic self-destructiveness, cost the party the White House?
Of course, that was all long ago and everyone involved in these bum calls has been sent to their rooms without supper. But what about the errors of the last two months -- the equally fallacious theories about the fall campaign that have been the stuff of Sunday morning round tables and newspaper Op-Ed pages? Granted, we at Salon have sometimes stumbled on the road to omniscience. But that shared sense of humility does not dampen our glee in pointing out the punditocracy's Seven Biggest Blunders, homestretch edition.
1) The Cult of Sarah Palin
McCain's choice of a running mate on the eve of the Republican National Convention set off a wave of emotions that quickly veered from "Sarah Who?" to "Sarah Wow!" Even amid the initial gooey-eyed gush, there were dangerous signs that the McCain team had done a sloppy job in researching her background. But the boffo convention speech, the giddy poll numbers and Palin's rock-star crowds gave rise to half-baked theories about the veep pick's ability to transform the presidential race and even snare a chunk of the feminist vote. After the disastrous Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interviews, however, the Palin pick seemed less a moose-hunter's delight and more like stale (Dan) Quayle. A Pew Research Center national poll released this week found that 49 percent of voters now hold negative opinions about Palin, compared to 32 percent voting thumbs down in mid-September. The Pew survey discovered that a stunning 60 percent of all women under the age of 50 currently have negative feelings about Palin.
2) Steve Schmidt Is a Genius
When McCain took the lead after the GOP convention in many national polls, the immediate reaction was to lionize top strategist Steve Schmidt for imposing order and discipline on the unruly campaign. But, in truth, Schmidt's ascension probably only intensified a problem that has dogged McCain from the outset -- a focus on day-to-day tactics over long-term strategy and a coherent rationale for the campaign. McCain often dominated the daily news cycle, but failed to dominate the hearts and minds of voters. Many in the Obama campaign believe that the turning point in the race came when McCain dramatically suspended his campaign on the eve of the first debate in order to fly to Washington to join in the ineffectual dithering over the economic crisis. Schmidt's war-room mentality (he ran the rapid-response team for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004) may have been ill-suited for a political year when McCain needed a Big Idea to compete with Obama.
3) The Price at the Pump Will Fuel the Mood of the Voters
The headline on the Aug. 20 Quinnipiac University national poll is enough to prompt instant nostalgia: "Gas Prices Gaining As Americans' Biggest Worry." Brooding about a $100 fill-up seems so overwrought two months later with a financial system in tatters. Who would have ever guessed back then that oil prices would drop below $70 a barrel before Election Day. The moral, of course, is that voters choose a candidate based on what is bugging them in November, not August. The danger in political soothsaying is to blithely assume that external events will not reshape the political landscape before Election Day. Things always happen, though rarely as dramatically as September's Wall Street whirlpool.
4) Obama Should Have Taken the Money ... and Run
Obama could have received a check from the federal government for $84 million as soon as he officially accepted the nomination. That is what McCain did in accepting public financing -- a decision that ruled out directly raising private money for his own campaign. Obama, by contrast, gambled that he could do better on his own by becoming the first presidential candidate in modern history to spurn public financing for the fall campaign. But right after the conventions, the Obama campaign appeared to radiate a whiff of desperation on the fundraising front. Meanwhile, Republicans were gloating. Not for long, though. Obama, of course, raised a staggering $150 million in September (or about $208,000 every hour), and McCain is being badly outspent in almost every major media market. An important symbolic moment in the campaign came when word seeped out that Obama was buying ads in video games -- an epic illustration of too much money chasing too few undecided voters.
5) Obama Was Guilty of Hubris in Trying to Expand the Map
In late June in Washington, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe narrated a PowerPoint presentation for the press in which he boldly sketched out all the ruby red Republican states that the Obama campaign intended to contest. Plouffe faced a host of skeptical questions about Obama making heavy investments in Virginia and Indiana, states that the Democrats had not carried in 40 years. Over the summer, both Democrats and Republicans alike were puzzled that Obama continued to contest North Carolina, even though McCain had a hefty lead in the polls. Sure, there were a few wrong calls (Plouffe saw Alaska as "competitive" in the pre-Palin era). But Obama is now forcing McCain to devote the bulk of his dwindling resources to defending once-safe GOP states like Missouri, Indiana and North Carolina, while Virginia has moved into the leaning Obama category.
6) Down-ballot Democrats Will Flee From Obama
This was a constant trope during the primaries, and continued into the summer: Democrats, particularly in red states, would cut and run from the party's ticket faster than you could say "Barack Obama and his liberal allies." Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren made headlines in June when he vowed not to endorse Obama; other House members from conservative districts were expected to do the same. One economic collapse later, and instead, it's Republicans -- in such Democratic strongholds as, ahem, Nebraska -- who are fleeing McCain. Incumbent GOP Rep. Lee Terry, whose Omaha district is being targeted by both presidential candidates as a possible source of one electoral vote, ran newspaper ads this month featuring a hypothetical "Obama-Terry voter." It turns out that to most Democrats, the pluses of an unprecedented turnout organization, wild enthusiasm among supporters and a gazillion dollars in campaign ads outweigh the minuses of a weird name and a liberal voting record.
7) The Hillary Holdouts Will Never Come Back
During July and August, just about the easiest way to get on television was to announce that you were an angry Hillary voter who would never, ever support Obama. Of course, political science studies dating back three decades show that party loyalty invariably trumps hurt feelings by the time November rolls around. Guess what? For all the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) nonsense that filled the airwaves over the summer, the Pew Research Center poll this week shows that Obama is beating McCain by a 91-to-5-percent margin among self-identified Democrats. So while independent-minded blue-collar voters who may have opted for Clinton in the primary are still being wooed by the Obama campaign in states like Pennsylvania, virtually all the dyed-in-the-wool Democrats have (surprise!) returned to the fold.
