Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 67 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  65  66  67   
Author Topic: Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just getting it ready...we might need it tomorrow night. And I think that as we enter this next phase of the election, it deserves a new thread.

For some general election news from Gallup:

quote:
A new poll released by Gallup Monday suggests McCain may be out of step with the majority of Americans when it comes to U.S.-Iranian relations. Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed thought it was a good idea for the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran. When Iran is taken out of the equation, an even higher percentage – 67 percent – responded that they thought it would be a good idea for the president to meet with leaders of countries considered enemies of the United States.
A sign of the times. I think as a country, in many ways we don't think like we did 8 years ago. I think we've grown a lot more skeptical of the "implacable foe" rhetoric we're getting from people like McCain and President Bush. McCain might be doing himself more harm than he thinks if he keeps harping on this.

TIME has an article in it's more recent edition about the differences in the McCain and Obama campaigns. Obama basically already has a 50 state in depth set up. He's up and running in every state with volunteers established and ready to go, with a huge war chest that has no end in sight. McCain on the other hand is leaking staff due to his connections to lobbyists, is struggling with fundraising and is still trying to get operations moving in states he never had to campaign in. It may be that this superlong Primary process really helped Obama out in ways that might not have been obvious a few weeks ago, but he's ready to fight it out anywhere five months before Election Day and McCain, who has had weeks with no Republican opposition is fumbling the ball. It'll be interesting to see how quickly he can put together a national campaign when his best position is as underdog insurgent.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First Post.

Obama for 08!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bob Barr!
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Saephon
Member
Member # 9623

 - posted      Profile for Saephon   Email Saephon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just when you think the Democrats are experts at losing, the Libertarian Party writes, directs, and stars in a play about Foot Shooting.

Go Obama by the way [Razz]

Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
First Post.

Obviously not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Err...go Cynthia McKinney?

No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.

Posts: 10132 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Err...go Cynthia McKinney?

No, seriously, I'm pretty sure I'm voting for someone this election.

Hey me too, it's kinda nice for once.
Posts: 14271 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Epictetus
Member
Member # 6235

 - posted      Profile for Epictetus   Email Epictetus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.
That's...terrifying. [Angst]
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
I dreamt last night that Clinton decided to run as a third party candidate.

It's Happening.
Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
First Post.

Obviously not.
Check again.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you can be "first reply". it's just as important.
Posts: 8701 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i.e. Not at all.

Here's hoping that Clinton takes the high road tonight and concedes. Emphasis on "hoping."

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Blayne, in message boards the first post is the one who started the thread. Only in news sites/blogs is there a separation between the creator of the topic and the first poster.

Yet the OP is in point of fact numbered 0 (zero). So his is post number 1. Eponymously, his post is "first," although it is not the first post.
Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.

So, second post. First reply.

It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.

Posts: 8701 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you look at posting history, first posts are numbered zero in perpetuity.
Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Strider
Member
Member # 1807

 - posted      Profile for Strider   Email Strider         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm reminded of this xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/386/

Posts: 8701 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah that's never been linked before.
Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Blayne is attempting to bring the idiotic "First Post!" meme from the World of Warcraft forums to here.

In these forums, there are Blizzard employees (with special blue text) who post on only about 1 out of every 1000 threads, and so there is something of a game to get the first post after a Blizzard employee. Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.

Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.

Posts: 5645 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It started at Slashdot years ago, and was immature and pointless then, too.

-Bok

Posts: 6894 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Strider:
actually, the OP isn't numbered 0. that column on the main page is titled "replies" not "posts". So it's 0 until the first person replies to the OP.

So, second post. First reply.

It took all of one post for this thread to get off track.

That's fine. It'll get back on track as soon as we officially get to the General.
Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
Often the threads are themselves created by a Blizzard employee, so the second post in these threads would be the "first post" by a non-blizzard poster.

Now, this is the meme at the wow forums, but there could be other such conventions at other forums. Since Lyrhawn is a normal poster, his post is indeed the "first post" any way you slice it.

But Lyrhawn is also an Eddie Izzard fan, which must've confused our dear Blayne. He was vying to be the first non-Izzard-fan poster. And he did it! Huzzah! [Hat]

*Sigh*
I'm so burnt out following the primary I wonder how much energy I can muster to follow the news in the general election?

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You might be surprised.

This might be a General unlike anything we've seen in recent memory. There's serious talk on both sides of Obama and McCain actually campaigning together, and speaking together at various stops along the way. For all the talk of Lincoln and Douglas, that would actually be a lot closer to what Lincoln and Douglas actually did than the so called debates people are calling for.