But that's Conventional Wisdom for you. Often wrong, but never in doubt.
Some inspiring words from Barack.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Njc2YzU3MjE4Nzk0YmVlM2ZlMjZkODRiNDA4YmQyODE=
Tragic Flaw
John McCain, man.
By Kathleen Parker
My husband called it first. Then, a brilliant, 75-year-old scholar and raconteur confessed to me over wine: 'I'm sexually attracted to her. I don't care that she knows nothing.'
Finally, writer Robert Draper closed the file on the Sarah Palin mystery with a devastating article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine: 'The Making (and Remaking) of McCain.'
McCain didn't know her. He didn't vet her. His campaign team had barely an impression. In a bar one night, Draper asked one of McCain's senior advisers: 'Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Governor Palin is about the issues of the day?'
The adviser thought a moment and replied: 'No, I don't know.'
Blame the sycamore tree.
McCain had met Palin only once — in February, at the governor's convention in Washington, D.C. — before the day he selected her as his running mate. The second time was at his Sedona, Ariz., ranch on Aug. 28, just four days before the GOP convention.
As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, 'Voila'
One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive resume, if a thin one. And she's a natural politician who connects with people.
But there can be no denying that McCain's selection of her over others far more qualified — and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter — suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by ... what?
Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published in New Scientist in 2003, found that pretty women foil men's ability to assess the future. 'Discounting the future,' as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.
Drug dealers, car salesmen and politicians rely on this affliction and pray feverishly for its persistence.
The Canadian psychologists showed pictures of attractive and not-so attractive men and women to students of the opposite sex. The students were offered a prize — either a small check for the next day or a larger check at some later date.
The men made perfectly rational decisions, opting for the delayed larger amount after viewing the average-looking women. You know where this is going. (Women, by the way, were rational no matter what.)
That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.
Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.
As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is 'exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief.' This, notes Draper, 'seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful.'
It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama — under any circumstances. And though it isn't over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman's power, made the wrong call?
Had Antony not fallen for Cleopatra, Octavian might not have captured the Roman Empire. Had Bill resisted Monica, Al Gore may have become president and Hillary might be today's Democratic nominee.
If McCain, rightful heir to the presidency, loses to Obama, history undoubtedly will note that he was defeated at least in part by his own besotted impulse to discount the future. If he wins, then he must be credited with having correctly calculated nature's power to befuddle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?hp)
Surprising nobody, the Times endorses Obama. But it's still worth reading.
Brokaw PWN'd McCain on Meet The Press this morning.
McCain went off on his "the last President to raise taxes in a recession was Herbert Hoover", and Brokaw countered that Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first 2 years after the recession/market crash in '80!
It was awesome.
Can you imagine having to answer these questions?
I love the point where Biden asks if the last question was a joke...
Quote from: mattstick on October 26, 2008, 09:54:45 AM
Brokaw PWN'd McCain on Meet The Press this morning.
McCain went off on his "the last President to raise taxes in a recession was Herbert Hoover", and Brokaw countered that Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first 2 years after the recession/market crash in '80!
It was awesome.
he had me cracking up.
from someone who was literally "on the bus" with McCain in 2000
QuoteYVONNE ABRAHAM
The McCain I knew
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Columnist | October 26, 2008
GOFFSTOWN, N.H. - I came here to see John McCain on Wednesday. I barely recognized him.
Here was the Republican presidential nominee back in a state he loves, a state that embraced his free-wheeling, warts-and-all candidacy in 2000, giving him what he has called the best experience of his life.
And yet, here, in his electoral family room, the Arizona senator stood almost motionless on a stage, reading a speech from a teleprompter. The hockey arena at Saint Anselm was only two-thirds-full, the crowd bulked up with students and out-of-state residents.
It's not just that McCain's electoral fortunes in New Hampshire are looking different this time. McCain looks different, too.
Almost nine years ago, I sat in the back of the Arizona senator's bus, bouncing all over the Granite State and across the country, covering his battle to win the GOP primary.
I was a reporter, as cynical as the rest. Still, I admired him immensely.
Not just for his bravery in Vietnam. Not just for his willingness to talk frankly and self-deprecatingly about almost anything.
He was appealing because he seemed to have come to his positions honestly, and to believe them at his core. For better or worse, they seemed to have evolved from his experiences - his insistence on the unpopular and sometimes tedious issue of campaign finance reform, for example, sprang from his humiliating role in the Keating Five scandal.
He was appealing because he seemed bound by conscience, so tightly, in fact, that he was ever-willing to catalog his own imperfections. Witness his postprimary sackcloth-and-ashes trip to South Carolina to apologize for failing to oppose the flying of the Confederate battle flag atop the State House.
"I broke my promise to always tell the truth," he said. "I will be criticized by all sides for my late act of contrition. I deserve it. Honesty is easy after the fact, when my own interests are no longer involved. I don't seek absolution." He seemed genuinely to want to move politics beyond dirty tactics and divisiveness. He was stunned by the campaign of then-governor George W. Bush in South Carolina, which he called cynical and dishonest.
"Tell me what you win when you use that kind of campaign?" he asked.
And he wanted his party to mirror his New Hampshire devotees: politically diverse, fiercely independent. When a solemn McCain gave up his run atop a Sedona ridge on a perfect March day, he seemed most proud of the progress he had made toward "making our party as big as the country we serve."