There's also talk of more than just the regular three debates, though three have already been scheduled for the Fall. Hopefully we'll get out of the doldrums we're already in where the two of them slam each other back and forth over the same thing day in and day out.

It's a long race boys, take a breath.

You'll find the energy, and I think there'll be plenty to get excited about.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, actual unmoderated Lincoln-Douglas style debates would be cool.

But the thought of lots of lots of regular debates just makes me want to pull my covers over my head and not leave my pillow fort until Christmastime .

Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were 3 hour long press conferences, seriously. One of them talked for 60 minutes, then another talked 90, then there was a 30 minute rebuttal.

We don't even need no moderators. I think one or two unmoderated debates would be interesting, combined with a YouTube style debate. But moderators, when they are doing their jobs, serve an important function. What we need is more interaction between the candidates. They need to be able to talk to each other, to directly challenge each other, to ask questions of each other, with a fair moderator there to make them behave and actually make them answer the questions instead of using stump speech filler to run out the clock.

I'd like topic oriented debates. One debate on science and technology, one on foreign affairs, one on health care, etc. Cover every topic and don't let them divert the conversation by talking about something else.

I don't want dozens of debates, but I do want honest conversation about topics, and someone there to call them out on it when they start using scare tactic rhetoric. I actually have hope that we might get that this time around.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyrhawn, I only take issue with assumption that "they need to be able to talk to each other" suggests, which is that they actually want to.

It's seems pretty clear that the debates are as canned and controlled as they are because that's what the candidates, or their handlers, want to do. It's like a cold war- the candidates get to win by doing the most stump speech preparation, the most research, the most anticipation of questions and needed responses or favorable outcomes, essentially the most stockpiling.

What, in a one on one debate would be demonstrative of the candidates' actual real qualities, is not present in a moderated debate where they don't address each other, and I can't help but think that's exactly what they want.

Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't much care what they want, I care about what the people need.

I think, given a change in format, these two candidates would actually debate each other rather than regurgitate answers. It might not be a total back and forth, but I know they'd advantage of the format. It's the 30 second this and 60 second that format that really protects them. But a moderator can take care of that. If they could actually find someone decent.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree there. It's amazing that in a country of 300 million, we settle on the metiocre voices of the media to deal with politics so heavily.
Posts: 9588 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's because the "media" aren't news services so much as entertainment services now. They're after ratings, not there merely to educate the people on what is happening.

The media shapes public opinion in ways I think no one really understands. They can create and destroy more powerfully than any other entity in the country. And I think they have little appreciation for that power, and little show little in the way of respect for the responsibility that goes along with it.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If anyone's interested my mom (although were canadian) supports Obama she doesn't really understand the issues but likes how Obama grew up/came from nothing.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I want a debate moderated by Jon Stewart. If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose.
Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He'd be an interesting choice. I think he harbors a liberal bias, but that's really hard to say. Generally he beats up on anyone and everyone he thinks is being stupid. Since his show really came into its own during Bush's presidency, it's this administration that has taken the brunt of his tongue lashings. But even in the last year and a half with Democrats in control of Congress he hasn't missed many chances to lambast them for what he considers to be inept buffoonery as well. I think he votes Democrat, but hates the whole system entirely. He thinks they all suck, but Democrats suck just a tiny bit less than the other guys. Either that, or like me, he thinks they generally have the right idea, but are utterly incapable of executing those ideas on the national stage.

He's an interesting choice because, given what I think is a liberal leaning, and the perception that he's anti-Republican (based on his attacks on the right), he still has a pretty good relationship with John McCain. McCain has been on his show more often than any other single guest. Clearly McCain is okay with it or he wouldn't keep coming back, so I suspect that, plus the huge youth audience that such a moderator would likely bring out would compel him to probably say yes, maybe. Obama would do it I think because most of his supporters big Stewart fans, and most of the people in Stewart's audience are big Obama supporters.

The funny thing about your comment Sterling, "If anyone's going to ask the candidates stupid and trivial questions, it at least ought to be on purpose," is that some of the best commentary in the media today comes layered in between his jokes. I think there are three Jon Stewarts. There's always joking funny Jon Stewart (who I don't even think is really that funny anymore), there's spot-on analysis Jon Stewart, and there's grumpy old jaded cynic Jon Stewart. The third one is what you get when he's interviewed by Larry King or Charlie Rose, when he really shows himself. He's not funny, and he spends most of his time as an iconoclast, taking a swing at anything and everything around him. The first one is never taken seriously because he's a comic.

But the second one is maybe the best newsman alive today. He asks tough questions, presses points that most people let go, and opens up insightful bits of commentary when you least expect it. I trust that the questions he would ask, if he was being serious and wasn't necessarily out to advance an agenda (as I think he would not be), I think he'd ask the perfect questions for this election. And for that matter, he wouldn't take cookie cutter answers without biting back and demanding a real answer. A lot of this gets lost in many of his interviews, especially because there already seems to be a precondition that as a "fake news" show or a "comedy show," nothing that's said has any value, but it's there, and generally pretty easy to spot.

Colbert I think is just as smart, but you don't see it as much because he's more like Stewart was a few years ago. He's funny first and makes the spot-on point second. He does hammer home good points from time to time, but almost never in his interviews, which he's gotten the hang of, but only to make them funny, not to reveal anything. I'm wondering what he'll sound like in a couple years, and if he'll be as jaded as Stewart obviously is.

Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain. I didn't think I'd get it, but I'm really looking forward to the next few months.

However, while I have said in the past that I favor Obama but wouldn't mind McCain in the president's chair, I may have to retract that. McCain has apparently changed his views on presidential power in the last six months. Where he condemned warrentless wiretapping before, now he seems to be condoning it. I want a president who will return the executive branch to being only 1/3 of the government.

Posts: 7780 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Council on Foreign Relations series on Obama's foreign policy advisors

Oddly, none of this content is yet available on the Foreign Affairs site.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Stewart were to moderate a debate, would that make him the first person to ever host the Oscars and a presidential primary debate?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And here's the other side of the coin:

Council on Foreign Relations series on McCain's foreign policy advisors

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Anywho, I think Stewart actually would be a really good choice for a debate, maybe for a YouTube style debate, to really marry the generational elements there together.

Given what the Daily Show had to say about the last YouTube debate, I wouldn't hold my breath. [Smile]

I don't know that I would necessarily call Stewart more liberal off the bat than, say, Stephanopoulos. It would be interesting, no doubt- and despite my rather flippant comment, I agree that Stewart might have a better chance of asking a question or two that would actually cut through the baloney than many. Especially if he was permitted to comment on the responses after the rebuttals; I don't think either candidate would likely keep to pat stock responses for long with someone pointing out that they were, in fact, pat stock responses.

Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
McCain today formally asked Obama to join him for 10 town hall debates, to begin next Wednesday in New York City.

What McCain gets out of this is obvious: Free media. He's way behind Obama in fundraising, and a free 90 minutes or whatever of speechifying every week really helps him level the playing field over the Summer.

Obama's campaign has already enthusiastically responded by saying they're very open to the idea, but actually want the format longer and less structured, which I think leans towards making it more like what we're discussing here. I think he's pushing for an unmoderated debate.

VP Watch

R
There's serious talk now of McCain's top VP choice being LA governor Bobby Jindal. He's the nation's first Indian governor and would be the nation's first Indian VP candidate. He's rumored to be on the short list and has gotten a lot of attention lately. Upsides? He's young, has some executive experience, might help with the minority vote. Downsides? He's only been governor for like six months, hardly enough time to really gain meaningful experience. Before that he was a Rep. in the House. But he's a Republican's Republican. He has a 100% pro-life voting record, he's lockstep on guns, voted to make the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and even to eliminate the ban on oil drilling on the continental shelf. He voted with Republicans 97% of the time in the House. For whatever power a VP has, I think that's going to scare some people away. Moderates and Independents that might like McCain's cross over appeal certainly aren't going to see that reflected in Jindal, though he'd be great at getting Republicans who might not like McCain out to vote. Still, the real possibility that McCain's health might make a downturn makes Jindal a scary replacement for a lot of people. He'd be the youngest president in history if he were to take office (or the youngest VP ever) at 36. He's barely legal. The idea of putting a minority in the VP spot to reach out to minorities seems silly when you're running against a black guy. Besides, all the people who won't vote for Barack Hussain Obama, a black guy from Chicago, are probably going to have the same problem voting for Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, from NOLA. He'd be an unconventional choice, and I wonder what McCain really thinks he'd bring to the ticket. I'd find it curious that McCain would take on a relative newbie when he's hammering Obama so hard on not being experienced enough. Why take on someone that is literally your replacement for the office when he has less experience than even Obama? That could bite him in the butt.