These traits made McCain substantive, and complex, and fascinating to watch. They were responsible for his broad appeal during the 2000 campaign, and for his tough reentry in Washington afterward.
They all seem to have deserted him during this general election campaign.
He has reversed himself countless times. He has embraced the president and his tax cuts and courted the religious right he once condemned as corrosive. He has hardened his position on illegal immigrants, and softened it on interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects. He has chosen a dangerously unqualified running mate. He has employed some of the same campaign tactics used against him in South Carolina, and those responsible - all to boost his political fortunes.
That empty space at the back of the cold hockey arena on Wednesday was about more than what the economy has done to GOP standing. It was about McCain, too: His once-broad appeal has withered as qualities that set him apart from other politicians have evaporated. Watching him give his prepared speech, I wondered whether the candidate I knew was still in there, muzzled by political expediency, pained by the choices he'd made.
And I wondered, too: Did I ever really know John McCain?
Yvonne Abraham is a Globe columnist. Her e-mail address is Abraham@globe.com.
is Drudge having a stroke?
The Huffington Post
CC Goldwater Posted
October 23, 2008 | 10:28 AM (EST)
Why McCain Has Lost Our Vote
Being Barry Goldwater's granddaughter and living in Arizona, one would
assume that I would be voting for our state's senator, John McCain.
I am
still struck by certain 'dyed in the wool' Republicans who are on the
fence this election, as it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting
the Republican presidential candidates this year.
We believe strongly in
what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal
freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics.
I learned a
lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr.
Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater.
Our generation of Goldwaters
expects government to provide for constitutional protections.
We reject
the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial
policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.
My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman's right to
choose.
My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the
1930's, a cause my grandfather supported.
I'm not sure about how he
would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation.
I think
he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters
most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over
the years.
Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message
that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms
we hold so dear.
For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with
the Goldwater version of Conservative thought.
My grandfather had
undying respect for the U.S.
Constitution, and an understanding of its
true meanings.
There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would
"race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style.
Unfortunately,
this hasn't happened, and the Republican brand has been tarnished in a
shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear.
Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same
ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician.
The McCain/Palin
plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to
push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and
less safe.
When you see the candidate's in political ads, you can't help but be
reminded of the 1964 presidential campaign of Johnson/Goldwater, the
'origin of spin', that twists the truth and obscures what really
matters.
Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America
needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to
support Barack Obama.
I think that Obama has shown his ability and
integrity.
After the last eight years, there's a lot of clean up do.
Roll up your
sleeves, Senators Obama and Biden, and we Goldwaters will roll ours up
with you
BTW, anyone seen Obama speak at a rally? He's going to be in town tonight speaking at Harbor Park (our local minor league ballpark in Norfolk) and I am FINALLY going to get to see a speech after missing the last 2 opportunities. It says no tickets required, first come, first serve basis, gates will open at 7, but he's not supposed to speak until 9:30. How soon do you have to get down there?
I saw him in boston before Super Tuesday. i think it was something like doors at 9, Obama at 10:30 or 11. We got there about 7:30 and waited on line in the cold for about 3 hours. We were inside for about 15 minutes before the program started. A couple local pols, then Kerry, Ted K, and Barak. the line was LOOOOOONG - people on the end didn't get in
I would get there about 6 or 6:30 if you can, depending on how large the venue is and how many people they expect. Go with someone so you can take turns for food / bathroom runs and hold your place on line.
Some pizza delivery guy came after a couple hours, sold about 10 pizzas to the folks on line.
It will be a lot warmer than boston in February (maybe wetter though)
Quote from: slslbs on October 28, 2008, 11:52:38 AM
I saw him in boston before Super Tuesday. i think it was something like doors at 9, Obama at 10:30 or 11. We got there about 7:30 and waited on line in the cold for about 3 hours. We were inside for about 15 minutes before the program started. A couple local pols, then Kerry, Ted K, and Barak. the line was LOOOOOONG - people on the end didn't get in
I would get there about 6 or 6:30 if you can, depending on how large the venue is and how many people they expect. Go with someone so you can take turns for food / bathroom runs and hold your place on line.
Some pizza delivery guy came after a couple hours, sold about 10 pizzas to the folks on line.
It will be a lot warmer than boston in February (maybe wetter though)
That's what I'm worried about. We got a group of about 5 of us going so it should be ok in terms of staying in line. We are going to be bundling up, weather.com is showing 40 degrees and 20 mph winds tonight, so standing in line for 3+ hours is going to be tough, but well worth it. Thanks for the info!
Yeah get there way early.
In my small town he had a line a mile long.
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 28, 2008, 11:04:25 AM
BTW, anyone seen Obama speak at a rally? He's going to be in town tonight speaking at Harbor Park (our local minor league ballpark in Norfolk) and I am FINALLY going to get to see a speech after missing the last 2 opportunities. It says no tickets required, first come, first serve basis, gates will open at 7, but he's not supposed to speak until 9:30. How soon do you have to get down there?
I bet that will be a lot of fun, get there early,real early
The energy on the line was great, not to mention the energy inside once the speeches started. It's the only time I can remember standing on line that long, and that it was worth it. Kinda felt like I was witnessing history. It will be great.
Quote from: slslbs on October 28, 2008, 01:38:28 PM
The energy on the line was great, not to mention the energy inside once the speeches started. It's the only time I can remember standing on line that long, and that it was worth it. Kinda felt like I was witnessing history. It will be great.
Yeah, we were talking to my gf's mom about it last night, and she was talking about seeing Kennedy, and it started to occur to me just how amazing this is going to be, to hear him speak, the historical significance of this whole campaign and election, and event that I will tell my grandkids about someday. I'll be sure to tell you guys about it tomorrow.
Olberman PWNz Joe The Plumber
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/joe_the_plumber_plunged_by_olb.html
No offense, but Olberman is a douche.
Who would that offend? I don't think Keith reads week4paug.
I like the whole MSNBC crew, Maddow, Matthews & Olberman...
the MSNBC crew is pretty entertaining. not quite as loud as their Fox counterparts, which is a good thing, but it's good to see some balance on the airwaves for once. i've always felt CNN was pretty moderate despite being part of the "liberal press," so we (=liberals, who are PROUD to be liberals!) do sort of need something to counter the hot air coming from Faux News.
Quote from: antelope19 on October 30, 2008, 10:26:43 AM
No offense, but Olberman is a douche.
Olberman is the left sides O'Rielly, and you have to take it for what it is. But what you can't deny is that Joe the Plumber is a douche; cause who the f is he answering policy questions for McCain? people shaking his hand? he gets called out by fox news?
edit: also, i love watching msnbc, but also flipping to fox just for the comical aspect of it all. it's just as entertaining as msnbc but in a different kind of way.
Yeah, I really can't stand either O'Reilly or Olbermann. I guess I understand why some people do, but it's just not for me. As for joe the plumber, apparently all of this recent fame has warranted him a new country music contract? WTF is that? :lol:
Quote
Move over, Sanjaya, and tell William Hung the news: Joe the Plumber is being pursued for a major record deal and could come out with a country album as early as Inauguration Day.
"Joe" — aka Samuel Wurzelbacher, a Holland, Ohio, pipe-and-toilet man — just signed with a Nashville public relations and management firm to handle interview requests and media appearances, as well as create new career opportunities, including a shift out of the plumbing trade into stage and studio performances.
Quote from: antelope19 on October 30, 2008, 10:44:25 AM
Yeah, I really can't stand either O'Reilly or Olbermann. I guess I understand why some people do, but it's just not for me. As for joe the plumber, apparently all of this recent fame has warranted him a new country music contract? WTF is that? :lol:
Quote
Move over, Sanjaya, and tell William Hung the news: Joe the Plumber is being pursued for a major record deal and could come out with a country album as early as Inauguration Day.
"Joe" — aka Samuel Wurzelbacher, a Holland, Ohio, pipe-and-toilet man — just signed with a Nashville public relations and management firm to handle interview requests and media appearances, as well as create new career opportunities, including a shift out of the plumbing trade into stage and studio performances.
it's f-ing ridiculous is what it is. but that's what people do, try and stretch their 15 mins as far as possible. it's the American way- opportunistic.
So the other night went and saw Obama speak at Harbor Park in Norfolk, VA. Got in line about 6, gates were at 7, and we were in our seats by 8:30. You can see how far we were in the second picture, but it was still cool watching him speak on the jumbotron. The sound was a little off too cause the speakers were facing towards the field. The venue hold 12,000 in the stands, and then I think they said there was 7-8,000 more in the field. Most of the speech was similar to things I've heard him already say many times before, but it was just awesome being there amongst so many people that were moved enough to stand in 40 degree weather with 20mph winds whipping off the Elizabeth River in our faces. The energy was definitely high.
I think one of my favorite lines was when he was like, Don't be hoodwinked, America....and about after 9/11, the greatest American tragedy since Pearl Harbor, Bush's request to America, was keep shopping!....and "The American story has never been about things coming easy, it's been about rising to the moment"...oh, and of course, my favorite moment of all was after his speech, they threw on Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours, and everyone was just singing and dancing their way out of the stadium with smiles all around!
(http://by105w.bay105.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=a493d71f-4fda-4a6e-93c4-496e4a1fe145&Aux=44%7C0%7C8CB08B32F7DD2F0%7C)
(http://by105w.bay105.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=ff4061ff-6496-452d-9c9f-46bc79f50bfe&Aux=44%7C0%7C8CB08B372053A00%7C)
Quote from: goodabouthood on October 30, 2008, 02:26:17 PM
So the other night went and saw Obama speak at Harbor Park in Norfolk, VA. Got in line about 6, gates were at 7, and we were in our seats by 8:30. You can see how far we were in the second picture, but it was still cool watching him speak on the jumbotron. The sound was a little off too cause the speakers were facing towards the field. The venue hold 12,000 in the stands, and then I think they said there was 7-8,000 more in the field. Most of the speech was similar to things I've heard him already say many times before, but it was just awesome being there amongst so many people that were moved enough to stand in 40 degree weather with 20mph winds whipping off the Elizabeth River in our faces. The energy was definitely high.
I think one of my favorite lines was when he was like, Don't be hoodwinked, America....and about after 9/11, the greatest American tragedy since Pearl Harbor, Bush's request to America, was keep shopping!....and "The American story has never been about things coming easy, it's been about rising to the moment"...oh, and of course, my favorite moment of all was after his speech, they threw on Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours, and everyone was just singing and dancing their way out of the stadium with smiles all around!
(http://by105w.bay105.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=a493d71f-4fda-4a6e-93c4-496e4a1fe145&Aux=44%7C0%7C8CB08B32F7DD2F0%7C)
(http://by105w.bay105.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=ff4061ff-6496-452d-9c9f-46bc79f50bfe&Aux=44%7C0%7C8CB08B372053A00%7C)
We cannot see images attached to your webmail account.