D

And of course you all know that Clinton has been reported to be angling for a VP spot on the Democratic ticket. We'll see how that goes. He's going to face some pressure from diehard Clinton supporters, though most Senators and Democrats in Congress have stated that they will be quiet and let Obama make his own choice. Clinton has done way too much to shoot herself in the foot, and to attempt to harm his campaign, to say nothing of the fact that she, with Bill Clinton, represents part of what Obama wants to change away from. Cementing their place on his ticket harms his own message.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jindal also seems to be a man after Mike Huckabee's heart. At least in regards to science education and the separation of church and state.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam_S
Member
Member # 9695

 - posted      Profile for Adam_S   Email Adam_S         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jindal is a southerner and he may prevent Obama from plucking and flipping a Lousiana ripe with Katrina resentment against the Bush Administration.

I am torn on the VP thing, Clinton may be the wisest choice to make even if she is not the smartest choice for him to make. The rational choice, the smart choice, the choice that minimizes potential 527 attacks is anyone but Clinton. Unfortunately relying on voters to be rational in their political decision making rather than emotional has not served the democrats well in the last two elections. this is sort of creating a cognitive dissonance for me, before the primary, my main argument against a Clinton candidacy was the high level of irrational/emotional opposition to Hillary Clinton, and now it's flipped around that the argument for a Clinton VP spot is the high level of emotional support for Hillary Clinton. Has there ever been a more bizarre primary? just amazing.

Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe Hilary could get Secretary of State for Health instead of the VP slot? Obama did emphasize her strength on universal healthcare in his speech yesterday (even though neither of their plans really count as universal healthcare). It's probably highly unlikely but it would be interesting. He would be able to placate Hilary while avoiding Republican attack ads (they wouldn't know of her appointment until he was elected).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Jindal also seems to be a man after Mike Huckabee's heart."
quote:
Mr. Jindal said that "there’s no scientific theory that explains how you create organic life out of inorganic matter"
quote:
...Hillary Clinton said..."More people have voted for me than for anyone who has ever run for the Democratic nomination."
These statements must be read with the sort of close grammatical and definitional care that used to inform her husband’s descriptions of his personal entanglements. They are not quite true in the normal sense, but if made under oath they would not be prosecutable for perjury, either.

Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistry do explain how to make organic out of inorganic.

[ June 04, 2008, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Threads -

You mean HHS? Secretary of Health and Human Services?

Adam_S -

Be careful with that. LA is a weird state this year. The only Democrat really in trouble in the Senate this year is Mary Landrieu in LA. But her brother, whose name escapes me at the moment, was elected as Jindal's Democratic Lieutenant Governor. People are pissed at Republicans nationally for the Katrina response, but they voted in a Republican to replace the Democratic Governor, Blanco. At the millions who left the state never to return were mostly Democratic voters, which might mean the state will skew wildly to the Right this time around, though it remains to be seen if the states nearby that absorbed those refugees like Texas and Georgia can deal with the uptick in Democratic voting there that may follow.

In other words, Louisiana is going to be a weird battleground state this year. It's going to be easy to tie McCain to the "heck of a job Brownie" Bush reaction, considering when the storm hit, Bush was in Arizona celebrating McCain's birthday. He was literally right beside Bush when it happened. Jindal will only have been governor for less than a year by the time the election even takes place, which will limit his influence over the voters. They're still getting to know him.

I'd be skeptical of his ability to deliver his home state this time around.

Posts: 21447 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Caroline Kennedy has been appointed to head the search committee. You know, that's how Dick Cheney started out.

So could Caroline fill the VP shoes? She's certainly attractive and beloved, she's in her 50's. She is thin on experience, though - but the NAACP Legal Commission thing sounds vaguely impressive.

Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't imagine she would be at all interested and I don't really think she is qualified.
Posts: 10616 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Most simplisticly, organic compounds contain carbon, and inorganic compounds do not contain carbon.
Scientificly, the theories of nucleosynthesis and quantum chemistry do explain how to make organic out of inorganic.

That definition of organic is a bit too simplistic since by it Limestone (calcium carbonate) is organic. We routinely separate inorganic carbon compounds (CO2 and carbonates) from organic carbon compounds.

Photosynthesis explains quite nicely how CO2 and H2O (inorganic compounds) are transformed into organic life everyday on every corner of the planet.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hillary can't get the Secretary of State slot, because, as we all saw on West Wing, Obama gives that to McCain.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Well, we have the battle I was really hoping for: Obama/McCain.

Ron Paul is still in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're delusional.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 67 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  65  66  67   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2