Sounds like a good time.
glad you enjoyed it.
I can only imagine how this woman felt:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/27/1027jones.html
Daughter of slave votes for Obama
109-year-old Bastrop woman casts her vote by mail.
Amanda Jones, 109, the daughter of a man born into slavery, has lived a life long enough to touch three centuries. And after voting consistently as a Democrat for 70 years, she has voted early for the country's first black presidential nominee.
The middle child of 13, Jones, who is African American, is part of a family that has lived in Bastrop County for five generations. The family has remained a fixture in Cedar Creek and other parts of the county, even when its members had to eat at segregated barbecue dives and walk through the back door while white customers walked through the front, said Amanda Jones' 68-year-old daughter, Joyce Jones.
For at least a decade, Amanda Jones worked as a maid for $20 a month, Joyce Jones said. She was a housewife for 72 years and helped her now-deceased husband, C.L. Jones, manage a store.
Amanda Jones, a delicate, thin woman wearing golden-rimmed glasses, giggled as the family discussed this year's presidential election. She is too weak to go the polls, so two of her 10 children — Eloise Baker, 75, and Joyce Jones — helped her fill out a mail-in ballot for Barack Obama, Baker said. "I feel good about voting for him," Amanda Jones said.
Jones' father herded sheep as a slave until he was 12, according to the family, and once he was freed, he was a farmer who raised cows, hogs and turkeys on land he owned. Her mother was born right after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, Joyce Jones said. The family owned more than 100 acres of land in Cedar Creek at one point, she said.
Amanda Jones' father urged her to exercise her right to vote, despite discriminatory practices at the polls and poll taxes meant to keep black and poor people from voting. Those practices were outlawed for federal elections with the 24th Amendment in 1964, but not for state and local races in Texas until 1966.
Amanda Jones says she cast her first presidential vote for Franklin Roosevelt, but she doesn't recall which of his four terms that was. When she did vote, she paid a poll tax, her daughters said. That she is able, for the first time, to vote for a black presidential nominee for free fills her with joy, Jones said.
One of Amanda Jones' 33 grandchildren, Brenda Baker, 44, said the family is moved by the election's significance to the matriarch.
"It's awesome to me that we have such a pillar of our family still with us," Baker said. "It's awesome to see what she's done, and all her hard work, and to see that she may be able to see the results of all that hard work" if Obama is elected, she said.
Jones lives in a small gray house with white trim just off Texas 21. These days, a curious white kitten and a sleepy old black dog guard the house. Inside are photographs and relics of a long, full life, including a letter from then-Gov. George Bush in 1998 commemorating her 100th birthday. A black-and-white picture of her in a long flapper-style dress was taken between 1912 and 1918 — no one can remember the exact year, Baker said with a chuckle.
Jones is part of a small percentage of active voters above the age of 100 in the state — and the country.
Sister Cecilia Gaudette, a 106-year-old nun born in New Hampshire but living in Rome, made recent national headlines as the nation's oldest voter. But if Texas records are any indication, that's hard to validate.
Secretary of State spokeswoman Ashley Burton said Texas can't confirm whether Jones is the state's oldest active voter because there is too much voter information to sort through. At the county level, there are other challenges. An election official in Hays County said its records are not searchable by age, and Bastrop County elections administrator Nora Cano said that some counties automatically list voters who were born before the turn of the 20th century with birth dates of January 1900.
The oldest active voter in Travis County is 105, officials said, and in Williamson County the oldest is 106 — making Jones the oldest-known active voter in Central Texas.
Making it to see the election results on Nov. 5 is important, but Jones is resting up for another milestone: her 110th birthday in December. "God has been good to me," she said.
cool story, thanks for posting
Thank you very much for posting that.
wow, amazing story. i can't imagine the immense pride she felt casting that ballot...
+K for sharing!
I can't wait to go vote tomorrow.
I've been having trouble sleeping thinking about this thing. Nov. 5 cannot come soon enough.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 31, 2008, 10:01:15 PM
I can't wait to go vote tomorrow.
I've been having trouble sleeping thinking about this thing. Nov. 5 cannot come soon enough.
Indeed it's been a long one.
But I have "hope" along with a lot of other people, that's pretty cool.
Wait'll you guys see the pics of my friends' Obama pumpkin.
:-o
nice
The newest McCain robocall....
"Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has not accepted Joe the Plumber's friend request on Facebook. We know he's logged on, because we saw he changed his status on Monday. On Tuesday, he joined the group Art Historians Are Saucy. But he still won't accept Joe the Plumber's friend request. He knows it's Joe. Joe uses the screen shot of the two of them together as his profile picture. That's not a uniter. That's the same old liberal-elite politics as usual."
Oh, and I forgot, another cool thing about the rally from the other day, there was a couple with their daughter there from Scotland, who had been here in Virginia for the last 2 weeks volunteering for Obama. And this rally was the last thing they were doing, then heading back. That was how they choose to spend their vacation time. Volunteering for a man in a country they are not even citizens of. Amazing.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 31, 2008, 10:15:20 PM
Wait'll you guys see the pics of my friends' Obama pumpkin.
:-o
Weird story.
The Chairman of the American Nazi Party, among other self-proclaimed racists, is voting for Obama.
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html
My wife made me canvas for Obama; here's what I learned
This election is not about major policies. It's about hope.
By Jonathan Curley
from the November 3, 2008 edition
Charlotte, N.C. - There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better "ground game" and superior campaign organization.
I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.
Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again.
I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.
I am the dreaded swing voter.
So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.
At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.
Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.
We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, "Who is it?"
"We're from the Obama campaign," we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.
Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.
Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.
We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work.
I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the "big things."
It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.
It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore.
I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.
I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.
My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me.
Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.
thisfuckingelection.com (http://thisfuckingelection.com)
Quotehttp://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1103/p09s02-coop.html
Good article, thanks for the read.
Wow, Obama's grandmother dies on the eve of the election.
Tragic stuff.
Wow, thats tough stuff. And it looks like he went forward with all today's scheduled appearances too.
sad. i'm sure he has made her very proud, win or lose, but i'm even more sure that he would have wanted her to experience the joy that hopefully we all (or most of us, at least) will feel when he wins tomorrow. a shame that she never got that chance...
Quote from: tet on November 03, 2008, 05:30:39 PM
sad. i'm sure he has made her very proud, win or lose, but i'm even more sure that he would have wanted her to experience the joy that hopefully we all (or most of us, at least) will feel when he wins tomorrow. a shame that she never got that chance...
agreed, that really sucks.
Oh, and not that you guys may care, but after further research all weekend, I have decided to vote for Obama tomorrow.
Very tragic. I'm sure she tried with every last ounce of strength she had to see the results. :-(
email from David Byrne today:
QuotePardon the bulk mailing. I Can't Vote. I am an immigrant with a Green Card and, therefore, I am not eligible to vote in a federal election. FYI - I can get drafted (luckily, Daniel Berrigan burned my draft board's records) and I pay taxes, yet I cannot vote for President. On Election Day, I see my neighbors heading to the nearby elementary school to cast their ballots. The voting booth joint is a great leveler; the whole neighborhood - rich, poor, old, young, decrepit and spunky - they all turn out in one day.
But most of you can vote. What can I say? The Republicans have made us less safe than before 9/11, bankrupted this economy, started an illegal war they can't - and don't intend to - finish, removed what sympathy (after 9/11) and respect the world had for the US, and have robbed US citizens of many of their basic rights. Global warming? What's that? Science and education? Investment in our future? No, thanks - we'll stick with a good 'ole hockey mom. Ignorant, and fucking proud of it, as is always the case.
Although it looks like a shoo-in, it ain't over 'til Florida. And there are plenty of racists in this country who will vote against their own best interests. So please, get to your local elementary school, post office, town hall, or whatever, and cast your vote and make this a country we can all be proud of. We can get out of this mess, and life can be better than it is.
David Byrne
NYC
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_re_eu/eu_us_elections_world_view
QuoteWorld hopes for a 'less arrogant America'
By Associated Press Writers William J. Kole And Matt Moore, Associated Press Writers
BERLIN – A world weary of eight years of George W. Bush was riveted Tuesday by the drama unfolding in the United States. Many were inspired by Barack Obama's focus on hope, or simply relieved that — whoever wins — the current administration is coming to an end.
From Berlin's Brandenburg Gate to the small town of Obama, Japan, the world gears up to celebrate a fresh start for America.
In Germany, where more than 200,000 flocked to see Obama this summer as he moved to burnish his foreign policy credentials during a trip to the Middle East and Europe, the election dominated television ticker crawls, newspaper headlines and Web sites.
Hundreds of thousands prepared to party through the night to watch the outcome of an election having an impact far beyond America's shores. Among the more irreverent festivities planned in Paris: a "Goodbye George" party to bid farewell to Bush.
"Like many French people, I would like Obama to win because it would really be a sign of change," said Vanessa Doubine, shopping Tuesday on the Champs-Elysees. "I deeply hope for America's image that it will be Obama."
Obama-mania was evident not only across Europe, where millions geared up for all-night vigils, but even in much of the Islamic world, where Muslims expressed hope that the Democrat would seek compromise rather than confrontation.
The Bush administration alienated Muslims by mistreating prisoners at its detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison — human rights violations also condemned worldwide.
"I hope Obama wins (because) of the need of the world to see the U.S. represent a more cosmopolitan or universal political attitude," said Rais Yatim, the foreign minister of mostly Muslim Malaysia.
"The new president will have an impact on the economic and political situation in my country," said Muhammad al-Thaheri, 48, a civil servant in Saudi Arabia. Like so many around the world, he was rooting for Obama "because he will change the path the U.S. is on under Bush."
Nizar al-Kortas, a columnist for Kuwait's Al-Anbaa newspaper, saw an Obama victory as "a historic step to change the image of the arrogant American administration to one that is more acceptable in the world."
Yet John McCain was backed by some in countries such as Israel, where he is perceived as tougher on Iran.
Israeli leaders, who consider the U.S. their closest and most important ally, have not openly declared a preference. But privately, they have expressed concern about Obama, who has alarmed some by saying he would be ready to hold a dialogue with Tehran.
Taking a cigarette break on a Jerusalem street corner, bank employee Leah Nizri, 53, said Obama represented potentially frightening change and voiced concern about his Muslim ancestry.
"I think he'll be pleasant to Israel, but he will make changes," she said. "He's too young. I think that especially in a situation of a world recession, where things are so unclear in the world, McCain would be better than Obama."
Even in Europe, McCain got some grudging respect: Germany's mass-circulation daily Bild lionized the Republican as "the War Hero" and running mate Sarah Palin as "the Beautiful Unknown."
In Berlin, Republicans Abroad organized a "November Surprise Election Party" to watch live "how the Republican ticket McCain/Palin comes from behind and leaves the 'liberal elite media' in Europe and the United States puzzled."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown clung to convention by refusing to say which candidate he wants to see win. Regardless of the outcome, he told Al-Arabiya television while on a tour of the Gulf, "history has been made in this campaign."
In Baghdad, a jaded Mohammed al-Tamimi said he didn't think U.S. policy on Iraq would change. Even so, "we hope that the new American president will open a new page with our country."
Kenyans made their allegiance clear: Scores packed churches on Tuesday to pray for Obama, whose late father was born in the East African nation, and hailed the candidate — himself born in Hawaii — as a "son of the soil."
"Tonight we are not going to sleep," said Valentine Wambi, 23, a student at the University of Nairobi. "It will be celebrations throughout."
Kenyans believe an Obama victory would not change their lives much but that hasn't stopped them from splashing his picture on minibuses and selling T-shirts with his name and likeness. Kenyans were planning to gather around radios and TV sets starting Tuesday night as the results come in.
"We will feast if Obama wins," said Robert Rutaro, a university president in neighboring Uganda. "We will celebrate by marching on the streets of Kampala and hold a big party later on."
In the sleepy Japanese coastal town of Obama — which translates as "little beach" — images of him adorned banners along a main shopping street, and preparations for an election day victory party were in full swing.
Election fever also ran high in Vietnam, where McCain was held as a prisoner of war for more than five years after being shot down in Hanoi during a 1967 bombing run.
"He's patriotic," said Le Lan Anh, a Vietnamese novelist and real estate tycoon. "As a soldier, he came here to destroy my country, but I admire his dignity."
Andrew Sullivan Comments on my State (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/georgia.html)
QuoteIf I were to place one actual monetary bet on this election, it would be on Georgia. The odds are very much against Obama winning it - but they are longer than they should be. And what a moment for history that would be if, by some chance, it happened. A lot of African-Americans in the history of Georgia would be looking down from heaven and rubbing their eyes in disbelief.
context of comments via this blog (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/on-road-atlanta-georgia.html)
Obama volunteer just stopped by. When we volunteered the information that we had already voted, and for their candidate, she told us that of the absentee votes counted already, 76% were for Obama. Admittedly Missoula is a liberal bastion in Montana, but being the second largest metropolitan area in Montana, these are statistically significant results.
Won't know until late night when all the rural counties get counted, but the way things are looking, Montana may go blue.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
Some good recap/insight in this Newsweek article...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/168017/page/1
Quote
It was hard to overstate Axelrod's feeling for the candidate. When the political consultant had first met with Obama in Chicago to discuss a potential presidential run in 2006, Michelle had asked her husband what he could "uniquely" contribute if he was elected. Obama answered that, right off the bat, the day he was elected, "the world will look at us differently—and I think a lot of young people across the country will look at themselves differently."
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
Quote from: Guyute on November 10, 2008, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
...and all of us, the American public, allowed him to serve in our nation's highest office for 8 years.
Who are the idiots? Us or him?
ps-thanks for the great debating points to contradict the opinions I posited a couple of months ago... perhaps instead of comparing Obama to Bush...I should have called Obama "Clinton Jr.". I still find it fascinating that Obama's supporters are calling this election cycle "the most important election evarrrrrr", when I would have thought that since Bush is such an unpopular President now, the elections of 2000 and 2004 would have been seen now as infinitely more important. Do you guys think that Obama is right on time, or is it perhaps a case of "too little, too late"? DISCUSS!
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on November 10, 2008, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
...and all of us, the American public, allowed him to serve in our nation's highest office for 8 years.
Who are the idiots? Us or him?
Nice false dichotomy.
Quote from: Sophist on November 13, 2008, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on November 10, 2008, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
...and all of us, the American public, allowed him to serve in our nation's highest office for 8 years.
Who are the idiots? Us or him?
Nice false dichotomy.
So, does that mean you don't feel that "We The People" should be held accountable when our pick for the President turns out to be a bumbling fool... and then we turn around and re-elect him?
Since the Office of the Chief Executive is a reflection of us as a nation, I do not think that 8 years of Gee-Dubs should make any of us very proud of what we have accomplished.
Unless the false dichotomy that you speak of is me seperating him from us, and that we are all idiots, and then I would have to say "touche, my good friend!".
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on November 10, 2008, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
...and all of us, the American public, allowed him to serve in our nation's highest office for 8 years.
Who are the idiots? Us or him?
ps-thanks for the great debating points to contradict the opinions I posited a couple of months ago... perhaps instead of comparing Obama to Bush...I should have called Obama "Clinton Jr.". I still find it fascinating that Obama's supporters are calling this election cycle "the most important election evarrrrrr", when I would have thought that since Bush is such an unpopular President now, the elections of 2000 and 2004 would have been seen now as infinitely more important. Do you guys think that Obama is right on time, or is it perhaps a case of "too little, too late"? DISCUSS!
Better late than never.
I would agree if we had not done everything in our power in the last 6 years to prove the terrorists "right".
Still, our leaders talk about bombing Pakistan, Syria, Iran instead of providing them with much needed stability, infrastructure and support.
We've decimated our actual resources globally in the recent past trying to prove how much better we are than everyone... and now the entire world is paying the price. I'm not sure how much of this deflation of the global economic bubble is actual, and how much of it is theoretical... but our lack of foresight and warning and serious attention paid to our financial instability by all in the past couple of years is nauseatingly frightening and for me, infinitely concerning.
Spreading democracy globally is supposed to provide us all with our own personal edens in which we provide each other with goods, services, shelter, warm feelings and fun despite the hardships inherent in a survival marked by the spectre of imminent death... the fact that we have lost sight of this all to important goal that should be the basis (and not in opposition) of all of our actions locally, nationally and globally is counter-productive, irrational and in a few words, simply not-fun.
While you say "better late than never", I really hope that people don't forget their frustrations and assume that all of our trials, tribulations and battles are behind us. We have a shit-ton of work to do to re-earn each others respect, and to provide those awesome services to each other and others across the globe that have made us all so proud to be who we are.
To say I've been dissapointed with the tonality of our communities (large and small) lately and in the past, is definitely an understatement.
Obama is right on time. He would not have been elected 4 or 8 years ago. McCain on the other hand, missed his chance, I think this country would be in a different place if it had been him 8 years ago instead. Then again, maybe that wouldn't have created the opportunity it did for Obama this time around, so who cares? The fact that Bush is has a worse approval rating than Nixon after his resignation just goes to show you how he will go down in history as, previously stated, the worse president. Ever.
I'm still waiting for my "Don't Blame Me, I voted for Gore, demanded a recount, told President Bush to kiss my ass, supported Dean, voted for Kerry while protesting the war and demanding economic stabilization" bumper sticker....
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 04:37:57 PM
I would agree if we had not done everything in our power in the last 6 years to prove the terrorists "right".
Still, our leaders talk about bombing Pakistan, Syria, Iran instead of providing them with much needed stability, infrastructure and support.
We've decimated our actual resources globally in the recent past trying to prove how much better we are than everyone... and now the entire world is paying the price. I'm not sure how much of this deflation of the global economic bubble is actual, and how much of it is theoretical... but our lack of foresight and warning and serious attention paid to our financial instability by all in the past couple of years is nauseatingly frightening and for me, infinitely concerning.
Spreading democracy globally is supposed to provide us all with our own personal edens in which we provide each other with goods, services, shelter, warm feelings and fun despite the hardships inherent in a survival marked by the spectre of imminent death... the fact that we have lost sight of this all to important goal that should be the basis (and not in opposition) of all of our actions locally, nationally and globally is counter-productive, irrational and in a few words, simply not-fun.
While you say "better late than never", I really hope that people don't forget their frustrations and assume that all of our trials, tribulations and battles are behind us. We have a shit-ton of work to do to re-earn each others respect, and to provide those awesome services to each other and others across the globe that have made us all so proud to be who we are.
To say I've been dissapointed with the tonality of our communities (large and small) lately and in the past, is definitely an understatement.
Paragraph 2) I believe you mean our REPUBLICAN leaders....
I don't necessarily it was a 'proving how much better we are than everyone' that has caused the problems, it's not being self aware enough to realize that everyone else is stepping up their game and if we want to compete we need to adjust our way of thinking.
Also, spreading democracy isn't always the answer, especially in states where religious law is more important. there are other forms of government, and other forms that have been successful, and we need to respect that. Or you get a situation like in the middle east, where we assist in developing democracy and you end up with a radical islamic movement (hamas) winning the majority in the palistinian government?!
I think most people realize the work is just beginning, but at least we have an incoming leader that is ready to roll up his sleeves and get that work done.
"Spreading democracy" is a bullshit term to cover our violent imperialism.
Democracy finds its own way in the dark. All we need to do is spread humanism no matter what form of government is in place.
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 13, 2008, 10:01:49 PM
"Spreading democracy" is a bullshit term to cover our violent imperialism.
Democracy finds its own way in the dark. All we need to do is spread humanism no matter what form of government is in place.
*Rings Liberty Bell
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 04:16:26 PM
Quote from: Sophist on November 13, 2008, 04:06:57 PM
Quote from: fauxpaxfauxreal on November 13, 2008, 03:51:36 PM
Quote from: Guyute on November 10, 2008, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: goodabouthood on November 10, 2008, 02:16:47 PM
QuoteWith 71 days left in office, President Bush is less popular than President Nixon was at the time of his resignation, according to data released Monday by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation.
The new poll, taken Thursday through Sunday, showed an approval rating of 24 percent and a disapproval rating of 76 percent.
Worst.
President.
EVER!
WERD
...and all of us, the American public, allowed him to serve in our nation's highest office for 8 years.
Who are the idiots? Us or him?
Nice false dichotomy.
So, does that mean you don't feel that "We The People" should be held accountable when our pick for the President turns out to be a bumbling fool... and then we turn around and re-elect him?
Since the Office of the Chief Executive is a reflection of us as a nation, I do not think that 8 years of Gee-Dubs should make any of us very proud of what we have accomplished.
Unless the false dichotomy that you speak of is me seperating him from us, and that we are all idiots, and then I would have to say "touche, my good friend!".
No. The false dichotomy is that you present it as a two option choice (one or the other), and that isn't reality. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. This translates to
some Americans, not all. When less than 50% of the country does something, it isn't the fault of the whole country. This would be like blaming the North for the Jim Crow laws, essentially your committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of composition.
Further, accountability is an individual responsibility, as you can't have a group without individuals.
I don't blame the 2000 voters either, how could they possibly know how bad he would be? The signs weren't there, but 2004 is a different story. Even then, they're some of us who rejected him, does that make us better or smarter? no. It just means that we held a belief in a different system, a system we thought was better for the country.
Quote from: Declan on November 13, 2008, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 13, 2008, 10:01:49 PM
"Spreading democracy" is a bullshit term to cover our violent imperialism.
Democracy finds its own way in the dark. All we need to do is spread humanism no matter what form of government is in place.
*Rings Liberty Bell
:clap: