Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I guess there's the logic that if he tapped Hillary, he's immune to assasination from the right.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I just hope people stop in and enjoy the information.
Anyone care to wager a prediction on the outcome? Maybe the top three spots on both sides? I'll offer my own predictions tomorrow night before the polls open.
quote:I thought the 15% rule 1) was not universal and 2) only applied to Democrat caucuses. I'm pretty sure the Republican caucuses are run essentially like a primary, where the voters show up, hear a spiel from the various parties, and then vote by secret ballot. The Dems, however, have the somewhat arcane "vote with your feet" method, with non-viable candidates' supporters being forced to re-choose sides. I could certainly be wrong, though.
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
All those Hunter, Giuliani, and (possibly) McCain supporters are going to have to go somewhere once their candidate comes out below 15%, and I highly doubt they're going to veer Romney-ward.
quote:The DMR poll was particularly big news because when pollsters themselves were asked which polls they trust most, DMR/Selzer and Co. was overwhelmingly the favorite, due mostly to the fact that they are a strictly Iowan operation and are considered to know the political landscape there better than any of the national outfits. Zogby, on the other hand, is consistently rated the least reliable pollster.
The numbers are all so close between all the different polling places that frankly I didn't put a heck of a lot of thought into which sources I've been snagging.
quote:The Democrats have the 15% rule and from the sound of things their caucus is pretty complicated. They have to get together, the candidate reps give their spiel, they form groups to determine viability, then they have so long to reform, everyone has to go to a different group, or groups under 15% have to steal people from other groups to reach the threshhold, and then they take a tally again. After viability is determined, they stick with the guy they want, and it's tallied, and reps are chosen.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:I thought the 15% rule 1) was not universal and 2) only applied to Democrat caucuses. I'm pretty sure the Republican caucuses are run essentially like a primary, where the voters show up, hear a spiel from the various parties, and then vote by secret ballot. The Dems, however, have the somewhat arcane "vote with your feet" method, with non-viable candidates' supporters being forced to re-choose sides. I could certainly be wrong, though.
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
All those Hunter, Giuliani, and (possibly) McCain supporters are going to have to go somewhere once their candidate comes out below 15%, and I highly doubt they're going to veer Romney-ward.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I didn't read your specific link; but just wanted to say that I think ALL the media hypes up these first primaries way too much. I don't think Iowa or New Hampshire should quit having them -- I think they just shouldn't get so much coverage as being a "pulse" of the American vote. I mean -- how much does the average Iowa voter have in common with, say, the average California voter? Not much. It is a very miniscule part of the population.
To start off, some news:
Recent polls show that 80% of Americans think Iowa and New Hampshire's vote first reign should end. Half say that they have too much power.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Yes, I vivdly recall that press conference.
Originally posted by pooka:
My brother thinks Giuliani will be acceptable because even though Rudy is pro-choice, he has apparently promised to appoint constructionist judges...
quote:Huh?
Of the Bush supporters I've chatted with, all are leaning heavily towards Clinton.
quote:pooka, I should have been clearer: of the Iowa Bushies I know, none are social conservatives. They're all self-serving opportunists (disclaimer: I do know many decent non-Iowa semi-pro-Bush social conservatives, just none in Iowa).
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Huh?
Of the Bush supporters I've chatted with, all are leaning heavily towards Clinton.
quote:Yes. If only.
. I think there should be four voting days, defined by region, and one or two states from each region should get to vote ahead of time, and the region and early voters would rotate every four years so everyone gets a chance, even if it only comes every couple decades. I think that's a fair compromise.
quote:You should check it out while the Colbert Report is on.
Originally posted by Icarus:
I'm amazed at how quickly Wikipedia has updated information about tonight's developments.
quote:
Both Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden abandoned their presidential bids in Iowa, each registering less than 1 percent of the vote.
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I guess there's the logic that if he tapped Hillary, he's immune to assasination from the right.
quote:
Dear Alan,
I count the past year of campaigning for the presidency as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service.
Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from that campaign tonight.
But there is no reason to hang our heads this evening -- only the opportunity to look towards a continuation of the work we started last January: ending the Iraq War, restoring the Constitution, and putting a Democrat in the White House.
I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:
The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.
You've been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I'll need you to stick by my side despite tonight's caucus results.
So, one more time, thank you for all of your efforts throughout the course of this entire Presidential campaign.
We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we'll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.
I'll never forget you, and what we've fought for, together, over the past year.
Chris Dodd
quote:You are right. I have said I think Paul needs at least 5th in Iowa and 3rd in NH. Maybe I said 4th in NH.
If Ron Paul is to have a chance in hell, it'll be to take third place or better in New Hampshire. They like spoilers there, and it's his best chance to capitalize on a quirky electorate. If not, he's done.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Curse you Win 98!
quote:Oh my.
Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
I guess there's the logic that if he tapped Hillary, he's immune to assasination from the right.
quote:
I'll be a president ...who understands that 9/11 is not a way to scare up votes but a
challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
quote:You know, except for having Huckabee as president.
Originally posted by Shawshank:
I wonder what Huckabee plus Chuck Norris would do if they ran. Maybe Chuck should be VP- just imagine how cool our country would be.
quote:
Together, ordinary people can do extra-ordinary things. Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states, we are the United States of America, and in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again! Thank you, Iowa!
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
quote:Guiliani wasn't part of the Iowa Caucus, you know. Anything that went his way at all would be the equivalent of a "write-in" vote, because they didn't include Guiliani in the caucus.
Originally posted by pooka:
Giuliani wasn't expecting to do well, but... dang, man.
quote:Holy crap, why's that? Can they be written in?
Obama, Edwards, and Richardson will not be on those ballots.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:*Seconds both questions*
Holy crap, why's that? Can they be written in?
quote:Probably, but not meaningfully. I doubt that any statewide write-in*campaign has ever generated more than a thousand or so votes.
quote:...why's that? Can they be written in?
Obama, Edwards, and Richardson will not be on those ballots.
quote:I am not sure how much money Paul invested in Iowa compared to Giuliani, but I do know that they both visited the state 20 times.
Giuliani's showing in Iowa is only a small surprise. I don't think anyone was expecting him to do better than single digits. His organization was near non-existant, he spent little money there and very little time (relatively) there.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
quote:I'm still confused. Do the votes from these states count? How can an election where several major candidates aren't on the ballot even be factored into the national scheme of things?
Originally posted by Katarain:
Michigan and Florida went against DNC rules and moved their primaries to before February 5th because they believe the influence the early states have is unfair, so as a result, their delegates don't get to vote wherever/whenever it is that they vote for the democratic nomination.
quote:Not only did she give a speech, but I also posted a link to it.
Originally posted by Shawshank:
I didn't see anything- but did Clinton make a speech after she got third?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:With the caveat that I don't necessarily agree with his descriptions of the candidates, I think they're as follows.
1) Will it be the person who obviously took bribes but simply denies it?
2) The person who used public money to conceal an adulterous relationship?
3) The person who uses religious bigotry as a tool to bring down a frontrunner, even as he claims to stand for constitutional values?
4) The person who claims to champion the poor, but treats ordinary people with disdain when he happens to run into them?
5) The person who kind of wants to be president but doesn't want to do any of the work required to actually get the office?
It's definitely an interesting, and important, perspective on Obama's candidacy.
quote:Enigmatic, I don't think that number five refers to Obama, but to Fred Thompson.
With the caveat that I don't necessarily agree with his descriptions of the candidates, I think they're as follows.
1) Clinton
2) Guilliani
3) Huckabee
4) Edwards
5) Obama
I could be wrong, but those seem to make the most sense and I don't think he'd bother with on 2nd-tier candidates in this.
quote:I don't know about the Republican side, but there are already some winds of change on the Democratic side. Several of the leadership officials in the DNC have proposed adding several new states to the front loaded part of the election cycle. The problem is that New Hampshire will continue to push their primary out in front, regardless of how many new states are added. Change IS coming, it's just really hard to have any idea of what it will look like when it gets here, but the fact that so many states have moved up their primaries, and that Florida and Michigan sacrified their votes this time around for the sake of change, I think 2012 will look like a whole new nominating process. New Hampshire and Iowa are powerful, in ways that allowed them to more or less shut Michigan and Florida (amazing considering the vast different in real power, political and economic that exists there) out of the process entirely when they tried to horn in. That won't stand. Michigan and Florida are too important, and I don't think they'll be the only two to move out in front.
Originally posted by Morbo:
To extend on Lyhawn's answer to Dragon, the reason most democratic candidates can be kept off the ballots is because it's a primary. Though state and county governments run the vote collecting, the parties set the rules for their delegates. And the parties want to keep the early primary states in front of the rest.
I suspect that the early primary system is going to crumble soon. It's already in disarray this year with so many states moving up their primary dates. I bet by 2012 it dissolves.
quote:That seems like a very odd approach to the situation, Tom.
I'd still rather vote for someone who may or may not have principles vs. someone I'm sure doesn't have them, though, and it looks like that'll eventually be the choice.
quote:See, to me that's a positive. It means two things: 1. He's still idealistic enough to think he can get things done that rank and file establishment types wouldn't bother trying. 2. He's not as beholden to people as other candidates are.
He hasn't been in politics long enough for me to be sure that he actually has the principles he claims to have, or that he can stick to them once he has to play politics
quote:I'm surprised Paul isn't doing better. From the coverage I saw, he was the only one with a significant footprint, besides Romney. Maybe Paul's anti-war message didn't play well on the plateau.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Wyoming
Romney currently leads the vote with more than 50%. He's seconded by Duncan Hunter at 21% and Thompson at 17%.
To be fair, the three of them, plus Ron Paul, are the only candidates who even bothered doing a little campaigning in the state. Romney will win, and he has to hope that he might just get a tiny bump of free media out of it before heading into New Hampshire on Tuesday.
quote:I think you misunderstood what I wrote. We seem to be in agreement.
What good is there in choosing, as an executive leader, someone you know you cannot trust, vs. someone you wish you could trust but don't know for sure?
quote:Yes!
McCain leads in NH at 33%
quote:
I relaxed for the first time in many minutes, finishing my drink and looking at the post-speech coverage of Olbermann trying not to laugh at the shit-scared White man writ large, Chris Matthews sitting next to him, all darting eyes and afraid of what is on the horizon.
quote:go right ahead
but other sources I've read say that Independents are expected to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this election for various reasons that I can go into if anyone would like
quote:Sorry to butt in, but they will vote in large part because Republicans have had control of the white house for 8 years now, and people want a changing of the guard.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:go right ahead
but other sources I've read say that Independents are expected to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in this election for various reasons that I can go into if anyone would like
quote:As much as Edwards seems to be positioning himself for the spot, I don't think it'll be him. Probably someone with more foreign policy experience.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Question, whose going to be Obama's running mate?
quote:Certainly not in the 2008 elections. History suggests that the coat tail effect is quite strong so republicans have virtually no chance of winning either the house or the senate if they loose the Presidency.
Its extremely likely that if a Democrat IS elected, that eventually the house and senate will fall back into Republican control.
quote:*shrugs* Maybe Dodd or Biden. Perhaps even Richardson.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Question, whose going to be Obama's running mate?
quote:Personally, I always thought that Clinton and the Republican congress was a good combination (up until impeachment hearings bogged everything down) in that they had to work together and compromise on stuff so that neither party could just steamroll through their full agenda. I had this smug little theory that having congress majority and the president being different parties was the best situation.
Originally posted by pooka:
Oh, yeah, I went link hunting and never came back on this. It seemed like since WWII, there had not been a republican congress until Clinton. Maybe I'm thinking of Watergate. But people used to cite a Republican congress as evidence that Clinton was no good -- kind of how they are now talking that way about Bush.
quote:
Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. ...
quote:True. As will the Bush presidency.
Somehow, the Clinton presidency is always going to be special in history, dear to the heart of all stand up comics.
quote:Congress doesn't vote to make the VP president - it happens by action of law.
Of course, you could quibble about whether Congress' vote to confirm would constitute being elected to the office.
quote:It doesn't say "ineligible to be elected to the office of President," but it could well be interpreted that way.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
quote:
Still, that view is not universal. Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said by e-mail that "read literally, the 22nd Amendment does not apply" and therefore Clinton could be vice president. "But one could argue that since the vice president is elected . . . should he take office he would be in effect elected president. Electing a vice president means electing a vice president and contingently electing him as president. That interpretation, though a little bold, would honor the intention behind the 22nd Amendment."
quote:Since he could not hold the office of the President again (that is, he would be constitutionally ineligible), he cannot hold the office of Vice President.
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
quote:It's possibly the only iron rule of American politics that when one party controls the White House the other makes gains in the congress until they obtain control. Americans seem to like that balance. Of course you are right there are exceptions. Bush had a Republican congress for almost 7 years. If a Democrat takes the White House and say the economy starts taking an upswing and Iraq continues to improve the Democrats would likely gain in the congress. But it is also quite possible the Republicans could say, "See we were right all this was setup to happen in the Bush years," and the Democrats will lose in the congress.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Certainly not in the 2008 elections. History suggests that the coat tail effect is quite strong so republicans have virtually no chance of winning either the house or the senate if they loose the Presidency.
Its extremely likely that if a Democrat IS elected, that eventually the house and senate will fall back into Republican control.
What happens in 2010 will depend very strongly on what the winners do after 2008.
I guess if you give "eventually" a very broad interpretation then you are very likely correct.
quote:Pretty diverse group of dragons you've got there. I don't think Tatooine is even close to the Hapes Cluster.
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
Dragon - I usually go after Krayt Dragons and Hapan Battle Dragons, so I reckon you're all right.
quote:¿Qué?
CNN.com Headline:
VIDEO: How Important is N.H.?
George Stephanopoulos on the other states key to winning the nomination.
quote:Why would Paul's supporters flock to Obama?
I see his [Paul's] supporters, forced to make a choice, flocking to Obama.
quote:Sigh. That would be nice. I had almost forgotten that was what AGs are supposed to do.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
pooka -
Just a guess really, but the majority of his anti-poverty stuff is based on his career as a lawyer taking on big companies and winning for the little guy. That's pretty much what AGs do so far as I know.
quote:Heh.
Biden 386 0%
Dodd 119 0%
quote:They're projecting Clinton to win because in the bigger cities she continues to maintain a pretty big lead.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
But only 66% is in? what about the remaining 34%?
quote:CNN has Clinton and Obama with 8 delegates each.
Originally posted by Tstorm:
So, how many delegates will she win over Obama in this race? I know the super delegates are already somewhat decided, but I wonder how New Hampshire divides up those delegate votes.
quote:She seems relieved. This is going to give her a break from all the "Hillary is Out" headlines we've seen over the past few days.
Originally posted by Javert:
Watching Hilary's speech right now. She seems very quite, reserved, and tired.
Huge difference between this and Obama's speech.
quote:Romney has cried publicly a number of times during his campaign. It's been noted in the media, but a big deal hasn't been made of it.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Believe me if Romney, or Obama had broken down and started crying for any reason other then happiness we would be talking about it JUST as much.
quote:It's one possible factor, but I think far from the only one. Another comment I heard from an analyst on NPR this morning pertained to Bush's recent statements about Iran and the issue with their navy. Basically he said it's been proven that if people are scared about war they shift towards more "established" candidates and more toward the right. So that may have had two effects: undecided Dems breaking for Hillary over Obama on the experience issue, and Independents who would have supported Obama voting for McCain in the Republican primary instead.
Originally posted by Strider:
Just to note, while the way i phrased it may have been clip, I mean the question seriously. She was behind in the polls, was she pushed over the edge with a late hour show of emotion?
quote:I think crying because someone died (as one clip showed Bush doing) or because one is moved by profound emotion (as Romney did in his faith speech) is different from crying because you feel you are right and others are wrong (which is what Hillary was talking about at the time).
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Romney has cried publicly a number of times during his campaign. It's been noted in the media, but a big deal hasn't been made of it.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Believe me if Romney, or Obama had broken down and started crying for any reason other then happiness we would be talking about it JUST as much.
quote:Because you're a Republican? Seriously, Clinton won't win in the general election, and nominating her would indicate that Democrats have learned nothing from Kerry's defeat (not to mention Dukakis's.) It shows a thorough lack of awareness of just how much mid-America and the South despise her. For me, as someone who wants to undo what I perceive to be the damage done to our country over the last eight years, a Clinton nomination is just about the worst thing that could happen. If she does get nominated, I hope she runs against McCain, because I can't take the idea of a President Huckabee or a President Romney.
Originally posted by the_Somalian:
I sincerely hope that Clinton wins over Obama.
quote:Looked at another way, though, these are the people who have shown dedication to "the cause" year after year, instead of a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. It may not be democratic, but from a theoretic standpoint I don't see it as being an inherently flawed voting mechanism.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have to say that the whole "superdelegates" thing is pissing me off. It is completely undemocratic and gives "the party elite" way too much control. It is designed to be undemocratic. It is just wrong.
quote:I linked to such a website earlier, in the Iowa thread, I think. If you don't feel like digging for it, I'll go look.
Originally posted by Mucus:
Is there a nicely organised place where you can lookup how much money each candidate has received, how and where they have spent it, and who gave that money to them in the first place?
quote:I agree; I think we just differ on what constitutes "once in a while" and "an orderly fashion."
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And I'm not. So it does. I think that power needs some redistribution every once in a while. I prefer it to happen in an orderly fashion.
quote:From that summary, it sounds to me like it's another case of huge cuts for the rich and maybe a little cut for working class people to get them to go along with it. It strikes me as especially irresponsible to focus so much on a trillion dollar tax cut without saying anything much about where the spending cuts would come from to pay for it. Anyone else's thoughts? Will people go for this just because they like any tax cut no matter what?
Giuliani's multi-trillion dollar proposal, unveiled in a speech earlier this week, would reduce the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 10 percent, preserve President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, permanently eliminate the estate tax, and give taxpayers the option of choosing a simplified tax form with three tax brackets with a maximum bracket of 30 percent. It would also index the alternative minimum tax to inflation — and eventually repeal it entirely.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:By "liberal," do you mean "libertarian?"
Only a liberal would think Ron Paul acquited himself well in the recent debate on Fox News.
quote:Well like Stephen Colbert says, "reality has a well known liberal bias."
Only a liberal would think Ron Paul acquited himself well in the recent debate on Fox News.
quote:I have not heard the Congressman speaking out about any religious beliefs. It seems that all the religious questions are addressed to Gov. Mike Huckabee by the media.
Originally posted by fugu13:
...Ron Paul is outspoken about his religious beliefs. He's doing fairly well among Libertarians.
quote:Wow, you really want to go into that? First off, liberal ideas don't always fail, and you can ask women and minorities, who liberals got the vote for, and for that matter, freedom from slavery (which your conservatives touted). It was a liberal who busted the trusts, made child labor laws, and worker protections so people didn't literally work themselves to death. Liberals created food inspectors to make sure the food you eat is safe. A liberal president created Social Security, which, though it's gone awry NOW because subsequent governments have messed it up, lifted thousands of people out of abject poverty and literally saved thousands of the elderly from starving or freezing to death. Liberal ideas always fail? Sheesh, you have selective memory.
Lyrhawn, if "reality has a liberal bias," then why do liberal ideas always fail, and wind up making matters worse? Why has "liberal" become a pejorative term, so that all politicians instinctively object to having the label applied to them? No one minds being called "conservative," because conservative ideas have been seen to work more often than not.
quote:I think someone missed the memo that went out.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
... Why has "liberal" become a pejorative term, so that all politicians instinctively object to having the label applied to them?
quote:Also,
The Liberal Party of Canada is a Canadian federal political party. The organization is located in the centre of the Canadian political spectrum, combining a liberal social policy with moderate economic policies. The party has been frequently dubbed "Canada's natural governing party", [1] since it has been in power most of the time since the Great Depression ...
The Liberal Party held power for more years of the 20th century than did any other party in any developed western country.
quote:Actually, there is a even more strange inversion of politics in foreign locales that you might want to think about. "Conservatives" are right-wing and "Liberals" are left-wing in the United States.
No one minds being called "conservative," because conservative ideas have been seen to work more often than not.
quote:That's a lie Blayne. Good communists don't have time to play video games, they spend all their time reading the works of Marx, Lenin, Mao; inviting people to rallies and political gatherings.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'm a Communist, where do I fit in?
quote:Liberal authoritarian -- the nanny state taken to its extreme.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'm a Communist, where do I fit in?
quote:To you maybe, to you. To me, liberals and their ideas are the only hope this country has to save us from the slide conservatives have sent us on.
Now it is a bad thing.
quote:So, to clarify, liberalism is not globally discredited?
Blayne, communism is neither conservative nor liberal, left wing or right, because it has been globally discredited...
quote:Actually, everything I've heard is the opposite of that. That McCain against Obama would not be good because Obama would pull the independent votes, while McCain couldn't satisfy the core of the Republican party.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You kidding? Democrats should cross over in droves to vote for Romney. The most recent polling I've seen shows that if he's the Republican candidate in the general, the Democrats will walk away with the General, regardless of who their nominee is. His has the lowest "will vote for for sure" numbers and the highest "will not for vote under any circumstances" numbers.
Numbers for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney against Hillary or Obama are BAD. Either Democrat beats any of the three of them by double digits. With McCain? Statistical tie. I was going to vote uncommitted, now I'm thinking about voting for Romney just to screw with the results. It feels a bit dishonest, but I look at it like a vote for Romney is really a vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.
quote:Socialism seems to be doing pretty well.
since only capitalism really works
quote:The most recent national hypothetical polling shows McCain has the best chance. The others turn off way too many voters, regardless of whether or not Hillary is the run they are running against. McCain has the best chance of attracting independents and not being wholly unlikeable to the base. He nails down most of the present Republican platform, he's a war vet, etc. He'll do just fine with the base. Huckabee does the best with the base, but everyone left of the far right won't vote for him. Giuliani takes most of the center, but the far right won't touch him with a ten foot pole, regardless of who he SAYS he'll appoint to the Supreme Court. And no one trusts Romney.
Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Actually, everything I've heard is the opposite of that. That McCain against Obama would not be good because Obama would pull the independent votes, while McCain couldn't satisfy the core of the Republican party.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You kidding? Democrats should cross over in droves to vote for Romney. The most recent polling I've seen shows that if he's the Republican candidate in the general, the Democrats will walk away with the General, regardless of who their nominee is. His has the lowest "will vote for for sure" numbers and the highest "will not for vote under any circumstances" numbers.
Numbers for Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney against Hillary or Obama are BAD. Either Democrat beats any of the three of them by double digits. With McCain? Statistical tie. I was going to vote uncommitted, now I'm thinking about voting for Romney just to screw with the results. It feels a bit dishonest, but I look at it like a vote for Romney is really a vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.
And as we've learned, it's not about the popular vote, it's who wins the most electoral votes. That means key states. That breakdown is the most important.
Please do vote for Mitt on Tuesday.
quote:Link for above at Politifact:
Two press reports from Obama's swearing-in ceremony in January 2005 mention specifically that Obama took the oath of office by placing his hand on his own copy of the Bible. The Barack Obama campaign also confirmed that it was a Bible and that the book belonged to Obama. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, administered the oath.
After being raised outside of any particular faith tradition, Obama became a Christian in his mid 20s and is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. (Obama gave what are arguably his most extended remarks on his faith at the "Call to Renewal" religious conference in 2006; read the speech here
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ )
quote:I'm not sure I like a definition of socialism that requires "a particular impediment to free exchange."
as it is not a particular impediment to free exchange
quote:The control of the money supply by a semi-public or public entity doesn't seem to be to the same in nature as the control of the means of production. Rather, I'd put money supply control on the same level as the use of the government to maintain rule of law - facilitators of production, rather than production itself.
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1]. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.
quote:I wasn't saying it was socialist. Just evil. Not all evil is socialist.
Originally posted by fugu13:
So? Taxes are un-hidden taxation, and I don't think it is particularly socialist, either (in and of itself).
edit: also, I don't entirely agree with the premise, but I was taking it as a given for the purposes of what I said. There is definitely a redistributory effect when the central bank expands or contracts the money supply, though.
quote:I'm curious as to where you feel the Scandinavian countries fit with this statement. Are they not fairly sucessful or are they not socialist?
Out of all the fairly successful nations on earth, not a single one that I can think of has economic institutions that could overall be described as socialist, despite the rhetoric of many.
quote:that just made my day
Originally posted by Lisa:
Not all evil is socialist. [/QB]
quote:But the other candidates' names won't be on those ballots, and they've said that write-ins won't be counted. Michigan Dems will only have the options of voting for Clinton or "uncommitted." If they turn around and count the delegates when the state's voters were only given one choice, I think you can count me among the Democrat-leaning Independants who'll vote 3rd party just to not vote for Clinton.
A Democrat or a Democratic-leaning independent voting for a Republican in the Michigan and Florida primaries is voting for Clinton. Every vote for Hillary which isn't cancelled by a vote for another Democratic candidate increases her percentage of total votes in those primaries. And an increased percentage of the total vote means an increased portion of the delegate votes.
quote:This is a good point, and something a Bloomberg campaign could really cash in on.
If they turn around and count the delegates when the state's voters were only given one choice, I think you can count me among the Democrat-leaning Independants who'll vote 3rd party just to not vote for Clinton.
quote:
"I don't think it was in any way a racial comment," Obama told ABC News. "That's something that has played out in the press. That's not my view."
But, he said, the comment was revealing about her political character. "I do think it was indicative of the perspective that she brings, which is that what happens in Washington is more important than what happens outside of Washington," he said.
He said he believes the quote betrays a belief on her part, "that the intricacies of the legislative process were somehow more significant than when ordinary people rise up and march and go to jail and fight for justice."
He called that a "fundamental difference" between them.
quote:You may have addresses this elsewhere, but if so I've missed it. Why you you think she'd fare better in the general election than Obama would? If you have already talked about this, feel free to just point me to it rather than reiterating your points.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I still think Hillary has a better than average chance of winning the General, despite the number of people who think she is patently unelectable.
quote:I voted "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary. I had the option of voting in either primary, and I heavily considered voting for Romney to try and help keep him alive, but ultimately the dishonesty in it ate away at me and I went for uncommitted on the Democratic side. I listened to an NPR story this morning that said in November, data showed that though people were hoping for 2 million voters, it'd probably be closer to 1.4, and it would be 60/40 Dem/Rep. In January the data showed more of a 50/50 split. If 700,000 Democrats are going to come out to vote on a pretty crappy day to vote in a contest that doesn't really matter that much in a primary, well, I think that says something pretty excellent about Democratic turnout in Michigan, and something pretty sad about Republican turnout for a race that actually matters.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
I'm really curious about what is going to happen with the Democratic primary in Michigan. Are people actually going to show up at the polls to vote "uncommited" or will only Clinton supporters go? Will most Dems go vote in the other primary, and if they do will it be for the candidate they prefer or the candidate they think they have the best chance of beating in the general?
Speaking of vague economic promises, I got a laugh out of line Romney said, something like "If I'm elected President, Michigan won't be suffering from a one-state recession any longer." Do you suppose he's going to change the recession part or the one-state part?
--Enigmatic
quote:Seems logical that if you concede that, then you have to concede that he'd do better. Unless you don't think there's anyone who'd vote for Obama that wouldn't vote for Hillary (which would of course be silly, since there are several on this board alone).
plus I imagine that everyone who'd vote for Hillary would likely vote for him.
), I can point out to you who bore the brunt of the Rodney King acquittal riots: Koreans.
quote:Yeah, but this is the primary. If he gets past Clinton and into the general, every black person in America who doubted his viability is automatically convinced. At that point, if the only thing standing between a black man and the presidency is voter turnout, I don't think anyone would want to have to admit that they didn't get off their ass and vote.
A lot of black people don't think white people will vote for a black candidate, so they doubt his viability.
quote:They interviewed an old friend's dad for that piece! Damn, but that's cool.
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Canada's Globe and Mail has a long piece on Obama and his background, The man who would be president.
quote:Much more the former than the latter, I think.
You'd think so, and you can check me on this, but as recently as the beginning of the month, Hillary polled higher amongst black voters than Obama. There's two reasons for the majority of that: 1. 20 years or so of credit the Clintons have with the black community. They courted them like crazy in the 90's, and most of the big organizers still remember. And 2. A lot of black people don't think white people will vote for a black candidate, so they doubt his viability.
quote:I need to find the whole speech so I can see the context, but that line chills me to the bone.
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
quote:We're rooting for Uncommitted. Who looks to have gotten 33% of the vote, according to CNN's current estimate.
Originally posted by rollainm:
So uh...
Who are the Obama supporters rooting for tonight?
Go Kucinich! Yeah...!
Ahem...
quote:With 33% uncommitted at the state level we have to assume a fair amount of congressional districts are over the 15% line. How do they pick a delegate "not bound to any candidate"? What's to keep, say, an Obama supporter from claiming to be undecided and getting picked as the delegate? (I think this is probably a moot point since I doubt the DNC will change its position after the primary is already over, but I'm curious.)
Under state law, their supporters cannot cast write-in votes for them. But if at least 15 percent of the voters in a congressional district opt for "uncommitted," delegates not bound to any candidate could attend the national convention. That could allow Edwards or Obama supporters to play a role in candidate selection -- if the national party changes its mind and decides to count Michigan's delegates.
quote:CNN now shows Hillary at 57% and Uncommitted at 38%, with 81% of precincts reporting. Clinton's final tally dropping below 50% is probably too much to hope for, but even still that's a pretty impressive Uncommitted turnout, all things considered. It'll be interesting to see if either campaign tries to spin these numbers as good news for them, or if they just go on ignoring the state like they seem to have been.
Hillary had slipped to 59%, last I saw. It was an open race... Indies and Republicans could have in theory voted as uncommitted democrats, could they not?
quote:I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
a desperately needed win in his native Michigan that gave his weakened presidential candidacy new life.
quote:So this is the fantasy scenario whereby the 3 republican winners implode, making space for Giuliani?
Off the top of my head, Thompson will lose and drop out. Huckabee stands a strong chance of winning with a large Evangelical vote there. McCain, strange as it may sound he needs to win SC because his campaign is running on fumes financially. He won't make it to Florida without a win in SC. Giuliani doesn't matter until Florida. Romney will get a small Michigan boost, but he's running third I think in SC, can he survive anything less than a win? Maybe, probably, but it'll be a death knell in reality I think. Huckabee I think will have trouble, financially and realistically surviving a loss in a state with a large Evangelical turnout (in other words, if he can't win where his base is powerful, where can he win?).
quote:Yes, this is just you being paranoid.
I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
quote:I feel much the same way Scott, I mean look at the New Hampshire Democratic primary, Clinton lead Obama by less then 2%, it was practically a tie, but not once did anybody in the press mention that as far as I saw. It was all, "Clinton the new comeback kid!" "Clinton's campaign gets a breath of fresh air." "Clinton Wins."
I'll admit I'm a little concerned about bias against Mitt's campaign because of his religion-- I'm a paranoid Mormon with a persecution complex, after all. I've seen a lot of this sort of language directed specifically at Mitt's campaign-- but not at Giuliani's, who hasn't won anything yet. Why aren't I seeing any woeful words directed there?
Maybe I'm not reading the right news sources.
In any case, I'm not sure that the language is justified, with or without bias. Romney won second in both contests in Iowa and NH; both were close races, as I understand things. That's why Romney now leads in delegates-- he's performed consistently.
quote:I would amend that to be the press needs winners and losers, and it likes to talk about winners and losers, not about consistency. They act like one poor showing means the candidate is history and can't recover
The press needs winners, and it likes to talk about winners, not about consistency.
It is a ludicrously unpopulated state, but still.quote:Er...what Enigmatic said. Looking at the aggregate, it appears that Romney has almost twice the support as the next two candidates.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Given his family's history in Michigan, not winning in Michigan probably would have sunk his campaign. And no, the Republican Party as a whole would not notice that Romney has been consistent if, as he had been consistently doing, he had been consistent in not getting enough delegates to win the nomination. It is hard to give him credit for consistency when that consistency had been to lose, and lose at a ratio he could not afford.
quote:The following Saturday. (1/26) Crap, gotta send my sister a birthday card.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Question on the thread title "Nevada(R/D), SC (R) Saturday" - Does SC have its two primaries on different days? When's the democratic one?
--Enigmatic
quote:Mmmm not so much. Bush won the last election by what, two million votes? And only I think two times in history has a president won the presidency without taking the popular vote, so, your assurances seem a bit premature. Duh, obviously both sides will hunker down in states they both won overwhelmingly last time, which is why, like for the last however many years, this is a fight that will primarily take place in the swing states. Of course that depends on the Democratic candidate, as those traditional Republican victory states are more vulnerable than some have been in 30 years.
Originally posted by stihl1:
Something people keep missing here is that the national election isn't decided on popular vote. A candidate doesn't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency, as we have seen the last two elections. In fact, all the republicans have to do is concentrate winning in states where they won overwhelmingly last time and they'll be fine. That national popular poll is really meaningless, without the breakdown by electoral college votes.
quote:Well no, it's not a dream scenario where ALL three implode, at least one of them is going to come out of South Carolina with a lot of steam, that's generally how South Carolina works for the Republicans. But McCain and Huckabee need money, and Romney needs life in states where, you know, he wasn't born, his dad wasn't governor and he doesn't spend the whole time promising us special commissions and crap to fix the economy. I don't know what Giuliani needs, because he hasn't come in higher than the low teens or single digits yet in a contest, so it's hard to say if he'll even be a factor, but I think Florida will tell. If he loses there, then I think he crumbles nationally. You don't spend that much time and effort in a state (to say nothing of money) to get swept away and still hope to do well in states you haven't been as much, not when you're Giuliani on the GOP ticket.
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:So this is the fantasy scenario whereby the 3 republican winners implode, making space for Giuliani?
Off the top of my head, Thompson will lose and drop out. Huckabee stands a strong chance of winning with a large Evangelical vote there. McCain, strange as it may sound he needs to win SC because his campaign is running on fumes financially. He won't make it to Florida without a win in SC. Giuliani doesn't matter until Florida. Romney will get a small Michigan boost, but he's running third I think in SC, can he survive anything less than a win? Maybe, probably, but it'll be a death knell in reality I think. Huckabee I think will have trouble, financially and realistically surviving a loss in a state with a large Evangelical turnout (in other words, if he can't win where his base is powerful, where can he win?).
As far as VP noms go, Joe Lieberman endorsed McCain before any votes were cast. You want to talk about a ticket that could make an interesting run against Clinton/Obama. Mostly, I hope it's Obama and not Clinton.
quote:I think of John Edwards more as that dapper Doctor with the tennis sweater whose name I suddenly can't remember. Peter Davidson?
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
The post in which I link to my favorite primary commentary so far, courtesy of Doctor Who
quote:Puffing up McCain is smart, so if Huckabee takes him down it hurts. Romney, knowing he can't win there is also smart to move to Nevada, a race that isn't being contested by anyone. But then, many are guessing that the turnout for Nevada may be as small as 30,000 to 40,000. That's less than the number of people that voted in Wayne County in Michigan alone. Only Paul and Romney are putting ANY effort into the state on the Republican side, and even then it's really only a small amount of staffers.
Just a day after his big win in Michigan, Mitt Romney ceded South Carolina to his rivals.
“This is a state I’d expect that Sen. [John] McCain has pretty well wrapped up,” Romney told reporters at the Sun City Hilton Head Retirement Center in Bluffton. “It would be an enormous surprise if he were unable to win here.”
quote:From the little I know about the suit, it seems like it had some logic behind it. But the timing (filed just after 2 major Las Vegas unions endorsed Obama) and the filers (Teacher's Union) smacks of pure politics.
Judge Dismisses Nevada Caucus Challenge, in Boost for Obama
KEN RITTER AP News
Jan 17, 2008 14:30 EST
An attempt by Democrats with ties to Hillary Rodham Clinton to prevent casino workers from caucusing at special precincts in Nevada failed in court Thursday.
quote:Wow, I thought. I'm pretty up on polls, and I never saw him leading any. Turns out they're all just bogus internet polls, non-random and repeat votable. But the MSM is black-balling him by not reporting them?
The polls you may have missed
Time after time after time, Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has topped every other candidate in major polls that the major media have either downplayed, dismissed or ignored completely. So, for the benefit of anyone who wonders about the strength and depth of Dennis's support all across the country, take a look for yourselves. And share these results with everyone you know. Click here.
quote:Wouldn't that have been back when he was mayor, and before he was a national punchline?
He should just quit while he's ahead.
quote:
DeLay is still battling a 2005 indictment brought by a Texas grand jury.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
quote:It's all going to depend on who actually shows up at the polls. Hispanic populations are large, but like the article says, not all of them can vote, and few of those who can actually do, especially in the primaries. I think whoever does the best job of shoehorning supporters into the voting booths will be the winner. Also keep in mind that, for the Democrats (other than Michigan, whose importance to the Democratic race is dubious) neither of the major contests have had ANY minority populations of anything approaching respectable size. I think the Hispanic vote will largely break for Hillary, even if based solely on racial tension between latinos and blacks (that'll go away in the General I think), but if she can't get them to the polls in decent numbers, then it won't matter.
Originally posted by Jhai:
Just read this Economist article on the Western states' effect on the primaries. Among other things, the article mentioned how the large Hispanic population will negatively affect Obama's chances. What does Hatrack think? So far, the states who have voted don't have a sizable Hispanic population...
quote:Keep in mind that white women also compete with other minorities for the view out the glass ceiling. Maybe John Edwards will have a stronger showing. I wouldn't project him winning. I'm just not at all certain that against Obama = for Clinton.
California's Latinos are frequently pitted against blacks in the zero-sum game of urban politics, which generates broader resentments.
quote:SC was docked half their delegates by the RNC for moving their primary up without authorization. So were Michigan, New Hampshire, Florida and Wyoming. Also, delegates aren't chosen strictly according to population; the bulk of the delegates (for the Republicans) are unelected and are awarded based on whether the state voted for the President in the last election, whether they have Republican Senators/Congresspersons, etc. Here's a link explaining the allocation.
Originally posted by Morbo:
That's weird: I didn't know Nevada has more delegates. Yet South Carolina has a larger population, according to the census bureau? What gives?
quote:Union democrats who may not be ready to get behind a minority president. This bloc is very vulnerable to an independent like Bloomberg.
Edwards, Edwards, Edwards. I'm having a hard time nailing down where exactly his support comes from
quote:For all the grousing I've heard from Mormons about Evangelicals in Iowa not voting for Romney because of his Mormonism, I think this shows that we're all prone to favor a candidate whose religious/moral convictions match our own.
Romney also benefited from his Mormon religion, the poll results show. Romney captured 94 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Mormon, which made up 25 percent of all Republicans participating in the GOP caucuses.
quote:This is obviously true, but if Romney was an inactive Mormon and was well known to be so, you would not see nearly as many Mormons voting for him. This is my opinion, but overall Romney is a much more electable candidate then Huckabee. Mormons have already shown a willingness to vote for evangelicals, the opposite has yet to be seen.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Here's another interesting point on the Romney's Nevada win, courtesy of CNN:
quote:For all the grousing I've heard from Mormons about Evangelicals in Iowa not voting for Romney because of his Mormonism, I think this shows that we're all prone to favor a candidate whose religious/moral convictions match our own.
Romney also benefited from his Mormon religion, the poll results show. Romney captured 94 percent of the voters who identified themselves as Mormon, which made up 25 percent of all Republicans participating in the GOP caucuses.
quote::checks Wikipedia, sees neocon = Weekly Standard:
Originally posted by Occasional:
Neo-Con is considered someone who believes in a wider role for the United States in international affairs. They are also considered socially conservative in domestics. None of the Republicans currently running are neo-cons no matter what the press might say(even if they promote the labeling).
quote:I have to go wash my eyes now.
Support the one you prefer. But don't work yourself into a frenzy against the others. Let the best man emerge from a challenging primary process. And if there is no clear-cut winner, then the delegates at the GOP convention can turn on the fifth ballot to an obvious fallback compromise candidate, one who would be just fine with conservatives--Dick Cheney!
quote:I believe in a wider role for the United States in international affairs. That's like saying that anyone who doesn't believe in taking a switch to adolescents doesn't believe in discipline.
Neo-Con is considered someone who believes in a wider role for the United States in international affairs.
quote:But Ron, Hispanics will not favor the Republicans this year. That's ludicrous. All that anti-immigrant fervor that was whipped up early this year has consequences, and one is plummeting support for the GOP among Hispanics.
The split Democratic verdict in Nevada resulted from the proportional manner in which delegates were awarded. Obama emerged with one more than Clinton because he ran strongly in rural areas.
Overall, Clinton leads the delegate race with 236, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Obama has a total of 136, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 50.
Hah, the first reporter even uses the same phrase I did: anti-immigrant fervor. Great minds, etc.quote:http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/NEWS01/712070419/1026/NEWS10
Poll: Hispanics’ support for GOP wanes
Brian Tumulty • Washington Bureau • December 7, 2007 WASHINGTON - The anti-immigrant fervor among Republican lawmakers has eroded the party's gains with Hispanic voters and will help Democrats in the 2008 election, according to a study released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.
Hispanics view Democrats as more concerned about their problems, with 57 percent who are registered voters identifying as Democrats and 23 percent as Republicans, according to the survey.
A similar survey by Pew in 2006 showed 49 percent identified as Democrats and 28 percent considered themselves Republicans.
Paul Taylor, acting director of the Pew Hispanic Center, said the 2006 election was the high water mark for Republicans among Hispanic voters.
quote:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-27-hispanics-dems-cover_N.htm
A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll indicates that Hispanics, by nearly 3 to 1, say they're Democrats or lean that way. Of those, 59% support the New York senator over her presidential rivals — her strongest showing among any major demographic group and a huge potential asset for early contests in Nevada, Florida, California and other states with large Hispanic populations.
One big factor behind the flight from the GOP: a heated debate over immigration in which congressional Republicans' remarks on illegal immigrants have offended many Hispanic voters. The fallout from that battle, shifting Latino loyalties and a changing political calendar have scrambled political calculations made about Hispanics after the last presidential election — and raised the stakes for their role in choosing the Democratic nominee for the next one.
[...]
Hispanics will be more wary in 2008, predicts her sister, Gilda Lopez, 56, a speech pathologist and reliable Democrat. With a crisis in Iraq and questions at home about the GOP's attitudes toward Hispanics, she says, "I cannot understand how a Hispanic person could vote Republican."
The new survey finds fewer who say they will. Only 11% of Hispanics now identify themselves as Republicans, down from 19% in 2005, while the proportion who call themselves Democrats has jumped to 42% from 33%.
Including independents who "lean" to one party or the other, Democrats lead Republicans among Hispanics 58% to 20%.
In a matchup between the candidates who lead in national polls, Hispanics overwhelmingly support Clinton over Republican Rudy Giuliani, 66% to 27%.
quote:Still hanging on? He has more delegates then all the other candidates, even if he is no longer seriously contending for president anymore, (which I do not think is true) he can still use his delegates as a bargaining chip in the Republican National Convention. He is not getting all the front runner glitz McCain and Huckabee seem to keep getting from the press but in this election of nobody knows exactly what is going on Romney has just as good a chance as either McCain or Huckabee.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If he does WELL in Florida, he's betting on the press to give him a big bump in the polls before HyperTuesday.
But at this point, I really don't see that happening. It's have to be one hell of a bump, and it'd have to overshadow the ones McCain is getting, to say nothing of the fact that Romney is still somehow hanging on.
quote:I like McCain alot as well, I wish they'd (McCain/Romney) form a ticket, but I am unsure which I want as president and which as vice president. Though apparently the animosity between McCain and Romney seems greater then between any other set of candidates. I am convinced that had Huckabee not run, Romney would get enough evangelical support to have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and make a serious bid at Florida.
Originally posted by pooka:
If you don't like Huckabee, you should be touting the conventional wisdom of SC as kingmaker. Though I guess you're more pro-Romney. As I mentioned earlier, it's not so much that SC is kingmaker, it's that it's the first test of Southern waters. And when one looks at Iowa and New Hampshire, one sees a series of primary winners who did not get the nomination.
quote:*nod* You're right. We're really talking four elections in early thirty years. Big whoop.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
This talk of, "South Carolina has chosen the Republican nominee in every presidential election since 1980" is so ridiculous to me. So what, all of 7 elections? In fact less then that because in the years of Republican incumbent presidents primaries don't even matter.
quote:He's really not, you know. John McCain is by far the Republican candidate who has the most history of bridging political divides and "playing nice" with people on the other side. As much as I hate that he seemed to have given up his principles in favor of taking an easier path to become President, I can't deny that he is the best choice if you want a Republican candidate that is going to try to counter the divisiveness of the current political climate. He's nice to a lot of people.
McCain is an abrasive guy. He's only nice to Hillary.
quote:Hmm...I would have agreed with you eight years ago. I think that between his cozying up to the nastier base, his hawkishness, and his increasing cantankerousness, he has gotten pretty abrasive.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:He's really not, you know. John McCain is by far the Republican candidate who has the most history of bridging political divides and "playing nice" with people on the other side. As much as I hate that he seemed to have given up his principles in favor of taking an easier path to become President, I can't deny that he is the best choice if you want a Republican candidate that is going to try to counter the divisiveness of the current political climate. He's nice to a lot of people.
McCain is an abrasive guy. He's only nice to Hillary.
He's not particularly nice to Romney, but the again, Mitt Romney has taken to making dishonest attacks on him, and I imagine that he's gotten really tired of that in the Republican primaries.
quote:I think that's a pretty simplistic and incorrect dichotomy. John McCain is far more than just a tough guy with a purple heart. As I said, he's got the best record of all the candidates for crossing the aisle and working out compromises. He is not generally abrasive, but rather affable or (in some situations) restrained in person.
He and Romney just represent opposite styles of Republican character. He's the tough guy with the purple heart. Romney is the smooth guy with the silver spoon.
quote:I'd suggest that this may reflect a lack of knowledge/exposure on your part and not a character trait of John McCain.
I should have qualified that Hillary is the only other candidate I've heard him be particularly nice to.
quote:I volunteered for his campaign in 2000. I wasn't by any means high up in the organization, but we've met. I've also seen/read about a substantial number of his interactions with people. He's a likeable guy and whip-smart (which, actually, I think, may make him less likeable to certain types of people).
In person? You've met?
quote:To me, there's a big difference between having principles but being willing to compromise and saying or doing whatever seems most expedient at the time. Mitt Romney has been presenting himself as more the latter type, at least to me.
I'm sure Romney would cross any aisle he needed to to get where he wanted to go.
quote:I think this is an accurate assessment. I wish Romney had taken a more Obamic, (yes I made that word up) approach to debating and advertising. Using negative ads, hurt his campaign overall and all he can do now is damage control in that regard rather then flip that into an advantage.
He's not particularly nice to Romney, but the again, Mitt Romney has taken to making dishonest attacks on him, and I imagine that he's gotten really tired of that in the Republican primaries.
quote:Link for above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980; he gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments, and they would remain on good terms. McCain and [Cindy] Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona, with Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart as best man and groomsman. McCain's children were very upset with him and did not attend the wedding, but after several years they reconciled with him and Cindy.
quote:Where did I suggest such a thing? It is the gay marriage advocates who say that people who engage in adultery and divorce have no business looking askew at them.
About a third of all Americans are divorced. Perhaps you belong to a religious group that does not recognize divorce under any circumstances, but even your faith does not entitle you to discriminate against people, and especially not to suggest that others should indulge in this kind of prejudice and intolerance.
quote:My point is why should that hurt his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage? He obeyed the law, he did not marry a man. Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
Gosh, I was just checking wiki and realized McCain is divorced. I can still support him as a leader, but I think it hurts his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage.
quote:Honestly, as much as the Rovian dirty tactics that Bush used gets played up, I really think it was the Republican voters that preferred and still prefer George Bush to John McCain. John McCain was too smart and too independent. He didn't toe the party line and, as I said, stood for and against things (like, for example the agents of intolerance) [edit:]even if they were unpopular with the base[/edit]. I just don't know that a candidate like that will ever get through the Replubican primary process with the electorate the way it is now. There are too many people who want to have their culture war, too many pundits who rely on nastiness and name-calling.
I'm impressed you worked for McCain in 2000, I always thought and still do think that he would have been a better choice then Bush in 2000, it's too bad mudslinging worked in that election year.
quote:I don't think that's all that much praise, though. "Would be a better president that George W Bush" easily describes somewhere between 15-20%* of the U.S. population.
MrSquicky, I think you may be right about the country and the world being better off if Sen. McCain had won election in 2000.
quote:Oh wow. I just watched the whole 34 minutes. That was incredible.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Check this out: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/mlkvideo
I do believe that electing this man could redeem our country.
quote:One of the talking points against gay marriage is that it lowers the value of traditional marriages. With the divorce rate as high as it is, it is hard to see how much value traditional marriage actually holds in the first place.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Pooka, what you said was:
quote:My point is why should that hurt his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage? He obeyed the law, he did not marry a man. Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
Gosh, I was just checking wiki and realized McCain is divorced. I can still support him as a leader, but I think it hurts his credibility as a defender of traditional marriage.
In political terms, this is a cheap shot. In religious terms, it is really obnoxious and contrary to the faith of any Christian denomination that also professes to believe in forgiveness.
I particularly find this offensive, because I was divorced about five years ago. It was not on my initiative. In fact, two weeks after the papers came back making our divorce official, my ex-wife went to Las Vegas and married the guy she had been seeing. But I chose not to be bitter about it, and have tried to make the best of things, and maintain as good as possible a relationship with my ex-wife, and even with her new husband. What would I gain by trying to make things worse for them?
But just because I have been divorced, does not mean I have any less credibility than anyone else to participate in the debate over the definition of marriage.
quote:Specifically, anyone who ditched his wife for a younger, hotter woman is unfit to champion marriage of any kind.
Do you mean for us to believe that anyone who has ever been divorced, even if it were 30 years ago, is unfit to champion traditional marriage?
quote:His actions might be forgivable, but I think, given the particular reasons his marriage dissolved, he has to be very careful in what he says in order to not be a complete hypocrite.
During the time in Jacksonville, the McCains' marriage began to falter. McCain had extramarital affairs, and he would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine." His wife Carol would later echo those sentiments, saying "I attribute [the breakup of our marriage] more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."
quote:Obama never ceases to impress me. I like this take on the speech.
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Oh wow. I just watched the whole 34 minutes. That was incredible.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Check this out: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/mlkvideo
I do believe that electing this man could redeem our country.
quote:You mean what kind of election is LA and how does the delegate apportionment go?
Originally posted by pooka:
So what happens in LA on Tuesday?
And turning from SC to FL, if Thompson were to drop out, to whom would his 7% go?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
quote:IIRC she typically talks about her work as an attorney during the Nixon impeachment hearings as the beginning of her experience on capital hill, and goes all the way until the present, passing through her time as first lady, and a state senator.
Clinton- what experience? Being a Senator? She's only in a second term herself, isn't she?
quote:Frankly, I think it's very silly to discount the experience of being a spouse of the President. I'd say it's nearly as valuable as being Vice President or, say, Chief of Staff. Unless a couple never talk or interact with each other, each one will learn a lot about the other's career and have a far larger knowledge base about the subject than the average person.
Originally posted by scholar:
I also have trouble with the 35 years of experience claim Hilary makes. I think a lot of people will think that being married to the president doesn't count and be offended by claims it does.
quote:I'll be your husband, pooka! Linguistics are awesome.
Originally posted by pooka:
My husband knows nothing about theoretically linguistics and runs away screaming like a little girl if I try to talk to him about it. But I have no doubt Hillary regarded her time as first lady as an apprenticeship.
P.S. Looking at my shiny new polls, Thomson had fallen from 12% to 6%, with McCain having a requisite gain. Maybe there's a "support the alpha wolf" contingent I hadn't considered.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
quote:Louisiana confuses me. So they choose today the delegates to the state convention for some districts, who will help decide whether the national delegates will be uncommitted or not? I don't know, something like that.
All of Louisiana's national convention delegates will be uncommitted, unless a presidential candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote Feb. 9 in the presidential preference primary. State party rules require 20 of Louisiana's at-large delegates to support that candidate on the first ballot of the national convention, but if no presidential candidate receives a majority of primary votes, the at-large delegates will be uncommitted.
quote:Nouns like this are almost always treated as singular, even though they are plural in construction.
Originally posted by Jhai:
I'll be your husband, pooka! Linguistics are awesome.
Edit: should it be Linguistics is awesome? Clearly I need to reread some stuff on the subject if I'm not even clear on whether it's plural or singular. But, either way, the awesomeness stands.
quote:You don't sound like you really know her history all that well if that's what you think. I don't think she's been as instrumental as SHE claims, but saying she was "just Bill Clinton's wife" is a gross understatement of her history and her accomplishments.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I get a kick out of Sen. Clinton proclaiming that she has been "producing change for 35 years." Since most of that time she was just Bill Clinton's wife, I guess we should lament that she did not succeed in changing him more.
quote:But that is how many people view Hilary's experience. She keeps talking about her years of experience but to the average Joe, all they know is she was married to the president. She has not really made clear what her 35 years of experience is, just that she has 35 years of it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:You don't sound like you really know her history all that well if that's what you think. I don't think she's been as instrumental as SHE claims, but saying she was "just Bill Clinton's wife" is a gross understatement of her history and her accomplishments.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I get a kick out of Sen. Clinton proclaiming that she has been "producing change for 35 years." Since most of that time she was just Bill Clinton's wife, I guess we should lament that she did not succeed in changing him more.
quote:Hey, I know my question hasn't come from any central committee. Clinton volunteered a characterization of herself. I don't think it's sinister to ask her to back that up.
Should Clinton win the Democratic nomination, RonLambert is asking the exact same question that Republican operatives will be planting throughout the GeneralElection campaign:
What experience? At losing?
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
She was president of the Young Republicans her freshman year of undergrad.
quote:I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic? It could be that Romney was the best of a bad Republican bunch. I hope more LDS would vote against Romney because of their religious beliefs, but I hope a lot of things.
LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
quote:There is an American animal species who decides legal and public priorities, and sets religious, economic, and cultural norms. That creature also elects Presidents. I know it's not me; I'm just trying to figure out if it's Ron.
I can't tell if Ron Lambert is a fair representative of the Great American Middle Class White Male or if he is a caricature.
quote:I think it is your embrace of this flawed premise that cripples your understanding of human interaction, Irami.
There is an American animal species who decides legal and public priorities, and sets religious, economic, and cultural norms.
quote:Probably not, since most Mormons are also pro-business to the exclusion of social services and the environment.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic?
LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
quote:Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Probably not, since most Mormons are also pro-business to the exclusion of social services and the environment.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I hope Reid says something about this. I know Romney is LDS, but aren't the Saints at least a bit worried about his pro-business, to the exclusion of social services and the environment, ethic?
LDS voters, while being 7% of the state of Nevada, made up 25% of the delegates from the Republican caucuses. 95% of the LDS delegates voted for Romney.
Wow. Talk about identity politics.
quote:Here's a summary of three new polls with no Thompson, courtesy of realclearpolitics.com.
Originally posted by pooka:
First polls out of Florida without Fred Thompson show Romney and Giuliani splitting the loose change. Link Wait, these numbers are quite strange.
quote:Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
quote:At our Nevada Caucus the Mormons at the Republican meeting probably did vote for Romney. But, most of the Mormons caucasing were at the Democratic meeting. I asked my former Bishop what he was doing there, as he has been regestered Rep in the past. (He is an almost full time environmental activist.) He said that he switched "because if he went to the Rep meeting, it would just be to vote aganst Romney. And there wern't any Reps even worthy of a protest vote." His oposition to Romney was not based on his environmental record, however. It was his inflamatory statements on immigration. He is not in my precinct, so I don't know who he voted for.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
quote:That's a shocker. In related news, water is wet.
The New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton & John McCain for the Democratic & Republican races, for what it's worth.
quote:And new reports indicate that the absence of water appears to be dryness.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That's a shocker. In related news, water is wet.
The New York Times editorial board has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton & John McCain for the Democratic & Republican races, for what it's worth.
quote:Heck, why even bother voting in the first place? Can we just jump straight to inaugurating Obama?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
And with 0% of the vote in...CNN is ready to project that Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary!
Counting of votes is no longer necessary.
quote:Is that a nationwide first or just in South Carolina?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Exit polls are showing that women have voted in almost twice the numbers that men did.
quote:It's a victory, but I don't know how crushing it is. It looks to me that Edwards and Clinton split the white vote, probably along gender lines, and Obama swept up everyone left, including black women. It may have crushed Edwards, but I figure he is angling to sell his delegates at the convention for a Veep or Cabinet spot. I'd love to see him as Labor Secretary or some such position. Republicans have been siding with southern bigots for the last 40 years, and winning by doing it. Since black men don't vote or live too long for a myriad of reasons, your South Carolina Democrat is a middle-aged black woman who voted for Obama. This is the state the went to Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. Being surprised at Obama's victory is like being surprised when Romney sets some sort of unbreakable, ridiculous high percentage victory in Utah.
Obama is in for a crushing landslide victory in South Carolina.
quote:My mom's side is from South Carolina. I've been there a few times, and it's is not a normal state. There aren't swing voters. The democrats are democrats and conservatives are asses, and there are a lot of conservatives. That's why I'm so puzzled, excited, and intrigued about the turnout.
No matter how you parse it, I think he crushed her. And you can hardly say whites won't vote for Obama, New Hampshire and Iowa disproved that notion I think pretty clearly.
quote:One hopes that Obama stays above the fray. I can see Bill Clinton doing exactly as RLambert predicts, and I can see it working. And as much as black people love Clinton, if Obama loses in a clean race, I can see blacks rallying behind H. Clinton, but if he loses in a blood bath-- a Clinton-Carville smash and grab street fight-- I think that'll alienate black Americans even farther from the political process. And I think that's bad for the world. Not only will we stay home on election day, you may have more people give up on any sort of majority-ruled democracy that depends on the decency of white people. When Republicans play on white bigotry for votes, and do so with alarming success and scant retribution from decent/complicit white conservatives, blacks flock to the Democrats. If Democrats start doing the same thing, especially a democrat as beloved as Clinton, there is a chance that we'll hit the streets.
I deplore seeing Bill Clinton playing the race card for his wife, hoping that by polarizing the electorate and getting so many blacks to vote for Obama, he will provoke a white backlash that will give his wife the victory in most other states.
quote:This makes Mormons sound kinda cold-hearted. Mormons have first-hand experience with a private welfare system that works extremely well. In comparison, the government programs are a tangled-up, beauracracy-heavy, ineffective, inefficient mess, and it's easy for me to see why they'd rather not fund it, perhaps forgetting that not everyone has access to a system like theirs. And the denser the mormon population, the less likely those mormons will be to realise what the rest of us have to deal with.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Sorry. I should've said "Most Jell-O Belt Mormons" or something similar.
Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Saying "most" ignores the millions of Mormons that don't live in California and the intermountain West, but I'd agree that most Mormons in Nevada prize business over government-run social services* and the environment.
quote:And he actually won the popular vote in Nevada, which has about as few black people as any place.
And you can hardly say whites won't vote for Obama, New Hampshire and Iowa disproved that notion I think pretty clearly.
quote:It works well if you are in the club, but is it really fit for general, no-strings attached consumption?
Mormons have first-hand experience with a private welfare system that works extremely well.
quote:Nobody said the initial quote. It's a straw-man argument.
quote:And he actually won the popular vote in Nevada, which has about as few black people as any place.
And you can hardly say whites won't vote for Obama, New Hampshire and Iowa disproved that notion I think pretty clearly.
quote:Anyway, that was fairly early on. So what is your characterization of the white democrats who certainly did vote for Obama in SC? Is it just the youth vote?
It's a victory, but I don't know how crushing it is. It looks to me that Edwards and Clinton split the white vote, probably along gender lines, and Obama swept up everyone left, including black women.
quote:I imagine that they were the same white democrats who voted for Dean and Bradley before him. Obama is a fine candidate, regardless of race. My differences with him are the differences I share with most Americans, but now that Kucinich has dropped out, I'll probably end up voting for him anyway.
So what is your characterization of the white democrats who certainly did vote for Obama in SC? Is it just the youth vote?
quote:Anything over a third of the white vote, especially among the baby boomers. In a world where blacks inhabit 1/2 of the electorate, Obama's victory would have been crushing. If Hilary Clinton can write off this loss and not even blink, which I think she can, then it's not crushing, it's just the South Carolina Democratic Primary. I go entire years forgetting that S. Carolina is part of the U.S. It would have been different even if it were North Carolina. Like I said before, when Romney captures an enormous percent of the Utah Republican electorate, that's not going to be a crushing victory, either. It's a gimme.
If this is not crushing, then I must ask, how do you define crushing?
quote:Ahh but see here is the thing, Clinton was polling at nearly a 20% lead in the days and weeks as far back as November compared to Obama and he then won the primary by 27%. What's more, Jesse Jackson won SC in 1984 and 1988 with only 7% of the white vote, and yet, that figure has been more than tripled by Obama (24-25%).
Anything over a third of the white vote, especially among the baby boomers. In a world where blacks inhabit 1/2 of the electorate, Obama's victory would have been crushing. If Hilary Clinton can write off this loss and not even blink, which I think she can, then it's not crushing, it's just the South Carolina Democratic Primary. I go entire years forgetting that S. Carolina is part of the U.S. It would have been different even if it were North Carolina. Like I said before, when Romney captures an enormous percent of the Utah Republican electorate, that's not going to be a crushing victory, either. It's a gimme.
quote:I can understand this sentiment, but all these primary elections are actually about is someone's priviledge of representing the party in the General Election. Yes they are critical to who will run for president, but it's not unfair to say the parties "own" these primaries. The parties also decide how many delegates come from each state, whether they are proportional, and the delegate numbers are adjusted according to how the state performed in the last election (from the parties' viewpoints.)
. I don't think the DNC or RNC should be able to strip states of their delegates
)quote:Seven? I think you mean six.
Kennedy has a nation wide infrastructure, not just in Massachusetts. Remember these guys have to get elected every seven years
quote:FG -
Originally posted by Farmgirl:
Kansas hasn't had a primary since 1992. So we're having a caucus. However, I have no idea how to do a caucus, or where to go, or even IF I go (or if it is just party leaders, etc.) Because before it never really mattered - there would be one clear GOP leader and that's the direction Kansas went. This time it is close, and I'm wondering if there is something I need to "do" for the caucus
quote:
...FLORIDA is entitled to 0 delegates Democratic National Convention because the date of this Primary has been held to have violated Party rules...
Prior to the sanctioning, Florida would have been determining the pledging of 185 of 210 National Convention delegates [leaving 25 uncommitted superdelegates] to presidential contenders through the results of the voting in this Primary:
121 delegates total would have been pledged based on results of voting in each of the State's 25 Congressional Districts
and 64 delegates would have been pledged based on the results of the voting Statewide;"
a mandatory 15 percent threshold would have been required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level.
quote:
57 delegates to the Republican National Convention from FLORIDA are to be pledged among presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in this Primary: all 57 delegates will be pledged to the highest vote-getter among the Republican presidential contenders in the Primary Statewide.
FLORIDA has been penalized half of its...delegation of 114 for holding its principal delegate distribution event...in violation of Party rules...
...(...if the sanctions noted above are not enforced), 114 delegates will be pledged to presidential contenders:
75 delegates total from each of the State's 25 Congressional Districts (the highest vote-getter among the presidential contenders in a given Congressional District winning all 3 delegates from that District)
and 39, including the 3 Party Leader ex officio seats, pledged to the highest vote-getter among the Republican presidential contenders in the Primary Statewide.
quote:(from CNN's headline story).
Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts appear to be neck-and-neck in the Republican primary. If McCain wins in Florida, his status as the national front-runner will be cemented.
If Romney comes out on top, the battle for the GOP presidential nomination will be up in the air.
I wish I had one. quote:Tell Ron Paul.
Originally posted by Occasional:
the conservative Republican party is dead.
quote:No kidding.
And he is a jerk who gets angry far too easily against those who don't agree with him.
quote:Right, because we all know that "real Mormons" vote republican. Mormons like me who are dyed in the wool leftist are probably on the verge or apostasy anyway.
I would even go so far as to say his Mormonism evidences toward his conservatism.
quote:Yeah, he got blown up a couple of times in Vietnam and went back for more because he's an adrenaline junkie.
Originally posted by lobo:
I think McCain is for McCain first, everything else a distant second.
quote:You really, really need to work on that problem you have, speaking authortatively on areas where, in fact, you don't have any authority at all.
I can't understand how a Mormon can be a leftist or liberal. They just don't go together.
quote:Maybe you, the one who made the initial sweeping indictment, should provide the examples.
Maybe you can help my unbelief with examples.
quote:And to make things more fun, let's throw out abortion and gay marriage, since those are the obvious answers.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Just for fun, in what way do you think being a liberal and being a Mormon don't go together?
quote:But he also has no plans to endorse a specific candidate, so his reasoning is all the more complex.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
So, Edwards is out too now....
The timing of this makes me think Edwards was aware he'd hurt Obama's chances by staying on Tuesday.
quote:I'm sorry you are so unfamiliar with the teachings of your own church and the progressive movement. I'm afraid I don't have time right now to educate you on either.
Originally posted by Occasional:
Rabbit, I can understand why a Mormon would be a Democrat. I can't understand how a Mormon can be a leftist or liberal. They just don't go together.
quote:I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
Somebody else made a comment in this thread akin to, "If Giuliani does not win in Florida his campaign will go down as a text book example of how not to run a campaign."
quote:Yup.
I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
quote:Yes, but you can vote either way on the gay marriage issue and still hold a temple recommend too. My understanding is that the church has never taken a stand on whether or not abortion should be legal, they have only taken a stand on when it is morally justifiable.
Originally posted by scholar:
From my understanding of the church's policy on abortion, if there was a vote legal or not, you could vote either way and still hold a temple recommend.
quote:Yes, I am familiar with that position. My point was that there is a difference between the church teaching that something is a sin and the church teaching that something should be illegal. I believe that many things are sins, even very serious sins such as adultery, but don't think that means they should be illegal. I find that most Mormons understand that distinction very well in the case of adultery but completely miss the distinction in the case of abortion.
Here's something from the Church's website. I think that most members take to mean that they should oppose abortion rights.
quote:There was some discussion several pages back about how the delegate penalty for MI and FL jumping ahead could hopefully bring the whole state-order portion of the primary system into the spotlight, and maybe get it changed in the future. The problem with having all the states go at the same time is it gives even more advantage to the candidates with the most money. Still, something really ought to be changed there.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I see it as an indictment against privileging Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It seems Giuliani lost largely because of state order. That doesn't strike anyone else as unbecoming of democracy?
Somebody else made a comment in this thread akin to, "If Giuliani does not win in Florida his campaign will go down as a text book example of how not to run a campaign."
quote:Yes, there is. I never said there wasn't. My only point was that (I'm assuming) Occasional probably thinks that you can't be a good Mormon and a liberal because of issues like abortion.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
My point was that there is a difference between the church teaching that something is a sin and the church teaching that something should be illegal.
quote:That's questionable. In two polls, Edwards supporters broke almost evenly for Obama or Clinton as their second choice. Of course, if Edwards endorses one of them, that could make a difference.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
so does this help Obama? Would the people who were voting for Edwards be more likely to vote now for Obama or for Hilary?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Obama. Overwhelmingly, I suspect.
quote:I'm not so sure here. I think if Hilary wins the nomination, the best person she can pick will be Obama because he can bring in those voters that Hilary cannot. Hilary is a polarizing figure in the republican party, she will bring those republicans together who want to defeat her, and the best person to offset that polarization would be Obama. Hilary is not weak on anything but "change" and "Iraq", two things that Obama is especially strong on, and hence, that would make him the natural VP candidate. What's more, the choice of Obama as VP would go a long way to dissuade those internal squabbles that have been occurring within the democratic party.
Assuming he wins, Obama will pick Richardson or Wesley Clark. He needs international experience on the ticket, and either would also be an olive branch to the Clinton camp.
quote:Well, I think that might be the point of Powell as VP--if we are going to come together we can't leave behind those who were pro-Iraq. Coming together means that ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals get to play too.
I'd have been more enthused by Powell as a VP candidate before the speech he gave before the UN in the runup to the Iraq war.
quote:I think part of the timing may have been that the Republicans are now apparently a two man race. The Democrats had enjoyed having their act more together than the seething gaggle of Republicans, and now that it is down to McCain and Romney, it doesn't do to have three running on the Dem side.
I'm surprised Edwards has dropped out. I would have assumed he'd continue to amass delegates, then swing them to one or the other of the other two, based on a promise probably of Attorney General. He's too much a retread to go with VP again.
quote:My mother explicitly listed Clinton after Edwards, in her hierarchy of choices. I think the gender card came into play in that debate, though, albeit not because of my suggestion...
I think the general feeling is that if you like Hillary you're already voting for her, she's no one's second choice.
Obama was her third choice. (Hey, there's no accounting for taste.) quote:Because you like your hind-brain?
I guess I should be happy in the way such a bid would help the Republicans...
quote:You are wrong. I shouldn't be saying this as the Super Bowl has not happened yet, but Romney is actually replacing Tom Brady for the New England patriots and plans on dominating the Manning's New York Giants.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Everything seems to be going Sen. McCain's way, with the big endorsements he has received already and is scheduled to receive shortly.
Gov. Romney faces an uphill battle. Not only are there merely four days of campaigning left until Super-Tuesday, one of those days is Superbowl Sunday, when not many people will be paying attention to the stumping of politicians, and also on Saturday Romney has to attend the funeral of the late leader of the Mormon Church. So Romney really only has two days to campaign. According to the polls, McCain already had a two-digit lead in California, even before Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed him. Romney has launched a major ad campaign, but that probably cannot turn the tide by itself.
quote:does he have to? I guess I'll let you know, but it's not like he's going to be in a spot of any visibility.
Romney has to attend the funeral of the late leader of the Mormon Church
quote:Huh. I'll have to check the church website
And then there's the presidential candidate, Republican Mitt Romney, a Mormon whose campaign has dramatically elevated interest in the Salt Lake City-based church. If Romney attends as planned, he'll have national media and security in tow.
Olsen said he expects the funeral to last just over an hour and include remarks from church leaders, family and music by the renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
quote:
your going to see a woman scorned such as hell hath no fury like.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The Google ad is for an Ann Coulter book, BTW.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
your going to see a woman scorned such as hell hath no fury like.
A woman scorned with fury unlike hell?
No even worse
A woman scorned whose fury exceeds that of hell?
Lacks poetry.
your going to see fury from a woman scorned the likes of which hell hath not?
quote:No seriously, Tom. His name aside (and I almost agree with you there), it's bipartisan, as republicans go he's pretty liberal, he's got the foreign relations experience and creds, and I have to admit, I love a lot of the stuff he's done while in the senate. Aside from maybe convincing them both to do it (and the name), where's the bad?
I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
quote:Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
quote:That was my first thought, but then I remembered Dick Cheney. Even I don't like Dick Cheney. But I'm looking forward to your cheerful defense of him.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
He is beloved by both the National Rifle Association, and by anti-NRA groups. Obviously he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but you wouldn't want to go hunting with him. Some people just should not be trusted with guns. How's that for cheerful defense, Pooka?
quote:I'm with Tom. Two horrific Richards is enough. We should pass a law like the British did forbidding any English king to bear the name "John".
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I can tolerate Dick Lugar, but I've decided that I don't want anyone named Richard anywhere near the presidency for a while.
quote:Well hey, I'm far too young to have any grudge against Nixon but it's easy for me to see that people like Nixon should never be president!
Tom, are you still nursing a grudge against Nixon after all this time?
quote:A lot of pundits are saying 60/40. If he can lose, but take 40% of the delegates with him, and continue his drive like he has in the last couple weeks, he'll stand a good chance at dominating TX, PA, OH and VA. He has almost a month between SuperTuesday and March 4th (I think) when the last of of the bigger states votes. All he has to do is keep the race close, which I think he will, and hope the Superdelegates don't go to Hillary in droves.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I keep havinf to remind myself that, unlike the general election and electoral college, the democratic primaries are not winner take all states. Obama benefits from more time, so things may start getting better as long as he he holds his own tomorrow.
quote:The trouble with Kiyosaki is that I think he misrepresents what rich truly is. He divides the world into "people who have jobs" and "people who have money that works for them" and suggests the latter group is the only truly rich group because the income earned on their wealth frees them from having to work. But he fails to note that both free time and money are primarily means to an end - they are valuable insofar as you can spend them on something worthwhile. For many people, it is the work they do in the world that provides them an opportunity to spend their time on something worthwhile. A person who twitters their thumbs while their real estate accumulates wealth may accrue lots of money and free time, but isn't rich in any meaningful sense unless they have something to spend that money and time on. In contrast, Kiyosaki's "Poor Dad" may have not had tons of money, but he did have a job as an educator that probably helped countless kids and a possibly even more important roll as a father to Kiyosaki - that sounds to me like a worthwhile allocation of his time and money. Kiyosaki's points are pretty good but only insofar as they are limited to the goal of accumulating money, which I'd argue is helpful but not sufficient for living a truly rich life.
My qualms with Kiyosaki are cultural. I think he is bad for America, but not for the usual reasons. I never liked the way he talked about his "Poor Dad."
quote:I don't think Conservatives will keep hammering McCain, as they have nothing to gain by it once he had the plurality of delegates. They will keep hammering away at immigration as an issue, and letting McCain know what they want in a VP. Or, you know, maybe I overestimate them.
Either way, once we get out of the Primary, the Democrats will come together and hammer McCain, as will Conservatives.
quote:
. . . it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
quote:Yeah, we've been discussing this dilemma for quite some time in Political Geography. Yet another reason for why the primary system is another layer of craziness that blankets the already crazy electoral college.
Originally posted by Morbo:
OK,this is a little scary: Super Delegates To Determine Nominee
The author makes a strong case that it's mathematically extremely unlikely that either Obama or Clinton can win using pledged aka "voted for" delegates.
I was all for a brokered convention for the Republicans when that seemed possible, as it would have left them in disarray leading up to the general election. Now it seems like that will happen to the Dems instead.
quote:
. . . it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
quote:Wow, it becomes more clear, eh? Though his proposition that the Michigan votes be based on exit polling is ludicrous. Let's face it, even if Florida and Michigan were somehow to re-vote, they'd be split down the middle like everyone else. So the 313 doesn't really solve anything.
Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
quote:Apparently, legally the votes should be counted either way, but due to poor quality control the scanners will not record it if the party bubble is not shaded.
. . . voting rights groups in Southern California have a new rallying cry for independents: don't forget the bubble!
Independent voters who show up at their local polling place in Los Angeles County on Tuesday and ask for a Democratic ballot have to fill in an extra bubble to show that they intend their vote to be counted for the Democrats. The bubble is at the top of the ballot, before the presidential candidates are listed.
Those who forget to fill in the bubble won't have their votes read by the county's tabulation machines.
quote:If primary votes end up with a virtual tie in delegates between Clinton and Obama, I don't think it would be so unfair for party officials to be the tiebreaker. If one candidate ends up as the clear favorite among primary voters, then that candidate will get the nomination. But if candidate voters can't come up with a clear favorite, picking the one with slightly more pledged delegates from primaries is probably more arbitrary than letting elites decide, given that delegates are selected through entirely different processes in each state and do not each reflect an equal number of voters.
It'd be sad if all the kids coming out to vote for Obama were told at the end their votes didn't matter because the party elite chose for them.
quote:It has nothing to do with racism. It's a tactic used against anyone you don't want to win. It's used against Ron Paul (don't bother voting for him; he can't win anyway), and he's even less black than Obama.
Originally posted by Adam_S:
I hate the whole idea of electibility being an argument against Obama. I call it passive-agressive racism. it's a way to let the percieved racism of others dictate how you will behave and vote--it's a way to let your vote become a tacit endorsement of racism.
quote:It beats a wrestling cage match.
But if candidate voters can't come up with a clear favorite, picking the one with slightly more pledged delegates from primaries is probably more arbitrary than letting elites decide, given that delegates are selected through entirely different processes in each state and do not each reflect an equal number of voters.
quote:I donno.. that might get the ratings up for the Democratic National Convention. Can we get John Edwards as special guest referee?
It beats a wrestling cage match.
quote:In all the primaries so far, 10% or more of the vote has been available immediately at 8 for the relevant time zone.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
is there a way to see real time progreession of super tuesday?
quote:Due to McCain's supporters throwing their weight to Huckabee after the first vote.
Originally posted by Morbo:
CNN and others are reporting that Huckabee won the W. Virginia GOP convention.
quote:Romney chose not to compete in S. Carolina, because Huck was active, and he knew he couldn't compete with him for the values voters/conservatives. Honestly, were it not for Huck, I think Romney would've rolled to the nom. I'd forgotten about Iowa.
Originally posted by pooka:
Romney wasn't really contending in S. Carolina. I don't think Huckabee sees himself as merely a spoiler, since winning Iowa.
The caucus dynamic is a strange duck.
quote:Is McCain getting any delegates for doing so? Ron Paul is getting 3 delegates for throwing his support to Huckabee in WV.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Due to McCain's supporters throwing their weight to Huckabee after the first vote.
Originally posted by Morbo:
CNN and others are reporting that Huckabee won the W. Virginia GOP convention.
Kind of slimy, but understandable utilitarian politics: if McCain can't win (which he couldn't), at least make sure Romney loses.
Huckabee's effect on this election is fascinating to me. I liked Slate's (?) point that with Giuliani gone, McCain lost an albatross and gained a supporter. Romney's albatross just kept him from winning W. Virginia, and will likely keep him from winning Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri as well. And, I'd say, cost him S. Carolina and Florida as well, although in those cases Giuliani was still at play.
All in all, I think if McCain gets the nom, he'll owe an awful lot to Huck. I wonder if there's an agreement between the two camps. As I pointed out during S. Carolina, they campaigned very chummily.
quote:The story I just saw indicated that Huckabee got all the delegates. I'll check CNN. I despise them, but they show how many delegates came from which state.
Is McCain getting any delegates for doing so? Ron Paul is getting 3 delegates for throwing his support to Huckabee in WV.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Just got home myself a little while ago. People were lined up literally around to the other side of the block at the junior high school where I went (turned out I actually needed to go to the commons at the college a couple blocks down, but I figured it out eventually). I was watching all the cars fighting their way through and feeling thankful I live just a block from my polling place. When I finally got in to vote, they'd run out of official ballots, so I wrote Obama's name on a blue Post-It note and dropped that in the ballot box.
quote:I was talking about the speech he gave some 400 years ago when they first landed in Massachusetts. "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us." Etc etc. I know it's taken from a Biblical reference, but I don't know of anyone else using the phrase before that in any meaningful way.
Originally posted by dkw:
Um, that phrase goes back a bit before John Winthrop. Unless you're talking about a longer Winthrop quote that that quote is part of.
quote:What evidence do you have that his poor performance is due to him being Mormon? There is certainly some of that but there are also many other problems with Romney (not that I think being a Mormon is a problem).
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
I have my own problems with religious culture, but this anti-LDS backlash in the southern states and mid-western states is really something. I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, and I'd like him to lose, but I don't want him to lose because of bigotry. It would be nice if one of the religious conservative leaders came out and took Christian conservative America to task about this. It makes me feel bad about the country.
quote:Evidence. Bah. I look at the numbers, pull a wishbone, lay out some pig entrails and divine the truth.
What evidence do you have that his poor performance is due to him being Mormon?
quote:He's had publicity that money can't buy from the AM hosts ever since Florida, and he's come up some, but Huckabee is winning a lot of states that were polling even.
What evidence do you have that his poor performance is due to him being Mormon? There is certainly some of that but there are also many other problems with Romney (not that I think being a Mormon is a problem).
quote:
/!+!\CLINTON WINS NY, NJ /!+!\
-also, obama wins 6 states
quote:Hehe. I helped start that trend bright and early this morning.
Originally posted by pooka:
I keep looking at Georgia and looking at the exit polls and shaking my head.
quote:Yes because the LDS vote is comparable to the Southern Evangelical vote. Either protestantism just lost millions of adherents without anybody noticing or else Mormonism has had explosive growth that nobody is aware of.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think being a robot hurts more than being LDS. Besides, the LDS vote will help him out west, whereas the android vote generally has a very low turnout.
quote:Oh I agree that negative ads did hurt his campaign. I didn't mean to say that Huckabee was the only factor the effected Romney's campaign negatively.
Originally posted by aspectre:
Nope. Romney has been running on Money and paying for negative campaign ads. And got nailed in the backlash.
quote:But dig this: If the race is between Obama and McCain, conceivably, working class white men could go for Obama and latinos for McCain, which would make the electoral map look much more unpredictable, and less like a Civil War map, forcing both parties to redefine themselves as the deeply pro-immigration wing of the Left goes to McCain and a splinter of white men go with the democrats and Obama. It would make for a fascinating national dialogue. It may even be good for the nation.
The latino vote nation wide is on Clinton's side, but, in the southwest it's a much narrower lead. It might even break even in some states.
quote:All I know is democrats are outnumbering republicans in Georgia. I'm ecstatic.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
have we heard anything about turnout?
quote:Won't happen. Republicans made sure in the last eight years that latinos will stay with Democrats, maybe even in dramatically larger numbers than ever before. I was listening to a lation rights group leader earlier tonight talking about how Republicans are basically taking lations to the tops of buildings and kicking them off the roof.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:But dig this: If the race is between Obama and McCain, conceivably, working class white men could go for Obama and latinos for McCain, which would make the electoral map look much more unpredictable, and less like a Civil War map, forcing both parties to redefine themselves as the deeply pro-immigration wing of the Left goes to McCain and a splinter of white men go with the democrats and Obama. It would make for a fascinating national dialogue. It may even be good for the nation.
The latino vote nation wide is on Clinton's side, but, in the southwest it's a much narrower lead. It might even break even in some states.
quote:I believe you're looking for the cannabis thread, old sport.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
rgar is so fghst.
quote:Cheers. Thanks Strider.
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
Much obliged.
Here's the delegate tally:quote:Maybe, but that's a cheap win, and pooka is right, he can win the remaining states without Latinos, but the problem is moral. We are talking about a large community of people who work for living. Even if you win without them, you can't feel good about it.
If Obama could get say Richardson to endorse him (perhaps with a promise of VP or some other nice cabinet position), would that be enough to pull the Latinos to him?
quote:Ok, I can see that. I wasn't thinking about it that way. To be honest, if I was going with a candidate exclusively due to race, I would pick someone whose heritage was more obvious. A last name like Gonzales or something.
Originally posted by pooka:
Uh, no, it was regarding the quote about Richardson. I guess picking Richardson because he is of Mexican heritage would be cheap. Picking him because of his political and especially foreign policy experience would not be cheap.
NM is still counting, apparently. How funny.
quote:
Clinton may address these questions at her 4 pm press conference in Arlington, VA today. One issue that could come up there are comments made by her husband Bill regarding self-financed campaigns back in December.
Discussing campaign finance reform, the former president noted that New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg could "spend a billion dollars and not miss it" on a presidential campaign.
Clinton then complained that the Supreme Court "seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”
“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.
quote:Granted! Now don't you feel dumb for not wishing for a billion dollars instead?
Originally posted by aspectre:
The Obama campaign's Excel spreadsheet claims "state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night,
which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton -- bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton."
Wish the spreadsheet were made public.
quote:Maybe you have data I haven't seen but it seems the Clinton does well in high white/hispanic populations. She also does well in agricultural states as farmers seem to relate to her better then Obama. Nebraska also does not have much of an African American base, something Obama is consistently benefiting from.
First off, Blackblade, Hillary won't take Nebraska. Obama has a solid lead in Maryland, and based on how he did in Kansas, and the general opinion of Clinton in the heartland area, I think he'll take it in much the same way. I think DC will go for him too. VA might split, and Washington. He's had "troops" on the ground in Washington for weeks now, to make up for the fact that local Democrats are all helping Hillary, and they know the lay of the land better. It's a benefit of having the party machinery on your side. Clinton has sent in a small army of her own to set up offices and staff there since Super Tuesday ended, already they are shifting resources.
quote:He beat her in Kansas by a huge margin, and in Iowa by a large margin as well. I don't have any polling data, and I doubt you do either since for the moment there aren't any polls on Nebraska, but I think Obama will win it. Clinton has been doing very well in traditional Democratic strongholds like Cali and the northeast, whereas Obama has been challenging her there but doing his best in places they are usually weak, like everywhere else. The vote there will be overwhelmingly white, a group he's done well with thus far, and it's a part of the country that has a dislike of Hillary Clinton.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Maybe you have data I haven't seen but it seems the Clinton does well in high white/hispanic populations. She also does well in agricultural states as farmers seem to relate to her better then Obama. Nebraska also does not have much of an African American base, something Obama is consistently benefiting from.
First off, Blackblade, Hillary won't take Nebraska. Obama has a solid lead in Maryland, and based on how he did in Kansas, and the general opinion of Clinton in the heartland area, I think he'll take it in much the same way. I think DC will go for him too. VA might split, and Washington. He's had "troops" on the ground in Washington for weeks now, to make up for the fact that local Democrats are all helping Hillary, and they know the lay of the land better. It's a benefit of having the party machinery on your side. Clinton has sent in a small army of her own to set up offices and staff there since Super Tuesday ended, already they are shifting resources.
God knows I'd be happy to be wrong about this.
quote:That. Would. Be. Awesome.
And it could be up to the party honchos to decide this or, under the supposition that the craziest possible thing that can happen will happen, it could be up to Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico comes at the end. It is the only -- it is not the only, but it is a winner-take-all primary, 63 delegates at stake, a bigger margin for the winner than in California, New York, Illinois. So this thing could be settled by Puerto Rico.
quote:"Five remaining candidates"?
Originally posted by aspectre:
07,427,942 Clinton: 50.1957%
07,370,023 Obama: 49.8143%
14,797,965 total with 0.3714% difference
3,611,459 McCain: 43.1%
2,961,834 Romney: 35.4%
1,796,729 Huckabee: 21.5%
8,370,022 total
23,167,987 total votes for the five remaining candidates
Votes for remaining Democrats: 63.87%
Votes for remaining Republicans: 36.13%
Clinton vs Obama drew 76.8% more voters than McCain vs Romney vs Huckabee
quote:*applauds* I completely agree. I loved the last season of West Wing and would vote for Matt Santos in a heartbeat.
I'm taking back my suggestion from the other thread that Obama pick Bartlet for his running mate. The person he really needs is Matt Santos.
quote:What would you like to say?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why isn;t anybody talking about Wisconsin?
quote:I spent some time reading Obama's webpage while at work and after that decided to donate a small amount. I am a poor grad student and have never contributed to a political candidate. But a small portion of that fundraising came from me!
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Obama may be on pace for another $30 million month.
quote:and people said those haircuts were a waste of money.
And Edwards as a non-candidate drew more votes than RonPaul did as a candidate.
quote:Do you suppose Mitt and John went to the same barber?
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:and people said those haircuts were a waste of money.
And Edwards as a non-candidate drew more votes than RonPaul did as a candidate.
quote:There are 6.5 million Mormons living in the Unites States. Just sayin'.
2,961,834 Romney: 35.4%
quote:Without commenting on the larger political issues, one cannot chose their own gender or race.
Originally posted by Lisa:
How is Romney being a Mormon any different from Hillary being female or Obama being part black?
quote:See, I think the American ideal is to talk like that, but then take whatever power we can to do whatever we want, in a pinch.
The American ideal has been to get past that anti___ism so that all kinds of different folks can live peaceably together. That the behavior of some individuals fails to meet that ideal does not mean that the American ideal is worthless or false.
quote:I heard on cable news today that Clinton's campaign had already paid back the loan.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
How does lending money to one's own campaign work? I mean, is it really a loan or is that in name only? Any new fundraising at this point is going to be spent on campaigning and advertising, not paying herself back.
I have a hard time imagining continued fundraising drives after the nomination is decided so that "her campaign" can pay the $5 million back - so isn't it more a matter of spending one's own money than an actual loan?
--Enigmatic
quote:That's something I'm worried about for the open primaries that remain. Independents will vote for Obama, but if Republicans vote for Clinton to try and screw with things, it means trouble. I don't know how much effect they could have in poisoning the well, but with how close things are, a small bump might be all that's needed.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
I'll say it. After what happened in West Virginia, I do not want the whiff of an organized Republican campaign to have Hillary Clinton be the nominee. I don't mind, at all, if H. Clinton is the nominee in a fair campaign, but I don't want to hear about a coordinated campaign for republicans to corrupt the Democratic pool.
quote:What? I mean seriously what?
It is so rare that California matters, people are out of practice," said David Latterman, a San Francisco pollster.
quote:If you are talking about
Watch Jon Stewart's reaction to Romney's speech.
quote:If this surgery is a supposed consequence of how those political beliefs are working for you... then I'd say you're right on the same page with Bush on this one. You won't change no matter what, no matter how bad it turns out, no matter what you have to become.
Originally posted by aspectre:
"Without commenting on the larger political issues, one cannot chose their own gender or race.
However, one can choose (or not choose) to be Mormon."
A rather odd way of looking at choice. I assure you that I would rather have gender reassignment surgery AND plastic surgery with skin recoloring than give up some of my political stances, which are lightly held compared to my core beliefs.
quote:Took longer than I thought, but I have two VA polls.
Originally posted by katharina:
Hopefully a poll for Virginia will come out soon. I can't find one later than last October.
*loves tracting*
quote:Texas votes on March 4th, and I'd imagine this is the most "key" state that remains with its 228 delegates. With 35% of their population being latino, and with how Clinton has been mopping up the latino vote, I'm worried as an Obama supporter.
I don't see a single poll that has Hillary leading in any of the states that will vote over the next two weeks.
"
quote:I think you're way out of line, Paul.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
[B]ut the contempt he demonstrated (and spoke of) for the entire state, while using the governorship of that state to launch a national campaign. It bespeaks a person who really IS a douchebag. At best.
...
I hope he chokes on a fishbone.
quote:You know what, garbage. This is exactly the sort of absurd logic that results in the "if you're not with us, you're against us." He can do lousy things and still be a good guy. I'm not saying he's perfect, just that he's kind and polite and warm and considerate. And not a douchebag. Or someone worthy of wishing choking upon.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"He's a good guy."
No he's not. if he were, he could not have acted as he did while governor. The statement, and his actions as governor, are mutually exclusive.
quote:I completely disagree.
"He made politically expedient decisions I didn't agree with."
Yes. Politially expedient decisions that, and this is the important part, only a scumbag could have made.
quote:I wasn't here when Clinton was in office. In the two or so years I have been here, including Hillary's primary run, I haven't seen anything approaching the amount of vitriol you're spewing. Like I said, based on my experience at Hatrack, I think you're way out of line.
"But besides all that, Hatrack doesn't seem like the right place to throw around personal insults of someone, even if they are a public figure."
I don't know. It seems fairly common. Especially for public figures. Check out some of whats been said about the Clinton family, for example.
quote:Yeah, I just watched that segment and I'd have to totally agree.
Originally posted by Jhai:
Wow. I saw the Mitt Romney is a douche bag video first, and I was thinking, "yeah, I don't care for the guy much either, but isn't this a bit over the top?" Then I saw the previous segment - the main video up on comedycentral.com - and, well, I think douchebaggery is the least of what ails Romney. His "suspension" speech is really a piece of work.
quote:Whistled.
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
I hope he chokes on a fishbone.
quote:I don't know how old your polls are, but I have one before and one after John Edwards that are fairly recent if you want. I thought I already posted it, but I guess I didn't.
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Texas votes on March 4th, and I'd imagine this is the most "key" state that remains with its 228 delegates. With 35% of their population being latino, and with how Clinton has been mopping up the latino vote, I'm worried as an Obama supporter.
I don't see a single poll that has Hillary leading in any of the states that will vote over the next two weeks.
Any poll data for Texas, Lyrhawn?
Edit: My quick googling reveals some old polls, with Clinton stomping Obama by double digits. I fear that whatever gains Obama makes will be wiped out come March 4th.
quote:
The logic I'm expressing is that a "good guy," doesn't treat 6 million people like they're less then dirt...You think a non-scumbag can make a conscious decision to pursue a policy of treating his constituents like dirt in order to further his own personal ambitions...
Someone being a "good guy," to me means someone who doesn't actively think up ways, and then use those ways, of treating people like dirt.
quote:http://www.newsweek.com/id/108793
The quality of being genuine is hard to convey, and deciding who should be president based solely on that basis can lead to disaster; you need brains and an ability to go with the flow as well. But voters know a phony above all and Romney came off as one from the get-go. Over the last decade he had changed his views in a rightward direction on so many issues to suit what he thought he needed to win the GOP nomination that he ended up standing for nothing but his own ambition.
quote:So he's trimming his staff, and has forsworn a third-party run.
With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
quote:I'm sorry, you mean for practicing ethnic cleansing on Jews?
Originally posted by aspectre:
errrm...Wasn't it starLisa who wished worse upon eg Israeli PrimeMinister Sharon for failing to have a sufficiently genocidal attitude toward Palestinians?
quote:It doesn't trickle down, it's a lot more direct than that. But yes, the US gives three times as much to the Arabs (which is less per capita, but that doesn't change what it'll buy in terms of arms), and that, by itself, makes Paul's idea a good one.
Originally posted by pooka:
I've been meaning to ask you, Lisa, how does Paul's approach on pulling out of Israel strike you? Does American's involvement in Israel merely interfere with an effective policy? Do you feel American aid trickles down to the people directly attacking Israel? Just wondering.
Obama's campaign has wonderful momentum; I think he's got this.
quote:Pretty sure Nader already formed a presidential exploratory committee.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/08/message-from-dr-paul-onward-to-the-convention-and-beyond/]News from Ron Paul:
quote:So he's trimming his staff, and has forsworn a third-party run.
With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
Where's the petition to encourage Nader to run?
quote:It would make for some very delicious vintage year 2000 irony.
Originally posted by scholar:
Any more recent Texas polls?
edit to add- The Democrats seem to self destruct when things go well for them. If Obama wins on pledged votes and the superdelegates go for Hilary, it will be very, very bad.
quote:From your mouth to God's ears.
Originally posted by King of Men:
You know, I could almost hope to see Ron Paul win just for the effect on Lisa of what will happen to Israel without American aid.
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by King of Men:
Not that it matters since I don't have a vote, sigh.
quote:Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
quote:
But even with Romney out, Huckabee faces a daunting challenge. McCain has a significant lead in the delegate count after Super Tuesday. If Huckabee wins every remaining state with 50 percent of the vote to McCain's 40 percent, McCain would still be the nominee, according to CNN calculations. A breakdown of the results »
"I know the pundits, and I know what they say: The math doesn't work out," Huckabee said Saturday morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "Well, I didn't major in math; I majored in miracles. And I still believe in those, too."
quote:Thats an impossible task, politically and militarily and you know it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Well that makes perfect sense. The JSF will be one of, if not the most advanced fighter in the world when it's rolled out of the factory.
Israel selling it to China would be disastrous. I'd support airstrikes to take out their ability to make the planes and to destroy any information they have on it if that hypothetical situation had ever come to pass.
quote:What's virtuous about not being good at math?
Say what you will about Huckabee, but there is something downright virtuous about this sentiment:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
Yeah, that's an accurate take on what happened.
quote:America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
quote:I'm only a hypocrite if I actually support that, which I don't. If I had it my way, we'd never sell any military hardware to a foreign country unless it was two generations old. Maybe last generation if it was Western Europe, but otherwise nope. I don't think Israel is responsible for America's safety either, but that doesn't mean they can't hurt us, obviously.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
quote:So in effect you are saying your irresonsible with the stability of the world and would openly support starting World War III because another country managed to acquire some of your advanced military hardware? Losing confidence in America's ability to win the dick waving contest are we?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I'm only a hypocrite if I actually support that, which I don't. If I had it my way, we'd never sell any military hardware to a foreign country unless it was two generations old. Maybe last generation if it was Western Europe, but otherwise nope. I don't think Israel is responsible for America's safety either, but that doesn't mean they can't hurt us, obviously.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:America has sold stuff to Arab countries that Israel was involved in designing. Don't be such a hypocrite. Israel isn't responsible for America's security over its own.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Nice of them to use our time and money spent on research in order to make us less safe by selling technology that we won't sell to our biggest potential threat. Thanks allies!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I think israel would do fine, they make enough money selling radars and other american designed systems to China.
I don't like selling advanced weapons to ANY country, not when there is even the slightest possibility that they could be used against us.
And Blayne -
Probably not, but I'd still support it. I never said that it would happen, I just said it'd be what I'd like to see happen.
quote:If they were using a typical "script", they would have asked which candidate you were favoring and how heavily. If it was their candidate, they would have made sure that you knew your polling place and times and possibly asked if you needed a ride to the polls. Often you will get people who go "off script" and try to change your mind if you are only leaning toward the other candidate or if you haven't made up your mind.
Originally posted by scholar:
Last week I received a call asking if I would be voting in the Republican primary. I said no, conversation ended. I am kinda curious what would have happened if I said yes.
quote:Oh wow. Why the heck hasn't this gotten media attention?
Originally posted by Morbo:
What is up with the Washington state GOP chairman? He's acting like a complete idiot.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177863.php
quote:Good. So stop oversimplifying.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
rivka - No, that isn't what I think.
quote:I know! So do I and I can't wait. I want it to be tomorrow now!
Originally posted by katharina:
*bouncebouncebounce* I get to vote tomorrow!
quote:The super-delegates are the democratic party insiders. The democratic party decided to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates.
Obama still faces the challenge of having enough excess currently-qualified pledged delegates if Clinton pushes a floorfight over the acceptance of the Michigan and Florida delegations.
quote:It was never sold; selling it was in negotiation. The US demanded that it not be sold, and the negotiations ended.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But when Israel has American military hardware it got under an agreement not to sell to others without our permission, and then we hear that they did it without our permission, I have a valid argument, and that's what I was referring to.
quote:501(c) is the section of the IRS code that deals with non-profit organizations. So pretty much any organization that does fundraising is a 501(c) organization. The number after the (c) tells you what type of organization it is and their status is in regard to tax-deductability of the donation.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Aren't 501's those organizations that take all the heat for their fundraising? Ironic.
quote:Well, someone from that network did call her a pimp.
Originally posted by pooka:
So is Clinton cancelling that debate with MSN, after asking to have one every week?
quote:I thought the quote was that she was "pimping out her daughter," which would mean he was calling Hillary the pimp and Chelsea the prostitute. Which is certainly still insulting her daughter, but it makes scholar correct about who was being called the pimp.
Originally posted by rivka:
No, they called her daughter a pimp. She has taken all kind of language leveled at her; she drew the line when it was aimed at her daughter.
I applaud that.
quote:See, maybe it's my familiarity with that phrase in multiple contexts, but I don't find saying something like that offensive. just seems like an alternative way to say, "Hilary is taking advantage of Chelsea and the fact that she's young by sending her out to help garner support for the Clinton campaign". That phrase has become common lingo in what I'm assuming is just my particular age group and doesn't hold the negative connotation of actually prostituting out a person.
Well, it is true that "pimped out" could mean something positive, but it's pretty clear from the context that it was the more traditional meaning.
If Chelsea had gotten a makeover, she could be described as pimped out.
I don't doubt that the anchor got his wires crossed, but what came out of his mouth was very insulting.
quote:Oh I'm with you 100% on the media sensationalism. Just today I think I heard five references to "Democrats will tear themselves to pieces" and what not. Clinton and Obama have run a, by and large, very civilized campaign thus far. They have pointed out what they consider to be each others' weaknesses, and have largely not resorted to personal attacks. And I think that the neck and neck status doesn't mean we're in for "democrats eating their young" as I also tend to hear about the Democratic nominating process. I think this whole affair is getting a ton of people excited about the process. How many of these people might never have gotten off their butts to vote if it wasn't this closely contested? This has energized the party beyond anything I personally could have guessed at, and all of it is POSITIVE energy.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Lyrhawn, I don't disagree. I just think it's weird how it's become like that. Actually, what I'm seeing as odd may be mostly another case of media sensationalism over the issue. Like democrats are saying "It'd be nice if we got this settled before the convention" and it gets reported on as "Democrats panic over convention battle! They're at each others' throats! The sky is falling!"
It's kind of like how pundits wanted to crown somebody after the first 2 or 3 primaries/caucuses. *shrug*
--Enigmatic
quote:Also wanted to add onto this bit. This kind of spin coming out of Clinton's campaign just adds to my dislike of her. The most spin I see from Obama when he loses a state is along the lines of "it was a pretty close second so we still got a decent amount of delegates" or "We did better there than we were polling there a few weeks ago, so that's a good improvement." But Clinton pulls this NY and CA are more important thing, or the Caucus states don't reflect voters like primary states do thing, or not talking about MI and FL until it sounds like she might need those delegates after all. It's that kind of thing that adds to seeing her as divisive and more of a "typical politician," I think.
She keeps saying "oh he won all these little states but I won the big states, the states that matter like CA and NY!" Well whoopie. NY and CA are going Democratic anyway, so what's your point? She's trying to make his cross state appeal sound like a BAD thing, and it boggles the mind.
quote:I know which use of the word he was engaging. and I know that it originates from prostitution. My point is that i'm familiar with people using that phrase in something along this context:
"Pimping out" as a transitive verb is neutral or positive. "Pimping out to" as a ditransitive verb still cannotes prostitution.
quote:Yeah Lyrhawn, I believe I read a quote by Clinton recently saying something to the effect of:
She keeps saying "oh he won all these little states but I won the big states, the states that matter like CA and NY!" Well whoopie. NY and CA are going Democratic anyway, so what's your point? She's trying to make his cross state appeal sound like a BAD thing, and it boggles the mind.
quote:>_<
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
For the sake of curiosity, what would a pimped out ferret look like?
quote:
Real-time Race Results: Updated February 12, 2008 - 7:12 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 0%
Candidate - Votes - Vote % - Delegates - ProjectedWinner
Obama - - - - 72 - - - - 61% - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - Winner
Clinton - - - - 46 - - - - 39% - - - - - 0
quote:Agreed. Look at some of the voting totals in those 'red' states, and you'll notice some interesting numbers. For example, almost twice as many voters participated in the Kansas Democratic caucus as the Republican caucus. That's significant, though it doesn't necessarily mean Kansas will swing to the blue. I think there's a chance, but I'm not going to pick the odds.
I personally see several of those "red states" going blue in 2008 under Obama. I think if he can get enough of them, the term itself will fall out of vogue. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
quote:But won't it be nice to see both sides atleast trying?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Winning there will be a fight.
quote:You know what doesn't get old, fifty-something white guys telling me how the world really works.
But his[Obama's] statements on foreign affairs make it clear that he has absolutely no idea how such matters are conducted and what the repercussions of the policies he has announced would actually be.
quote:How can that be true? If that were true, wouldn't the same party have won all the elections of the last twenty years?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It will be a refreshing change. It's the first time in something like 20 years where both candidates from the parties will be able to have a realistic shot of reaching into each other's territory to try and win votes.
quote:Ferrets shouldn't wear coats. They should be coats.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
rivka -
You don't like ferret bling?
quote:
Real-time Race Results: Updated February 12, 2008 - 9:34 PM (all times Eastern Standard)
Precincts Reporting 0%
Candidate - - Votes - Vote % - Delegates - Projected Winner
Clinton - - - - - 104 - - - 50% - - - - - 0
Obama - - - - - - 69 - - - 33% - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - Winner
Uncommitted - - 11 - - - - 5% - - - - - 0
quote:Still looking for a video.
When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.
If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that’s what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn’t support a tax cut where so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate. But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he’s all for them.
Well I’m not. We can’t keep spending money that we don’t have in a war that we shouldn’t have fought. We can’t keep mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain of debt. We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It’s time to turn the page
quote:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Originally posted by Strider:
anyone have a number of the Obama vs. Clinton total national votes?
quote:Noticed that did ya? Halfway through his speech I IMed a friend of mine and said something like "He's starting to campaign like he's the nominee."
Originally posted by Icarus:
He's starting, more and more, to campaign against McCain instead of Clinton.
quote:But it's not like the democratic party is declaring a winner. It's the individual media sources that are. "Declaring a winner" just means that "we are pretty damn sure that this candidate will be the winner when the votes are counted."
It is an abuse of the polling system and an abuse of the election system when a winner is declared well before the actual vote counts from statistical-sample precincts
quote:Dude, there's no way it's even a contest.
I'm trying to figure out how Obama beats McCain in the General.
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
All I can figure, Irami, is that you're so pessimistic about Obama because he's basically you.
code:| [346]Barack Obama | 105,007 | 36.45% | 9 |
| [380]Barack Obama | 4,844 | 45.09% | 13 |
| [389]Barack Obama | 295,214 | 55.44% | 25 |
| [407]Barack Obama | 575,794 | 32.93% | 0 |
| [419]Barack Obama | 298,311 | 55.94% | 27 |
| [433]Barack Obama | 302 | 74.38% | 9 |
| [441]Barack Obama | 121 | 42.45% | 1 |
| [449]Barack Obama | 181,243 | 42.04% | 25 |
| [463]Barack Obama | 79,453 | 25.89% | 8 |
| [476]Barack Obama | 1,827,485 | 42.53% | 163 |
| [494]Barack Obama | 79,590 | 66.47% | 19 |
| [507]Barack Obama | 179,349 | 50.73% | 26 |
| [520]Barack Obama | 51,148 | 53.07% | 9 |
| [537]Barack Obama | 698,223 | 66.42% | 57 |
| [557]Barack Obama | 16,880 | 79.53% | 15 |
| [565]Barack Obama | 1,301,954 | 64.57% | 91 |
| [580]Barack Obama | 27,172 | 73.99% | 23 |
| [591]Barack Obama | 511,887 | 41.06% | 37 |
| [604]Barack | 141,725 | 66.45% | 48 |
| [612]Barack Obama | 405,470 | 49.24% | 36 |
| [626]Barack Obama | 492,186 | 43.95% | 48 |
| [638]Barack Obama | 67,531 | 48.28% | 12^[639][28] |
| [651]Barack Obama | 697,914 | 40.55% | 93 |
| [658]Barack Obama | 11,625 | 61.65% | 8 |
| [667]Barack Obama | 130,087 | 32.42% | 14 |
| [675]Barack Obama | 250,730 | 40.83% | 21 |
| [682]Barack Obama | 70,373 | 56.61% | 14 |
| [695]Barack Obama | 220,588 | 61.69% | 34 |
| [702]Barack Obama | 25,986 | 67.53% | 16 |
| [708]Barack Obama | 1,772 | 92.24% | 3 |
| [716]Barack Obama | 21,768 | 67.56% | 53 |
| [726]Barack Obama | 2,079 | 59.52% | 15 |
| [733]Barack Obama | 85,534 | 75.59% | 3 |
| [740]Barack Obama | 26,104 | 68.27% | 11 |
| [747]Barack Obama | 617,710 | 64.20% | 43 |
105007
4844
295214
575794
298311
302
121
181243
79453
1827485
79590
179349
51148
698223
16880
1301954
27172
511887
141725
405470
492186
67531
697914
11625
130087
250730
70373
220588
25986
1772
21768
2079
85534
26104
617710
9503159
| [345]Hillary Clinton | 112,610 | 39.09% | 9 |
| [366]Hillary Clinton | 328,309 | 55.23% | 0 |
| [379]Hillary Clinton | 5,459 | 50.82% | 12 |
| [390]Hillary Clinton | 141,217 | 26.52% | 12 |
| [406]Hillary Clinton | 870,303 | 49.77% | 0 |
| [420]Hillary Clinton | 221,759 | 41.59% | 25 |
| [434]Hillary Clinton | 103 | 25.37% | 4 |
| [440]Hillary Clinton | 163 | 57.19% | 2 |
| [448]Hillary Clinton | 217,916 | 50.54% | 31 |
| [462]Hillary Clinton | 216,024 | 70.39% | 27 |
| [475]Hillary Clinton | 2,226,622 | 51.82% | 207 |
| [495]Hillary Clinton | 38,699 | 32.32% | 9 |
| [508]Hillary Clinton | 164,831 | 46.63% | 22 |
| [521]Hillary Clinton | 40,760 | 42.29% | 6 |
| [538]Hillary Clinton | 326,888 | 31.09% | 27 |
| [558]Hillary Clinton | 3,655 | 17.22% | 3 |
| [566]Hillary Clinton | 662,845 | 32.87% | 45 |
| [581]Hillary Clinton | 9,462 | 25.77% | 9 |
| [590]Hillary Clinton | 704,591 | 56.52% | 54 |
| [605]Hillary | 68,607 | 32.17% | 24 |
| [613]Hillary Clinton | 394,991 | 47.97% | 36 |
| [625]Hillary Clinton | 602,576 | 53.81% | 59 |
| [636]Hillary Clinton | 68,654 | 49.08% | 13^[637][28] |
| [650]Hillary Clinton | 1,003,623 | 58.31% | 139 |
| [659]Hillary Clinton | 6,948 | 36.85% | 5 |
| [666]Hillary Clinton | 228,425 | 56.93% | 24 |
| [674]Hillary Clinton | 332,599 | 54.16% | 34 |
| [683]Hillary Clinton | 48,719 | 39.19% | 9 |
| [696]Hillary Clinton | 136,959 | 38.31% | 22 |
| [703]Hillary Clinton | 12,396 | 32.21% | 8 |
| [709]Hillary Clinton | 149 | 7.76% | 0 |
| [717]Hillary | 10,038 | 31.15% | 25 |
| [727]Hillary Clinton | 1,396 | 39.97% | 9 |
| [734]Hillary Clinton | 27,326 | 24.15% | 0 |
| [741]Hillary Clinton | 11,751 | 30.73% | 5 |
| [748]Hillary Clinton | 344,449 | 35.80% | 22 |
112610
328309
5459
141217
870303
221759
103
163
217916
216024
2226622
38699
164831
40760
326888
3655
662845
9462
704591
68607
394991
602576
68654
1003623
6948
228425
332599
48719
136959
12396
149
10038
1396
27326
11751
344449
9591822
| Totals | 288,058 | 100.00% | 22 |
| Totals | 594,398 | 100.00% | 0 |
| Totals | 10,742 | 100.00% | 25 |
| Totals | 532,468 | 100.00% | 45 |
| Totals | 1,748,704 | 100.00% | 0 |
| Totals | 533,266 | 100.00% | 52 |
| Totals | 406 | 100.00% | 13 |
| Totals | 285 | 100.00% | 3 |
| Totals | 431,147 | 100.00% | 56 |
| Totals | 306,894 | 100.00% | 35 |
| Totals | 4,296,766 | 100.00% | 370 |
| Totals | 119,740 | 100.00% | 55 |
| Totals | 353,504 | 100.00% | 48 |
| Totals | 96,341 | 100.00% | 15 |
| Totals | 1,051,295 | 100.00% | 87 |
| Totals | 21,224 | 100.00% | 18 |
| Totals | 2,016,316 | 100.00% | 153 |
| Totals | 36,723 | 100.00% | 32 |
| Totals | 1,246,628 | 100.00% | 93 |
| Totals | 213,281 | 100.00% | 72 |
| Totals | 823,376 | 100.00% | 72 |
| Totals | 1,119,768 | 100.00% | 107 |
| Totals | 134,236 | 100.00% | 0 |
| Totals | 1,721,262 | 100.00% | 232 |
| Totals | 18,856 | 100.00% | 13 |
| Totals | 401,230 | 100.00% | 38 |
| Totals | 614,096 | 100.00% | 55 |
| Totals | 124,307 | 100.00% | 23 |
| Totals | 357,547 | 100.00% | 56 |
| Totals | 38,481 | 100.00% | 24 |
| Totals | 1,921 | 100.00% | 3 |
| Totals | 32,220 | 100.00% | 78 |
| Totals | 3,493 | 100.00% | 24 |
| Totals | 113,157 | 100.00% | 15 |
| Totals | 38,238 | 100.00% | 70 |
| Totals | 962,159 | 100.00% | 65 |
288058
594398
10742
532468
1748704
533266
406
285
431147
306894
4296766
119740
353504
96341
1051295
21224
2016316
36723
1246628
213281
823376
1119768
134236
1721262
18856
401230
614096
124307
357547
38481
1921
32220
3493
113157
38238
962159
20402533
Clinton: 9591822
Obama: 9503159
Total: 20402533
Proportions:
.47012897859300117294
.46578329269213778504
Difference:
88663
.00434568590086338789
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
quote:If Senator Obama is elected President, you think Irami will let go of his racism?
All I can figure, Irami, is that you're so pessimistic about Obama because he's basically you. That, and you're absolutely terrified of having to let go of your racism.
quote:Nah, it took maybe 20 minutes. And I enjoy text mangling.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Mike, it looks like you put a lot of work into that.
quote:Yep, looks like the numbers were updated after I posted. Now Obama is up 9,869,683 to 9,815,925.
But I heard that Obama passed Clinton in total votes tonight.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
[qb] Just summing the votes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries , I'm getting 9,591,822 votes cast for Clinton, or 47.01%, and 9,503,159 votes cast for Obama, or 46.58%. A total of 20,402,533 votes were cast. Note that the difference in votes is less than half a percent. Keep in mind, I could easily have made an arithmetical or parsing error, so sprinkle liberally with grains of salt.
Here's some scratch work (tools used: elinks and vim):
[CODE] | [346]Barack Obama | 105,007 | 36.45% | 9 |
| [380]Barack Obama | 4,844 | 45.09% | 13 |
| [389]Barack Obama | 295,214 | 55.44% | 25 |
quote:Probably. Gladly, you are the only one to have quoted it in its entirety so that we have to scroll past the abominable thing twice.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Am I the only one who stared at this for about 3 minutes trying to see the ASCII art picture?
quote:If she wins most of the coming primaries, she could win the nomination easily without splitting the party.
There is no way that Sen. Clinton can win nomination without splitting the party, at this point. The supporters of Sen. Obama would stage an uprising.
quote:What a great segue for: Clinton goes negative in new ad.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
As long as the two of them stay positive and don't resort to much mud slinging I think the close race is an overall plus for the eventual nominee.
quote:--Enigmatic
Responding to the ad, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod said, "We've debated 18 times, we're going to debate two more, but we've got other business to do here in terms of meeting voters face to face."
quote:Considering that Obama's views on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and everything related are far closer to the views of the majority of Americans, I'm quite confident he'll destroy McCain on these issues in the debates.
Conspiracy theory concerns aside, I think that McCain would eat Obama alive in debates, when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Obama has such a completely wrong-headed position on Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and everything related, he would be like frost before the morning sun.
quote:I doubt it. In fact, I think McCain's in the race despite all these things, mainly because the other candidates imploded.
These are the very issues that have resurrected McCain's candidacy from virtual death to virtual coronation...
quote:Even if these issues are why McCain is winning the republican nomination, there is a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the election.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I doubt it. In fact, I think McCain's in the race despite all these things, mainly because the other candidates imploded.
These are the very issues that have resurrected McCain's candidacy from virtual death to virtual coronation...
quote:Yeah, he'll only manage to be the president of the united states at that rate.
Charisma can only take Obama so far, when he is so desperately, outrageously, dangerously wrong on the most important issue facing America.
quote:Yeah. Thing is, like 70% of the country thinks you, OSC, and McCain are wrong. If the people he is taking his cues from are the most extreme liberals, then a majority of the country is the extreme left of the Republican party. Personally I think he's right. I think Bush bungled a war that never should've been fought for six years, and then things totally outside his control swung his way and he took credit for it, and now McCain wants to jump in with the same lack of ability to control the situation that Bush has. Neither is willing to prod the Iraqis into action, and Obama is, and if it doesn't work, he's willing to cut our losses and rebuild our military. McCain wants us mired there for a century.
Lyrhawn, McCain knows what he is saying about foreign policy and the war on terror, and Obama doesn't. He has taken his cue from the most extreme of the liberals, and like them, he is full of it about the war. Totally, dead wrong.
quote:From
"The Democrats wanted to leave and set a date for withdrawal and said we could never succeed militarily. Look at the record ... not the rhetoric, not the platitudes, but the principles and the philosophy," he said.
McCain later took aim directly at Obama for lacking specifics.
"I respect him and the campaign he has run," McCain said. "But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences."
quote:Well, I am not so sure about that. I think two things in Iraq are very important, the fact that Al Sadr has not been caught and seems to be hiding in Iran seems to either mean that he will return once the surge is over and start again, simply biding his time until the surge is over, and the fact that the "Anbar Awakening" as it has been called seems to me to be more a product of Sunni's wanting America out of Iraq, and I don't think thats something to ignore. It could be that Al Sadr has gone away for good, but I think it's all the more likely that he is waiting until the surge is over so that he can continue his thrust for power, and unless he is caught and captured, the movement he leads seems not to be finished but simply to be in hiding.
Terrorist leaders themselves are admitting they put all their effort into confronting America in Iraq (instead of trying to hit us again in America), and that the tide has been turning against them disastrously as the Iraqi people themselves side with the Americans.
quote:Amen!!
Of course, my opinion on Iraq has always been that we put the Iraqi's on the front line of a war that we were fighting with Al Qaeda, we put them into a position where hundreds of thousands of them died so that hundreds of thousands of our people wouldn't have too, and thats inexcusable even if it works. I'm not really interested in the justifications for the war, the ineptness of the Bush administration to successfully plan the war, the lies it undertook to justify the war, or how it dealt with critical opinions of the war (though those are important) what I care about is the notion that they were willing sacrifice Iraqi's to win a war, and though it may be seen as unbelievably naive or the like, no end is ever going to justify that means. Ever. Even if we win this war, we can never prevail over Al Qaeda if we turn into to people who elect politicians who are just as bad and who begin to accept the horrible and unjustified as means to our own selfish ends. I always thought we were better than that, and I still do. Which makes me think that Obama is the right person and is on the right side of this debate.
quote:What McCain actually said:
“When it comes to foreign policy, John McCain says he wants to fight a 100-year war—a hundred years, as long as it takes,” channeling outrage from the crowd.
quote:So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that … (cut off)
McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
quote:If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
quote:I know for a fact that this isn't true, in a general sense. One of my best friends' (for some 20+ years) brother is this guy. You may have seen him on various news programs, or maybe seen his books around. He's considered a top expert in domestic security, particularly of ports, but not limited to that. He's advised all the candidates, and was impressed with Obama, though he only was frustrated with one of the candidates in particular... A certain guy respected for his supposed wise stance on security, who was a mayor of a rather large port town in the USA. That guy is no longer in the race now.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Lyrhawn, McCain knows what he is saying about foreign policy and the war on terror, and Obama doesn't. He has taken his cue from the most extreme of the liberals, and like them, he is full of it about the war. Totally, dead wrong.
quote:Assuming that did happen, then the rest of McCain's statement would kick in: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
Originally posted by lem:
quote:If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
quote:Citation Needed
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Terrorist leaders themselves are admitting they put all their effort into confronting America in Iraq (instead of trying to hit us again in America), and that the tide has been turning against them disastrously as the Iraqi people themselves side with the Americans.
quote:So taking McCain at his word, he would withdraw soldiers from Iraq if they were being wounded or killed?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Assuming that did happen, then the rest of McCain's statement would kick in: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
Originally posted by lem:
quote:If we keep permanent bases in Iraq (Muslim holy land), and our bases in the Middle East are in part what prompted terrorism over here, do you really think that over time our bases will sit around unmolested during those 100 years like they do in Japan and Germany?
So can we please stop this myth that Obama is somehow above the distortion so common in today's politics?
quote:That's not what he said at all. He said a very long-term presence such as those in Japan or South Korea would be fine "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
So taking McCain at his word, he would withdraw soldiers from Iraq if they were being wounded or killed?
quote:Sorry, I should have been clear that I took this as a premise in my question.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
In other words, he was explicitly talking about our presence in Iraq after the country is stabilized and the fighting ends...
quote:I want to know who they're polling and where. Because I live in Philadelphia, and I've yet to come across a democrat who is behind Hillary.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
New polling data:
Wisconsin -
February 13 - Barack Obama 47%, Hillary Clinton 43%, Undecided 10%
Pennsylvania -
February 12th - Hillary Clinton 52%, Barack Obama 36%, Other 1%, Undecided 11%
Ohio -
February 13th - Hillary Clinton 51%, Barack Obama 37%, Undecided 12%
Wisconsin is close, and he's narrowing the gap in PA and OH. He has two weeks to Ohio and Texas, and it's looking like he might get it down to a split vote, which is really all he needs to claim success I think.
quote:So's your mama. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted one way or the other on this measure.
Of course he's pro-torture (or rather not anti-torture) now.
quote:How old is your sample set, Javert. I don't very few young Democrats that are voting for Hillary Clinton. Older democrats are a different story.
I want to know who they're polling and where. Because I live in Philadelphia, and I've yet to come across a democrat who is behind Hillary.
quote:Why is what Obama or Clinton voted relevant to John McCain's change in position?
So's your mama. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted one way or the other on this measure.
quote:Most of the Republicans I have talked to who plan to vote in the Democratic primary (I'm in an open primary state) plan to do so, not because they want to make a more strategic campaign, but because they have a strong 2nd choice. If they can't have McCain (and a lot really don't want McCain), they would prefer Obama. I think this is a perfectly legitimate use of their vote. Of course, I also like the idea of rank ordering your ballot- my first choice is A, but if A doesn't get 10% of the vote, it goes to B.
Originally posted by pooka:
and his victories cannot be attributed to shenanigans by anti-Clinton Republicans. I think the possibility of such shenanigans has been tempered substantially by the belief that Clinton could be beat in the general, whereas Republicans are less certain that they had a candidate that can beat Obama.
quote:The Yinzers probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their idea of a decent ticket is probably something along the lines of Sidney Crosby/Bob Errey 08. Sure, they're both Canadians and Crosby's a few decades too young, but those thighs... oh, those thighs....
Originally posted by pooka:
Re: PA, it's a big union state, particularly to the west end.
quote:Picking it apart would be one thing. But he didn't, at least in the quote I heard on NPR and pasted above.
I really don't think Obama is off base in picking it apart.
quote:I'm just saying it makes them also not anti-torture, because unlike 5 republican senators, they did not vote for the ban.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Why is what Obama or Clinton voted relevant to John McCain's change in position?
So's your mama. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted one way or the other on this measure.
quote:Weird. I don't know that it will do much to stem the damage to McCain's support in the conservative right. But it's hard to figure. It's a very fine line between bringing his friends around to McCain and alienating his enemies from McCain.
Romney's announced he'll be endorsing McCain in the next day or two.
quote:Makes sense. If the GOP loses this November, who is Romney more likely to see again if (when) he runs in 2012? Huckabee or McCain?
Originally posted by MattB:
Romney's announced he'll be endorsing McCain in the next day or two.
quote:And too clever by half.
...if he [Romney] were really machiavellian, he'd do everything he could to help Huck, creating a dogfight for the Republican nomination...quote:
That would be so beautifully evil.
quote:You think either of them are trying to sabotage things for a run of their own in 4 years? Kerry would have to be stupider than dirt to think he has a shot at being the nominee, let alone president.
Ever wonder why Kerry jumped on the Obama bandwagon at the first opportune moment?
Or why Gore hasn't come out for the Clintons?
quote:Anyone else think that sounds like massaging expectations in case she loses? I have this feeling that even though her biggest supporter is saying Ohio and Texas are must-win states for her, if she loses them she might still stay in and drag it out.
Sen. Hillary Clinton last night said she does not view Ohio as a must-win firewall to keep Sen. Barack Obama from winning the Democratic presidential nomination.
“I really don’t think about it like that,” Clinton told The Dispatch following a 35-minute speech to 2,600 in Ohio State University’s French Field House.
“I think about doing the very best I can. I’ve got a good campaign here. I’ve got wonderful, broad support across the state and we’re just going to work like crazy to get as many votes as we possibly can and hopefully we’ll do well.”
quote:That's what I figured based on your first post.
Originally posted by twinky:
Dag, just to be clear, I didn't address your main point about the misstatement because I agree with it. I do support Obama now, but I've never thought he was perfect.
quote:He gave a perfect specific in his last speech, 4-5,000$ credit for college students in return for some volunteer work.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Senator Obama's plan are quite substantial and very detailed. I don't know how he can communication that better without losing the inspiring aspect of his speeches.
Use more numbers? I don't know that people actually take note of the details of plans during campaign speeches or know what they mean.
quote:I'm still stuck on the math for her claim of having 36 years of experience getting things done in Washington. I can't begin to work on her other statements.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I know. And there are tons of very specific plans on his website and when you look closely. I'm trying to figure out how to address the perception of a lack of specifics (which has become Senator Clinton's new talking point. Well, not new exactly...)
quote:To clarify though, neither Obama nor Clinton were barred by the DNC from fundraising in Michigan or Florida, only actively campaigning. I guess you can decide for yourself where the line is.
Originally posted by aspectre:
The Clintons began attending their series Florida fundraisers in September2007 and continued making such appearances throughout the campaign season on a frequent basis. And made sure that the Florida media could not remain unaware (or silent) about their appearances.
Hillary didn't fly in for her Florida victory speech, she had already flown in two days before for two more fundraisers on the day before the election. Her national campaign office generated more media buzz about those two fundraisers and her "non"campaign through their inquiries a few days earlier about renting the MiamiConventionCenter for a Clinton rally on the day before the FloridaPrimary.
quote:I know. I remember that perception being out there (and I shared it, in fact) back when I researched all the Democratic candidates months ago. Then I found his specifics and satisfied myself (not that I agree with them all). I've even had this debate with other people, going back over a month . . . they'd name issues and I'd tell them Obama's position on them. Who goes into numbers and such at campaign rally speeches? Certainly Clinton and McCain don't. But Obama gets targeted for not having any positions, but people who have not watched the debates, I suppose. I guess because if the message is a feel-good message, it must be empty, right? But geez, is it so hard to go to his website or to Wikipedia and look up his political positions?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Senator Obama's plan are quite substantial and very detailed. I don't know how he can communication that better without losing the inspiring aspect of his speeches.
Use more numbers? I don't know that people actually take note of the details of plans during campaign speeches or know what they mean.
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
$4-5,000 credit for college students in return for some volunteer work.
quote:Fixed.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Screwed it up for you.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
4-5,000$ credit for college students in return for some volunteer work.
quote:Yeah, but he (and Clinton for that matter) thinks getting rid of the FFELP program and making all Stafford loans Direct Loans is simple.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
$4-5,000 credit for college students in return for some volunteer work.
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Yeah, but he (and Clinton for that matter) thinks getting rid of the FFELP program and making all Stafford loans Direct Loans is simple.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
4-5,000$ credit for college students in return for some volunteer work.
quote:I don't care, it is my notation, it is how I write it, and it is how I will always write it.
Originally posted by Icarus:
Blayne, why do you insist in screwing $5,000 up over and over again? Lisa didn't screw it up, she fixed it, and sticking to your awkward punctuation just makes you look foolish. Again.
quote:To be perfectly honest? Help her. She's hitting Obama on the one thing that a lot of people have in the back of their minds, that Obama is all flash and no substance. Now, this isn't actually true, and I know Icarus will tell anyone that Obama actually DOES have a lot of plans for a number of issues, and he even talks about those issues in his speeches. But Clinton is painting him as all talk, even giving him credit for it being good talk, but that she is in the "solutions business."
Originally posted by scholar:
Do you think Hilary's negative ads will help or hurt her? I would like to see them hurt her because I would like to see the end of negative ads, but it seems like in general, it is a lot easier to tear your opponent down then to build yourself up.
quote:Link
What do you think of Barack Obama?--by worrying aloud about his "Muslim background." I'm always quick to tell them that he's not a Muslim, but it rarely makes a difference. Take Vicki Hercsky, 47, a teacher from Boca Raton, Florida. "Obama, I don't even know how he got where he is," she told me after a Rudy Giuliani event late last month. "Why do you say that?" I asked. "He's Muslim," she replied, matter-of-factly. I stammered. "Well, um, his father was raised Muslim but was an agnostic by the time Barack was born," I said. "Obama is a Christian." Hercsky wasn't swayed. "Yeah, but he has it in his blood," she said. "You can't take away what's given to you. It's given to you for a reason, and that's who you are. That's who he is." I'm not sure what she meant by "it," or "who he is"--and I'm not sure I want to know.
quote:Frankly I find your name to be far too Biblical for my tastes Tom.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'd like to think that the people who wouldn't vote for Obama because they think he's Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway, but that's probably not the case.
quote:oh SNAP
Originally posted by Risuena:
I had the "Obama's a Muslim" conversation with my mom a few weeks ago. Her whole reasoning for Obama being Muslim was that he'd gone to a Muslim school while he was a child. At which point I pointed out that she'd gone to Catholic school but was not a Catholic.
quote:Bigotry and xenophobia.
To be honest, I don't see why we can't have a Muslim president.
quote:Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Originally posted by Katarain:
I think they base it on the idea that Muslims believe that once you're a Muslim, you're always a Muslim--or that you have no right to change your religion. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what they're basing it on. So, if Obama has a Muslim background, then he MUST be a muslim still, because that's how Muslims believe.
quote:President Bush said that in an interview on February 10th with Mike Wallace from Fox News. Nice.
BUSH: I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad. I think I commented that in a press conference when I was asked about that.
quote:Conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Lisa:
I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
quote:I agree. And so does Obama:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But Obama will need to give more wonkish speeches and give more details, or Clinton's attacks will stick.
quote:NY Times article
Yet as he traveled across Wisconsin last week, Mr. Obama seemed to have let loose a little more of his inner-wonk, which his strategists had once urged him to keep on the shelf.
Even as he was dismissing Mrs. Clinton’s criticism, he appeared to be taking it at least mildly to heart — a suggestion that as a line of attack, she might be on to something.
quote:Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
Originally posted by Katarain:
I think they base it on the idea that Muslims believe that once you're a Muslim, you're always a Muslim--or that you have no right to change your religion. I have no idea if that is true or not, but that's what they're basing it on. So, if Obama has a Muslim background, then he MUST be a muslim still, because that's how Muslims believe.
quote:Conspiracy theories? You honestly think the media doesn't decide who it likes and who it doesn't like?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Lisa:
I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
quote:If I were Obama, I'd find a way to hire the campaign manager Clinton just fired, and mention that I don't think the people around me should suffer needlessly for my mistakes.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"You're starting to hear Obama hit back with criticizing Clinton's mischaracterization of his 'lack of positions.'"
The obvious answer is "I suppose someone who didn't understand my positions, and the needs of the American people, might think I had no positions..."
quote:Well that's some effective target advertising!
Originally posted by Google Ads:
Jonas Brothers VS Zac Efron
Who's hotter?
Tell us your opinion!
quote:Ah. I haven't gotten one of those, so I didn't realize people were actually saying that.
Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
quote:There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Conspiracy theories? You honestly think the media doesn't decide who it likes and who it doesn't like?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Conspiracy theories.
Originally posted by Lisa:
I think that having the middle name Hussein might have something to do with it.
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB. He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago). He's a shady and smooth manipulator, and he's been cut way too much slack by the media.
Clinton is still dealing with Whitewater, but Obama gets a pass on Tony Rezko. Yeah, whatever.
quote:I can't prove it, I just think that's what I read in the emails. I tend not to read those things very closely, and I had a conversation with my mother, who sent me the email, afterwards and I seem to remember her saying something similar. I can't find the email now, though.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Ah. I haven't gotten one of those, so I didn't realize people were actually saying that.
Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:Well sure, but I was going on what I've read on the email forwards.
Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I think most people who think Obama is Muslim believe it just because someone told them that he's Muslim.
quote:I've read this several times, and I'm still having a hard time making sense of it.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
quote:Oh! That's what my dad's going on about now! Time to send him a link to Snopes.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I got an email about his refusal to respect the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and it not only said something like "verified by Snopes" but actually included a link to the Snopes article that debunked it.
quote:Someone needs to send Blayne a book on punctuation and grammar.
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:I've read this several times, and I'm still having a hard time making sense of it.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
There are plenty of reporters that having said its hard to be unbiased regarding the guy there are plenty of news outlets that jumped on the "Obama is a Muslem" emails as fact before verifying them, to say the media as a whole is a vast left wing conspiracy *winces* I wonder when he'll show up */wince* is the figurative crack of a conspiracy theorist.
quote:I'm sure the fact that that campaign manager was a Latina probably came into play as well.
No way would she work for Obama. The entire reason she had the job to begin with is because Clinton made her campaign manager based on loyalty rather than skill. She never should have had the job to begin with, along with a lot of Clinton's top advisors and campaign runners. The fired manager just wasn't built for this, and never should have had the job, but she's still a Clintonista, and wouldn't work for Obama.
quote:Out of curiosity, exactly how does this make him a jerk?
He refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome (the SF mayor who tried to force gay marriages into existence a couple of years ago).
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
In any case, Obama is a jerk, and it has nothing to do with his middle name or schooling.
He continues to maintain his membership in a church run by an anti-semitic SOB.
quote:http://tinyurl.com/2zzde2
Originally posted by Tstorm:
It's not my intention to completely derail this thread from it's purpose, but while we're on the subject, I'll ask this question.
Have you heard the smear campaign about Obama's church allegedly being 'racist'? I keep encountering people who say that, and I honestly don't know what to say. Somehow, rolling my eyes at such a statement doesn't seem to be the right thing to do.
quote:
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
quote:
. . . “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” . . .
quote:
. . . “our racist competitive society” . . .
quote:
. . . “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.”
quote:
. . . “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
quote:Here is the context from which many of these statements were pulled:
. . . “In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
quote:http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
quote:http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm
To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.
• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.
• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.
quote:There are certainly some ideas worth debating in there, but the article I first linked to seems extreme and context-less.
Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!
We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economically disadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!
W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ.
quote:Emphasis added. Suddenly Lisa's objections make more sense.
Referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in January 2006, Obama denounced Hamas while praising former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At a meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on the eve of Hamas' sweeping election victory,[39] Obama stated that Sharon's role in the conflict had always been "absolutely important and constructive."
quote:
In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction."
quote:
Obama was also a cosponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which in part calls on "members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas until it agrees to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap." [emphasis added]
quote:
He defended Israel's response to the Zar'it-Shtula incident on August 22 in an interview with Tim Russert, saying, "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." A month earlier he said, "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles."[44]
Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on 2 March 2007, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
quote:He personally believes that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and a woman, but he favors civil unions (for all, I believe, but maybe it's just for gays) and voted against the various "defense of marriage" measures.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What is Obama's actual position on gay marriage? I'm honestly not sure.
quote:I agree on this from a political perspective, but I also think there is something else that Obama can do here that is better and is I think what he is trying to do.
But Obama will need to give more wonkish speeches and give more details, or Clinton's attacks will stick.
quote:Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
quote:I think he is wrong. There may be a word for people who share some views with one side and other views with the other side, but I don't think it's moderate. It's as if people think they can just take five issues, assign them all numbers between 1-10, with ten equal to Ann Coulter and 0 equal to a Hippie, divide by five to get an average numbers, and if your mean is between 3-7, you are a moderate. I think some people think of it that way, but it seems to me that they are wrong.
About how moderates aren't people who fall in the middle on every cause, but rather people who share some views with one side and other views with the other side.
quote:Opinionated Americans.
What would you call the people OSC calls moderates?
quote:http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/bush-clearing-brush-thumb.jpg
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What kind of "work" is she talking about? Clearing brush?
quote:Then it's a semantic issue. The people you take issue with are not the people Card, Obama, or I call moderates.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Opinionated Americans.
What would you call the people OSC calls moderates?
quote:Me too. I'm also giddy with the idea of someone like Samantha Power helping to set policy in that president's administration.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I'm giddy with the idea of my president being the type of guy that reads a book about genocide, calls the author, then has a 4 hour conversation with her about her ideas.
quote:It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Very interesting interview with Samantha Power, Obama's senior forign policy advisor
quote:I see how you thought I was saying Obama's church is different in this regard. I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
What Trinity does with their money, does not require any action by the congregation I grew up in here in Massachusetts. And even if the minister is doing this, depending on how church funds are involved, I could easily see many parishioners not agreeing, but remaining friends with their pastor.
The UCC is not like the megachurches, or the Baptists, or the Mormons, in fundamental ways of governance and responsibilities.
-Bok
quote:It's a matter of the degrees with the LDS Church. Instead of candidates, the Church comes out for and against propositions, and instead of official proclamations, authorities are allowed to shill and fundraise during services, I'm thinking specifically about Prop. 22 in California. Like most religions, your church picks and chooses. There is nothing wrong with it, I just don't want people thinking that churches are non-political. Heck, Jesus wasn't even non-political.
I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
quote:Ah, I see.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I see how you thought I was saying Obama's church is different in this regard. I was merely noting that I am glad my church does not try to marry politics and religion when it comes to political candidates.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Neither does Obama's. The United Church of Christ gives a large dose of autonomy to the local church. If you look at the award's name, it's the in the minister's own name. It's like me giving you (BlackBlade) the Bokonon Sez Ur Teh Awesome Award.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm suddenly very glad my church does not officially endorse any candidate from any party.
What Trinity does with their money, does not require any action by the congregation I grew up in here in Massachusetts. And even if the minister is doing this, depending on how church funds are involved, I could easily see many parishioners not agreeing, but remaining friends with their pastor.
The UCC is not like the megachurches, or the Baptists, or the Mormons, in fundamental ways of governance and responsibilities.
-Bok
Carry on then!quote:Are there actually Liberals who want to do this, systematically? There may be individuals who want to be married in a church that won't let them, but I've never heard of anyone advocating this stance.
but it's unfair to force religious institutions to share any sort of religious inspired marriage with a group of people they find antithetical to their beliefs.
quote:Prop 22 was a very rare occurrence for the LDS church. The church has come out against gay marriage in a way similar to when it came out against the ERA. They also came out (on a state level) against a proposition to allow paramutual gambling in Utah. These are the only three political issues in the last fifty years that I recall the church having taken anything approaching a political stance on.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Instead of candidates, the Church comes out for and against propositions, and instead of official proclamations, authorities are allowed to shill and fundraise during services
quote:Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Very interesting interview with Samantha Power, Obama's senior forign policy advisor
quote:This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
quote:It's still picking and choosing. We still have gays, women, and people who'd rather feed public coffers from gambling as opposed to taxes, and everyday, those people rightfully shake their fist at the LDS Church in a political way. It doesn't matter how frequently it happens. It happened before, and there is nothing to stop it from happening again, in the same way. Truthfully, I'm not even against it. I just don't like people lying about it.
Prop 22 was a very rare occurrence for the LDS church. The church has come out against gay marriage in a way similar to when it came out against the ERA. They also came out (on a state level) against a proposition to allow paramutual gambling in Utah. These are the only three political issues in the last fifty years that I recall the church having taken anything approaching a political stance on.
quote:I don't agree with this. Their position has value because they imbue it with value. They are people, and if you respect them as people, you have to respect that they have a view. It could be wrong, but should not be dismissed outright. Democracy is not about elections or polls or 51 percent, it's about taking people seriously, everyone seriously. Hopefully, that ethic also cultivates a culture of people taking themselves seriously.
This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
quote:True. But I think that this is pretty rare. I think that most people, given a chance and the proper environment, have some reason for thinking what they do. They may not be good reasons or reasons we agree with but they are reasons. If we demonize them or dismiss their reasons, they are going to demonize us and dismiss us as well and we will become more entrenched and "frozen" and extreme.
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
quote:I agree that demonizing should not be done. Dismissing? Sometimes.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Javert:
True. But I think that this is pretty rare. I think that most people, given a chance and the proper environment, have some reason for thinking what they do. They may not be good reasons or reasons we agree with but they are reasons. If we demonize them or dismiss their reasons, they are going to demonize us and dismiss us as well and we will become more entrenched and "frozen" and extreme.
quote:And I'm not talking about democracy. I'm talking about issues where there are definite answers, not just opinions.
Democracy is not about elections or polls or 51 percent, it's about taking people seriously, everyone seriously.
quote:I don't think he meant to lie, he probably just forgot.
I just don't like people lying about it.
quote:There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
I'm talking about issues where there are definite answers, not just opinions.
Science standards in public schools, for example.
quote:Lisa, are you using Firefox with AdBlocker or AdBlocker Plus?
Originally posted by Lisa:
It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
quote:Yeah, I wasn't surprised to see her skirt around that, but I was disappointed by it. I've googled a bit to see if she's gone into any detail on her position on the issue, but so far all I've found are a lot of pro-Israel blog posts that refer to her as "Israel hating" and that sort of thing. I haven't been able to find anything she's actually written about the conflict.
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Very interesting interview with Samantha Power, Obama's senior forign policy advisor
quote:Well, I disagree.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
I'm talking about issues where there are definite answers, not just opinions.
Science standards in public schools, for example.
quote:That's not what I meant. My point is only that there is no room for opinion when dealing with teaching science in science classes. Science, as opposed to bad science, pseudo-science or religion masquerading as science.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
How can you disagree? We don't teach every accepted scientific finding in high school. We somehow choose which ones to teach.
Could you describe the objective criteria you would use to allocate the time spent on, say, quantum physics as opposed to ecology?
quote:The lines around psychology, sociology, and linguistics were a little blurry last time I checked.
There is criteria to determine what is and what is not science. Opinion is not an issue.
quote:Okay, I found an interview in which she talks about it a bit. From the fifth page of the interview (formatting and speaker labeling added by me for clarity):
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Thanks for that link. Very interesting, although she (somewhat unsurprisingly) skirted around the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Very interesting interview with Samantha Power, Obama's senior forign policy advisor
quote:
Interviewer:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine - Israel problem, let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Samantha Power:
I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
quote:Perhaps. But are those subjects generally taught in public high schools? Or private ones, for that matter?
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:The lines around psychology, sociology, and linguistics were a little blurry last time I checked.
There is criteria to determine what is and what is not science. Opinion is not an issue.
quote:A "large tendency" is not even close to showing that questions about standards in public schools have "definite answers." There are serious disputes amongst curriculum committees that have nothing to do with science v. non-science.
The places where there are political disagreements over what to teach in a high school science curriculum have a large tendency to be, on one side, people who want to teach science, and on the other side, people who don't. There is a definite right and wrong answer to that question.
quote:Linguistics, no - but we had psychology and sociology as high school level subjects, and AP psych.
But are those subjects generally taught in public high schools? Or private ones, for that matter?
quote:Then you must have had a better high school than I did.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Linguistics, no - but we had psychology and sociology as high school level subjects, and AP psych.
But are those subjects generally taught in public high schools? Or private ones, for that matter?
quote:Just to be clear, it's not my criteria.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There are disputes about whether the science is definitive enough that might meet Javert's criteria.
quote:I don't know. But I never had it. And I've never heard of anyone taking it in high school.
Originally posted by pooka:
Why is linguistics not a high school subject?
quote:"Depsite what I say?" I didn't say anything about whether there's a definite scientific answer to that one. I said people dispute whether there is. That's undeniably true, but also irrelevant, because the point of my post was that there other issues associated with the question of whether a state legislature should mandate teaching a particular scientific area in public schools.
Human caused global climate change vs not. And, again, despite what yousay, there's a definite scientific answer to that one.
quote:And it's not "pick one."
Those are the only two I can think of that a voter might have in mind, thus, political disagreement. And on both of those, there is a correct scientific answer. Which does NOT answer the question of whether they should be taught in school. But if its "pick one," then there is a correct and an incorrect answer.
quote:I don't think I would count psychology as a science, or linguistics or sociology. I might be willing to go with soft science.
Originally posted by pooka:
But regarding psychology, it seems like we cycle through theories rather quickly in that field.
Why is linguistics not a high school subject?
quote:This is fine. But what's your point?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
We cannot live our lives without the equivalent of "soft" science. There is no empirical science that establishes right from wrong, or whether God should be believed in or not, or whether friend X should be trusted more than friend Y, or whether peers should be trusted more than parents, or whether witness X in court is more reliable than witness Y.
quote:The ones that do have more to do with whether or not X is valid science certainly get the lion's share of the press, certainly.
And, in political discourse, the questions abotu what should be taught in school tends more to be about whether or not X is valid science.
quote:No, she doesn't mention that in the first link. But it seems pretty clear to me (not yet having read the second link) that she's talking about Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat.
Originally posted by pooka:
What the hell is "Sharafat"?
Have I exposed myself as not having read the first link on this page?
quote:You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer.
quote:If you dismiss the "anti-dog" person, you may never understand that, instead of being a dog hater, they are concerned for the safety of children. If the anti-dog person just dismisses the pro-dog person as caring more about dogs than about children, you may never find a compromise like leash laws or restricted areas in parks for dogs.
Originally posted by Javert:
I agree that demonizing should not be done. Dismissing? Sometimes.
And I just want to be clear, a person can have very good reasons for their position with it still being wrong.
For example: My child was mauled by a dog. My position is that all dogs should be destroyed. (I'm purposefully using an extreme example. I doubt anyone holds that specific position. But then again, I could be wrong.)
Do I have a good reason for holding that position? Certainly. But that doesn't mean my position is correct, or right.
quote:Well yes, if you take that sentence out of context. Here it is again:
You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
quote:See, when read with the one sentence that followed it, it's clear what I meant.
There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
quote:Connecting this to OSC's article, though, the point is that while you may consider someone's opinion on one issue flat out wrong, and valueless, you should not consider all of that person's opinions flat out wrong and valueless. And that one of the problems with political discourse today is that those who don't toe the party line are branded as traitors. That basically means that to an extremist, every position held by the other side is valueless. And so we get situations where John McCain is branded a traitor and an impostor for *gasp* agreeing with Democrats on some points. I find it to be a point in his favor that he has, in the past at least, demonstrated that his convictions are his own and not based on a literal reading of his party's platform. The very thing that I consider a strength in him, though, had all sorts of extreme conservatives outraged.
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:This is not always the case. Sometimes another person's position has no value at all.
I think that it is a deeper understanding that, even if you don't agree with someone else, that their positions have value.
quote:I'm not sure why that next statement matters. The sentence "There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools." is false. There are definitive answers to some areas of this. It is exceding clear to me that Javert was referring to the ones that I also referenced.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Well yes, if you take that sentence out of context. Here it is again:
You are kind of cherry picking your areas here. While "What should be taught in public schools?" doesn't have a definitive answer, "Should some subject, X, be taught as science in public school?" can have a definitive answer. Thus, contrary to what you said, there are some definitive answers in this area.
quote:See, when read with the one sentence that followed it, it's clear what I meant.
There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools. There's far more to deciding what to teach in public school science classes than issues that have definite answers.
Deciding what NOT to teach in public school science classes is not what I was talking about.
quote:I can see the logic behind proportioning your delegates based on the districts' turnouts in previous elections. However, this seems to set up another situation where one candidate gets the higher percentage of the statewide vote (and thus the media reports that as a "win" of the state) but the other candidate gets more delegates.
The 126 state senate district delegates are selected through the primary based on results in each of the 31 state senate districts. They are apportioned based on the weight of the vote cast for the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas, Chris Bell, in the 2006 general election, and for John F. Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. This has the result of increasing delegates in African-American senatorial districts disproportionate to their population.[7]
quote:No, it's not. Those definitive answers aren't for science standards. They are for questions that, when answered, may help in defining science standards. But they fall short of doing so.
"There aren't "definite answers" for science standards in public schools."
quote:It wasn't clear to me. I clarified. This caused him to clarify.
It is exceding clear to me that Javert was referring to the ones that I also referenced.
quote:Good, because that's what I did say. That would be the point of the second statement: to clarify what could otherwise be an ambiguous sentence.
If you want to say that determining science standards as a whole has no definitive answer, that's fine.
quote:No, it's not different than what I said.
But that is very different from what you said
quote:iirc Nevada was, but it was very close in both popular vote and delegates awarded. New Mexico may have been too, but I can't think of others that were off the top of my head. Normal districting can have that result (just like the EC can in the general election) but Texas's weighting seems to go above and beyond normal districting. It looks like it could result in a much more dramatic difference between the statewide popular vote and the delegate allocation then we've seen so far.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Enig, I think that several of the primaries have been that way. The districting plays a significant role.
quote:My initial response to that is: Huzzah!
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Texas isn't for a while yet, but has anyone looked at how their delegate process works? From the wikipedia page:
quote:I can see the logic behind proportioning your delegates based on the districts' turnouts in previous elections. However, this seems to set up another situation where one candidate gets the higher percentage of the statewide vote (and thus the media reports that as a "win" of the state) but the other candidate gets more delegates.
The 126 state senate district delegates are selected through the primary based on results in each of the 31 state senate districts. They are apportioned based on the weight of the vote cast for the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas, Chris Bell, in the 2006 general election, and for John F. Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. This has the result of increasing delegates in African-American senatorial districts disproportionate to their population.[7]
From what I've heard about the demographics of which districts have more or less delegates, it seems pretty likely that Clinton could win the popular vote while Obama gets more delegates. Which would set us up for another barrage of "See how undemocratic this is?" infighting. *sigh*
--Enigmatic
quote:Not necessarily so, as this article suggests:
Originally posted by scholar:
To be honest, I don't see why we can't have a Muslim president. When I hear the Muslim complaint, my first thought is not, no he's not, but so, what if he is? Why couldn't a Muslim mak an excellent leader? As far as the war on terror, maybe his unique understanding of the "enemy" would lead to us coming to a resolution.
quote:I've been swinging back and forth this entire election between Obama, Clinton and McCain. I don't hate any of them. So, for me, I'm very interested in actually fleshing out the differences they all pose as the next President.
...for if Obama once was a Muslim, he is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed. Were he elected president of the United States, this status, clearly, would have large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world.
quote:Don't know about the word, but from what I've been told (by both Muslims and ex-Muslims), the punishment for apostasy is death.
Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
I don't seriously think Obama is a Muslim, but I'm worried about this if it's true. Can anyone shed some light on this "murtadd (apostate)" in Islamic law?
quote:I'll repeat what I said earlier:
So we're clear, you actually agree with what Javert meant when he said that there are definitive answers in determining a science curiculum, yes?
quote:Which is in basic agreement with what Javert said when he said:
Whether X is valid science or not is only a threshold question as to whether - and how - X should be taught in public schools. There is no definitive answer.
quote:I do take exception to the idea that people of good will can't disagree about whether a specific thing is science or not, because every categorization has entities that are close to the line. Creationism is not one of these edge areas, nor do those edge areas factor prominently into most public curriculum debates.
There is criteria to determine what is and what is not science. Opinion is not an issue.
If something is science, it can be included in science class. The actual specifics, quantum physics vs. ecology for example, are opinion based.
I didn't mean to suggest that the entirety of the issue was non-opinion based. But certain sub-issues within it are.
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It's not like Jews where if your mother was one then you are too.
quote:Nope. I'm using IE 6 on WinXP SP2.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Lisa, are you using Firefox with AdBlocker or AdBlocker Plus?
Originally posted by Lisa:
It says "Click on the sponsor logo: to read this article and all of Salon for free". But there's no sponsor logo. Annoying.
quote:Although in Israel, if your father is Muslim, you're automatically considered Muslim for purposes of identification. Even if your mother is Jewish, believe it or not. Because the State of Israel is so desperate to be liked that they decided to go according to Islamic law rather than Jewish law.
Originally posted by pooka:
In case anyone is wondering whether Obama might be considered Muslim by virtue of his father being Muslim, the answer would be "no." You become Muslim by reciting a certain prayer a certain number of times. Shahadah
quote:Glad you found it interesting. I hadn't realized how old it was when I first linked to it. I wonder how here positions have changed since 2002 when the interview was conducted.
Originally posted by twinky:
Noemon, I had a chance to read your second link. Thanks for that, it was interesting.
quote:Thanks! Sorry. You know I originally had it that way and then added "father" in before I hit post because I second guessed myself.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Fixed that for you.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It's not like Jews where if your mother was one then you are too.
quote:
Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
quote:Huh.
No recent poling is available for the Washington Republican primary, which the state party uses to allocate nearly half of the state's delegates. The other half of the state's delegates were allocated according to the results of caucuses held February 9.
quote:We caucus separately from the primary.
Originally posted by Icarus:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/feb19.contests/index.html?iref=topnews
quote:
Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
quote:So..... when did you finally stop beating your wife?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I don't know about that, Lyrhawn--Michelle Obama said: "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." (She is 45.) She spoke quite deliberately, and may have said it more than once. She wrote it first. She really sounds like the kind of person who has bought into the schizoid political liberal view of the world where everything America does is bad, and all our enemies are just misunderstood. This is in fact an actual disconnect from reality, since such views are utterly untrue. I would like to know how sympathetic Barack may be with what Michelle said. He has been described by many as the most liberal senator in the senate (aparently he took over that title from Ted Kennedy). Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
quote:The thing is, Ron, elements in our country are consistently doing things that we are not proud of. You yourself constantly rail against the things liberals do while acting in the name of our country. Everyone has priorities in what they consider to be the best things to do. Perhaps she doesn't care that much about Israel, that it would make her feel proud? It doesn't mean she doesn't support Israel, just that our actions with regard to Israel don't cause her to well up with pride. What would probably cause an African-American woman to well up with pride? Oh, I dunno, our country getting close to electing a black president? To some African Americans, things race-related are of primary concern to them, while most other things just don't matter as much, so it won't cause them to feel "truly proud".
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
quote:Oh come on. I mean seriously. I'm politically liberal, and I can love America while recognizing her mistakes. Does being Conservative mean you whitewash history and pretend everything we've done was always the right and best thing? He's said multiple times that he has a pretty unshakeable allegiance to alliance with Israel, and would protect them over anyone else in the region.
Originally Posted by a Conservative Wacko:
Does being politically liberal indeed mean he does view America as a country he cannot be proud of? Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? These are not unfair questions any more--now he does need to answer them.
quote:Alcon, I will certainly pay them some heed, as they complete the political spectrum of open political debate and should be encouraged to voice their opinions the same as anyone else here, as long as they are not abusive of fellow posters.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Ron Lambert = Jay = Bean Counter = every other uber-conservative facist ann-coulter rush-limbaugh wannabe nut case we've had come through here. Pay them no heed.
(Mind you, I'm only talking about the above posters that I've seen -- I assume we've had others that I never saw. I do not mean to imply that any other intelligent, mature, thoughtful conservative posters are any of the above.)
quote:Generally I feel that way, but Ron has already proved to be abusive of his fellow liberal posters and completely closed minded to their ideas. Therefor I am paying him no heed.
Alcon, I will certainly pay them some heed, as they complete the political spectrum of open political debate and should be encouraged to voice their opinions the same as anyone else here, as long as they are not abusive of fellow posters.
quote:If that is the case, he should be censored and censured by the Papa Janitor.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Generally I feel that way, but Ron has already proved to be abusive of his fellow liberal posters and completely closed minded to their ideas. Therefor I am paying him no heed.
quote:The political leading I criticized is described by: being very abusive of liberals and utterly close minded to their ideas. Even going so far as grossly misrepresenting said ideas to make them appear disgusting or absurd.
If that is the case, he should be censored and censured by the Papa Janitor.
But you did not state your original criticism that way. You only criticized his political leaning, which is completely irrelevant and dangerous to the atmosphere that should be promoted in this forum.
quote:They weren't all primaries, but that's really neither here nor there (unless you talk to Clinton) and it'll be 10 by the time the night is over.
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
Hillary amazes me. She's lost nine primaries in a row and she's still talking about "beating the Republicans!" in November.
--j_k
quote:If I was a republican, I wouldn't bother voting. Their candidate is pretty much chosen, so why bother?
Originally posted by Threads:
Obama and Hilary combined currently have more than double the votes of all of the republicans.
quote:It seems to me that this flailing at Obama feeds into the whole "willing to say anything" reputation that Clinton has developed, and is practically begging him to respond with a "at the risk of being accused of plagerism again, senator, there you go again" type response.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Is this the best dirt they can dig up on Obama?
This is getting pathetic. He even said in the speech where the line came from originally, the guy who said it before has told people that he and Obama share ideas with each other all the time, but somehow we're supposed to be outraged over this?
--Enigmatic
quote:I wonder if any of them are feeling silly right now.
Why puzzling? California still has its June primary. The legislature just shoved the presidential candidate selection portion forward to take part in TsunamiTuesday.
quote:Sorry, but that clears things up for me not at all.
Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:We caucus separately from the primary.
Originally posted by Icarus:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/feb19.contests/index.html?iref=topnews
quote:
Washington State Democrats are also heading to the polls Tuesday to vote in that state's primary, but the results will have no impact on how the Washington state delegates will be distributed. The delegate allocation was determined February 9 when Washington state Democrats held caucuses. Obama won those handily over Clinton, 68 percent to 31 percent.
quote:Snap! Burned by the MSM again. I voted for Obama but sometimes the MSM's bias against Clinton is too much, especially MSNBC.
Tough timing there for Hillary. She was barely into her speech in Ohio when Obama came on stage in Houston. Looks like all the networks cut away to Texas.
quote:Finally, someone with the courage to ask the TOUGH QUESTIONS that NEED ANSWERING about Obama!
Does he view America's decades-long policy of friendship with Israel to be mistaken? Would he have us throw in with Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
quote:Given that Hillary will remain in the Senate, and the exclusion of these states deeply affected her election, I think the sacrifice of these delegates will lead to some election reform. When she does get around to conceding, which will be covered a lot in the daytime media as the bravest thing anyone has ever done, there will be a lot of discussion about "what if Florida and Michigan had counted".
Michigan and Florida look especially silly. They pushed their primaries up, and got their delegates stripped. Well, my caucus vote in Nebraska counted for something this year. Infinitely more than the discarded votes of the violating states. It was a gamble, and any other year it wouldn't have bit them quite this hard.
quote:More to the point, it was the Clinton campaign's own attempt to play with the timing that did them in- they actually delayed Hillary's speech in an attempt to pre-empt Obama's! Talk about backfire.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Considering her speech had nothing to do with the election, in that she never even mentioned it, I don't see why it was unfair to cut away. Obama had said it was his intention to wait until the race was called and then he'd speak, and given how massively long his speech was (I only got through bits and pieces), I don't blame him for not waiting.
quote:Of course it's available. All they need to do is print more money. Or borrow it from China.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Clinton has made me more and more averse to voting for her, but each time I come close to justifying a vote for Obama, he does something like promise things that would increase the budget by over $1 trillion a year (try running the numbers on his Houston speech). That money is not available to the federal gov't, and promising it is disingenuous and deceptive.
quote:Dude, I totally got a sticker.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yay, Cheeseheads!
[Edit: What a great ToPP.]quote:Sure it does, you just have to realize that other programs are going to get lots of budget cuts -- even with out the Iraq War the military budget is something like 300 billion a year. Slash that and there's an easy 10 billion. Add to that changing up the tax system to remove the Bush cuts, and there's some more money.
It doesn't add up. While Iraq costs a lot, it costs a lot less per year than the initiatives he just proposed. More like a tenth to a fifth. And, as you note, not spending the money on Iraq does not mean it makes sense to turn around and spend it somewhere else.
Whatever his argument, his real action if he is elected will be to not do some of the things he has promised (in the first year, no less). I suspect the disparity will be extreme. No doubt he will blame a lot of this on Congress.
Just another disappointing political grandstander.
quote:After saying that other posters can't read accurately, you misstate what Mrs. Obama said for the second time.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Some of you posters seem to have little ability to read accurately...
...
If she simply misspoke, and did not really mean she was never proud of her country before her husband ran for office...
quote:And again, your criticism is more accurately directed at yourself than at others. Who here said that you believe Sen. Obama sides with terrorists? I see several people disagreeing with the idea that the question needs to be asked. I see nobody saying "Ron said Obama sides with terrorists!" As usual, you're either grossly misunderstanding everything or you're just making up strawman arguements to knock down.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Some of you posters seem to have little ability to read accurately or think logically. I did not say I believe Sen. Obama sides with terrorists--I said this has become a question that will logically be asked, which he will have to answer. He did not need to answer it before.
quote:I was just thinking about the program he proposed to provide bonds and such $10 billion. I haven't had a chance to listen to the full speech. I'll do that and see what the math comes up with, but so far his speeches have generally been far too vague to be able to do any kind of math for them. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Are you even reading what you're typing? $10 billion is one hundredth of $1 trillion. An "easy $10 billion" gets us nowhere. Cutting the entire military budget would get us less than a third of the way to one trillion dollars, and it isn't clear there will be room to cut much of anything, since Iraq has left us with some serious operational deficiencies.
quote:Actually, that's not quite right. She said it twice -- once the way you attributed it and once the way we attributed it. I apologize, since you did correctly quote something she said; however, Enigmatic and I have not misquoted her.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Twinky, I quoted Michelle Obama correctly. You and Enigmatic are inserting a word she did not say.
quote:The only reason that it isn't fatal at all is because the people who view it as a problem would probably never vote for Obama, let alone a democrat or a liberal, in the first place.
This is a bigger problem than the Obama campaign seems willing to admit it is. The only reason it is not immediately fatal is that it was not the senator himself who said it.
quote:What good is pride in someone if it's unwarranted? If, for example, I had a child and that child grew up into someone who dealt drugs to kids and was also a serial rapist, no, I would not be proud of my child. To use an over-the-top example.
So are people who are proud of their children no matter what also full of crap? Persistence of an emotion can be as important as frankness.
quote:Do you think it is at all likely that children you may have will grow into people who deal drugs to children and become serial rapists? If not, why would this enter consideration when you were talking about your future pride for them?
If, for example, I had a child and that child grew up into someone who dealt drugs to kids and was also a serial rapist, no, I would not be proud of my child. To use an over-the-top example.
quote:----
In an interview with San Antonio radio station WOAI Tuesday, Barack Obama said his wife's comment has been taken out of context.
"Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn't at all what she meant," he said.
"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he also said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."
quote:His web site may have more specifics. http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Originally posted by Alcon:
I was just thinking about the program he proposed to provide bonds and such $10 billion. I haven't had a chance to listen to the full speech. I'll do that and see what the math comes up with, but so far his speeches have generally been far too vague to be able to do any kind of math for them. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
quote:She= McCain's wife?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Obviously I don't, Mr. Squicky, since I called it an over-the-top example.
My point is that having faith that America is always going to be something we can be proud of is a dangerous thing, I think. It breeds complacency. Yes, I realize she didn't go into specifics, but she did speak in an absolute. I think it smacks of taking it as a given that America is great and worthy of pride.
quote:This really makes me wonder if she won't still drag it out to the convention even if she loses every state between now and then. It also strikes me as a really bad PR message to voters. While the claim is right that superdelegates don't have to vote along with the results from the primaries/caucuses, it seems like shooting the party in the foot if the majority of them don't.
The Web site also argues that superdelegates — or what the Clinton campaign is now calling “automatic delegates” — should not look to the primary season vote when deciding which candidate to support, stating, "The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president."
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
quote:The only way that that statement smacks of that is if you really try to make it negative. As I said, a person who is working to affect and define America's character saying that she will always be proud of has a readily available admirable interpretation.
I said the statement 'smacks of' taking it as a given that America will always be a place to be proud of. Not that she is herself complacent.
), we might be able to fund the initiatives Obama has put forward.quote:Mr. Squicky, please feel free, feel invited, feel whatever it takes, to stop trying to help me immediately if not sooner. At any rate, I'm done talking to you about this. Declare victory, or feel good about winning, whatever you like.
If you think disagreeing with what I regard as a wrong and malignant interpretation of an admirable statement is picking a fight, I can't help you.
quote:So when you said that what she said was a load of crap, you meant this? I don't see how this deserves that description.
I rather think that she meant, "I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government."
quote:I strongly disagree. Veteran's Affairs is a military expense. It is part of what we contract to pay our soldiers for their military service. The pension plan and medical insurance I get from my employer aren't social programs, they are part of what I get paid from doing my job. The same is true for soldiers. The fact that these costs may not come due until years after the soldier has done his service doesn't change the fact that they are payment for that service.
And I'd say Veteran's Affairs is clearly a social program.
quote:Rabbit: I haven't argued for an increase in military expenditure, I pointed out that Romney sees the military expenditure he is interested in as less than 4% of GDP, and wants to increase it to that level.
And we won't do this 20 years from now or 10 years from now. We will do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States of America.
quote:Wow. That was really sad.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Kinda like this poor sap/Obama surrogate. Did any of you see Kirk Watson on MSNBC last night? He was literally painful to watch. Calling it "choking" would be charitable.
Clinton picked up on it immediately, as any campaign would.
Here's Watson's morning-after mea culpa.
quote:I don't think his question asked for an achievement "attributable to any one Senator."
And it wasn't a really fair question. The Senate is a collaborative effort. I can't name a specific individual achievement attributable to any one Senator.
quote:I know about these because of the names. Many legislative accomplishments don't have such names.
McCain-Feingold and the Sherman Act are probably the only two I could have thought of off the top of my head. Others might sound familiar, but I wouldn't have come up with them. It isn't really a question that made much sense in the context of the interview. Getting legislation named for you isn't all that common. Much of the work there is committee work, negotiating, voting. Answers would be along the lines of "worked for this" or "served on that committee" and so forth.
quote:Hillary's Wisconsin excuse:
Speaking to a crowd in Beaumont, Texas, Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton said "If she wins in Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her then I don't think she can. It's all on you."
quote:Both quotes are from this CNN article.
"We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4-to-1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4," her campaign said in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday.
quote:One wonder how many are hatrackers. I'm one, for instance.
Obama has had 920,191 donors to his campaign so far.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Ic
quote:FWIW, Radar has a short piece explaining the timing of the NYT article: Newsweek, Politico and possibly others were barking at their heels.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Exactly, Lyrhawn. I think that the NYT was irresponsible in this. There does not seem to be any evidence of romantic impropriety and that is what they are hinting. If there is evidence of improper lobbyist/politician behaviour - not improper by general standards, but perhaps by McCain the reformer standards - that is a different story and should have been written differently.
Also, the sitting on the story for weeks thing is suspect.
quote:There was probably some back-and-forth between the lawyers for the Times and McCain's lawyers. They probably have more in their notes that didn't wind up in the story.
At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.
quote:Now that McCain has virtually become the Republican nominee, naturally he would be targeted. Let us see if the left-leaning media gives Obama as hard a time.
John McCain’s campaign lashed out Wednesday at a new report in The New York Times alluding to the Republican presidential candidate’s relationship with a female lobbyist.
The article, to be published in Thursday’s edition of the Times but released the day before on its Web site, revisits rumors spread during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and tries to wipe the sheen off the Arizona senator’s record as an anti-special interest crusader, McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said
“It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign,” said Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director. “John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.”
quote:Are you saying Ms. Iseman was already involved in scandal stories dating back to 2000? First I've heard that.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Fortunately there is plenty of time before the November election to deal with this. It's not like during the 2000 primary, when these same allegations surfaced only a couple of days before some crucial primaries in the South.
quote:add me to the list as well.
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:One wonder how many are hatrackers. I'm one, for instance.
Obama has had 920,191 donors to his campaign so far.
quote:And never has a more loaded and irrelevant question been asked...
What is YOUR agenda?
quote:Which was a separate complaint that you made in addition to calling the question itself unfair. It's also a complaint to which I didn't respond.
And, unfairly, her surrogate wasn't asked the question.
quote:Because I had nothing to say about it. I had something to say about the idea that the manner in which legislation is passed in the Senate rendered the question itself unfair.
Why didn't you respond?
quote:It's not like someone was standing there with a buzzer to stop Obama's supporter if he claimed something as an accomplishment that someone else disagrees is an accomplishment. It was a chance for Obama's supporter to list what he considered Obama's accomplishments to be - something he did just fine a day later.
If someone got a bill passed in the Senate, but not in the House, does that count as an accomplishment? What about if it passes in the Senate and the House, but gets vetoed? What about amendments to bills? What about pushing legislation that doesn't itself get passed but leads to a compromise bill that accomplishes some of those goals? Does one get credit for passing health care bills if they are uncontroversial, "Nutrition Awareness Day" kinds of things?
quote:Yes, of course it was.
MrSquicky, do you believe that Mrs. McCain's statement was a response to Mrs. Obama's?
quote:http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/vce/0201.html
Two types of primaries are used in the United States: open and closed. Open primaries do not require voters to declare in advance the party with which they wish to be associated. So, any registered voter may vote in any party's primary – but voters can vote in only one party's primary during a single primary period. Closed primaries require advance declaration of partisan affiliation in order to vote in a specific party's primary.
Officially, Texas has closed primaries. But in practice, any registered voter may vote in the primary of any single party, as long as they have not voted in the primary of another party. Texas's primaries are closed in a less direct way: once a registered voter has in effect declared his or her party affiliation by voting for the nominees in a party's primary, that person cannot participate in the proceedings (for instance, a runoff primary or convention) of another party.
quote:Would you agree that it was intended to malign Mrs. Obama's statement by inviting a comparison?
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Yes, of course it was.
MrSquicky, do you believe that Mrs. McCain's statement was a response to Mrs. Obama's?
quote:Did you watch the same video I did? Matthews didn't start pounding at him until after he failed to mention even one accomplishment. First he asked him, in a completely normal and natural tone of voice, what some of those "accomplishments" might be. When the guy came up blank, he said, "Okay, just name one." When he couldn't do that, Matthews started hammering him. Quite appropriately, too.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Right. When he wasn't being put on the spot by Chris Matthews pounding him with, "Name one! Can't you name even one?" over and over again on live television. Goodness. I am good at speaking extemporaneously and I'm not sure I could have remembered my name in that situation. It was a "deer in the headlights" moment and designed to be. Chris Matthews was not trying to get a fair answer to the question of what Obama has accomplished - and he admitted that - he was playing gotcha.
quote:kmbboots,
I think that the circumstances under which it was asked - an interview that was "supposed" to be about something else, giving the impression that it should be a simple question to answer, putting the unprepared surrogate on the spot in the way that it was done, and only doing this to one of the surrogates - was unfair and gave an untrue impression.
quote:Olbermann gets way over the top sometimes in his commentaries, but he generally plays it pretty straight when he's doing a gig like election returns.
OLBERMANN: In defense of Senator Obama, and also in context, can you name one accomplishment of the United States Senate in the last seven years?
MATTHEWS: That's a broader question requiring a larger preparation.
OLBERMANN: Yeah, you don't have an answer to that, either.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: But, let me say-but, you know what, Keith? They should be able to make some points, here.
OLBERMANN: I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
In two weeks...
MATTHEWS: But I'm not here to defend the U.S. Senate. He's here to defend Barack Obama and he had nothing in his-well, he had nothing to say.
That's a problem.
OLBERMANN: In two weeks, Chris and I will have complete coverage of the primaries in Ohio and Texas, at which I'm expecting a written reply to my question.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think they call it HARDBALL?
OLBERMANN: But this isn't HARDBALL, we're doing the election results.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Chris Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Bill O'Reilly when it comes to journalistic quality, even when both are being provocative.
quote:That's an interesting point. Depending on how the Obama camp handles this, it could turn out to benefit his campaign. If they can drop the sort of information that was brought up in the other thread and in Kirk Watson's apology, it could make the people attacking them on it look bad or foolish.
I bet everybody does now, though.
quote:That's hysterical.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Chris Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Bill O'Reilly when it comes to journalistic quality, even when both are being provocative.
Just another reason why Fox has greater ratings than all the other cable news networks combined.
quote:Tell me how it's responsible journalism to use the words "lynching party" on anyone, but especially a black person, given the special history of association that word has with the black community? Tell me all about the journalistic quality involved with thinking it's okay to suggest attacking someone because they don't think America is perfect?
"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."
quote:Ron,
Chris Matthews doesn't hold a candle to Bill O'Reilly when it comes to journalistic quality, even when both are being provocative.
quote:Bill O must have been missed this recent speech by President Bush:
That's wrong. And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down. (emphasis added)
quote:
"The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest," Bush said.
"As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive," the president added. "They are wrong. And they have no place in America today."
quote:You took the time to look up the Bush quote. I'd say we're even.
Originally posted by sndrake:
Looks like Lyrhawn had the same great thoughts and types much faster than I do.
quote:Honesly, I'm not sure that it wasn't consciously chosen for it's connotations of something that was done to "uppity" blacks when they "forgot their place" by doing things like trying to vote.
I won't go so far as to claim he selected it deliberately, I'm sure it just popped out of his subconscious,
quote:
OLBERMANN: Let's go now to Eugene Robinson, political analyst for MSNBC and both columnist and associate editor at The Washington Post. Thanks for staying with us, Gene.
ROBINSON: Good to be here, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I'm sorry it's under these circumstances.
ROBINSON: As am I. As am I.
OLBERMANN: Can you convey what Mr. Bush apparently failed to get through to everybody, some sense of the obscenity, the moral obscenity, involved in a national discussion of whether to launch a lynching party against the black woman married to the black man running for president?
ROBINSON: I think you've kind of said it, Keith.
OLBERMANN: Yeah.
ROBINSON: That's the offense. You know what lynching was. Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crow South.
It wasn't -- the idea of course wasn't to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people, not a few, by lynching some black people, to demonstrate to other African-Americans that this could happen to you -- that you have no power. That we have all the power and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.
There's nothing funny about lynching. There's certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama, and the word "unless," followed by "[w]e'll track it down," is way beyond the pale. It's -- I'm almost speechless, but I have more to say, of course.
OLBERMANN: As we both do. And you're right, this is about disenfranchising people. It wasn't just about killing people. The rest were disenfranchised, and people were essentially told black people will not take office. There will not be people in government. There will not be --
ROBINSON: Of course not.
OLBERMANN: -- there will not be dog catchers.
ROBINSON: You will not vote. You will not --
OLBERMANN: Right.
ROBINSON: You will not own property that we don't want you to own.
OLBERMANN: You will not do anything. How many incidents like this does it take? And the Sylvia's restaurant story and "more iced tea, m-fer" now seems to lose all but one of its interpretations. How many of these stories does it take before a fair observer concludes this man is not color blind, he is not reckless with language, he has that insidious kind of low-grade prejudice that we see in ordinary American society still, low-grade prejudice against black people?
ROBINSON: Well, this is enough for me, now. But here's what's going to happen. You know, by tomorrow morning, some defender will come out and say, "I know Bill O'Reilly and he's no racist." And my response is: I don't care. How can anyone know what's in his heart, what's in his soul? That is irrelevant to me. All you can go by is his words and his actions. And he keeps saying these things that sound pretty darn racist to me.
quote:How do you rationalize the powerful cognitive dissonance here?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
It is irritating how the PC mentality is used more and more to set aside the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
...
Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have said something to the effect that any U.S. office-holder who says things that gives aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war should be hung. Maybe that's the lynching party we need to have.
quote:
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
quote:Michelle Obama's not much older than I am. When in my adult life have we elected a president who should have made me proud of my country's choice?
It most certainly is OK to challenge someone who says she was never proud of her country in all her adult life, until now.
quote:yes. It was substanceless in the end in regards to Obama!
Did you watch the same video I did?
quote:http://www.thestar.com/article/305931
More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 per cent of the total vote, according to the results released yesterday.
In Canada, Obama won 62.4 per cent of the 2,236 votes cast, while Clinton won 36.1 per cent.
Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, a pub in Ireland and a Starbucks in Thailand.
quote:I'm not actually okay with Cindy McCain maligning Michelle Obama in the way she did, although I don't really hold it against her.
and I could not understand why you won't stand for Rakeesh maligning either Obama or McCain, but you seem to be okay with McCain maligning Obama.
quote:as a load of crap, especially from someone who has the background of a Cindy McCain.
I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government.
quote:Not that this is what you have said, but it is clear from Rakeesh's post in the "Proud to be an American" thread that he does not view all statements of pride as "empty-headed rah-rah BS":
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Faith that America will continue to do the many things that people can be proud of should not be conflated with the empty-headed rah-rah BS that underlies many people's support of the country. That is exatly what I saw Rakeesh doing when he dismissed it as a load of crap.
quote:So I think he thought McCain's statement was this sort of empty patriotism because of the opportunism behind the statement.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I am, however, proud to be an American because I am a participating, contributing American. I vote regularly in local, state, and federal elections (although that's not entirely noble, because honestly, at the state and local level, us regular voters can exert a surprising amount of influence on our politicians). I am also proud to be an American because I try to get more people I live and work with involved in politics, thus making our society more fully democratic.
And I am proud of my country in much the same way I expect a parent might still be able to have pride in their child when that child brings home a crappy grade from school, or lies to them about something, or even seriously deviates from their moral code.
I don't expect perfection.
quote:which indicated to me that he didn't think that Mrs. McCain's statement was one of empty patriotism (which I thought he might have initially been suggesting) but that he was doing what I covered was my problem with it above, equating her statement of faith in the country with empty-headed jingoism and dismissing this package by calling it a bunch of crap.
Now, Ms. McCain when she made that statement, I don't think that she meant, "No matter what happens, even if we slip into a Twilight Zone episode and are all Nazis, I will be proud of my country." I rather think that she meant, "I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government."
But I have heard people say that they are always proud of America, and frequently it means, "I gloss over bad stuff."
quote:*nod* I think it's the context that made Rakeesh conclude it was less than totally sincere. I get that you disagree with that assessment of McCain, and I respect that people can come to view McCain's statement as more or less genuine in that light.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Icarus,
Rakeesh clarified with this:
. . .
which indicated to me that he didn't think that Mrs. McCain's statement was one of empty patriotism (which I thought he might have initially been suggesting) but that he was doing what I covered was my problem with it above, equating her statement of faith in the country with empty-headed jingoism and dismissing this package by calling it a bunch of crap.
quote:with the empty-headed rah-rahing as something to be dismissed as a bunch of crap.
"I cannot imagine America and Americans turning into something I would not be proud of, because I have faith in the decency of Americans and the effectiveness of our system of government."
quote:My apologies. I lost track of where you had said what I quoted.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'm not aware of having edited. Which post are you talking about?
quote:This isn't the nature of my disagreement. Honestly, I can't see where you are drawing this from. If this really is what Rakeesh meant, I'd appreciate someone showing me where he established this. I just went through what was written and I can't find anything that indicates that this was what he was trying to say.
that Rakeesh felt that the insincerity of intent invalidated the actual content, or something along those lines.
quote:Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
Woo hoo Obama! I'm so excited that my vote will actually count this primary. As a Texan, we're usually relegated to the useless end of the voting spectrum, both in primary and general, as we're too late in the primaries and a one party state in the generals. So this is great!
quote:*Imagines David Axelrod using this on a conference call to the press and asking just how many jobs McCain or Clinton have helped create in the past year*
The rising popularity of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is putting a Dayton-area merchandise-maker into growth mode.
Greenville-based Tigereye Design, a designer and maker of buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers and other products for the Obama campaign, has hired an additional 50 employees since the start of the year to handle the increased workload at its "Obama Store." Tigereye previously hired an additional 30 people to pack and ship Obama orders in 2007.
quote:Surely we have room enough here for both?
Originally posted by katharina:
I liked this thread better when it was about nitpicking the candidates rather than fellow posters.
quote:Who gets the zombie vote anyway? I'd think given the similarities, they probably went for Kerry in 04, but with Clinton and Obama so keen on making everyone so healthy, I think they're more likely to vote Republican this time around.
Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
Woo hoo Obama! I'm so excited that my vote will actually count this primary. As a Texan, we're usually relegated to the useless end of the voting spectrum, both in primary and general, as we're too late in the primaries and a one party state in the generals. So this is great!
This is dissimilar to Chicago, where they have gotten very strict about the "everyone gets to vote only once" rule. And voter turnout from the cemeteries is at an all-time low.
quote:Well, back in the 1960 election, Chicago went heavily democratic. That allegedly included a lot of votes from people whose current residence was a plot in a cemetery.
Who gets the zombie vote anyway? I'd think given the similarities, they probably went for Kerry in 04, but with Clinton and Obama so keen on making everyone so healthy, I think they're more likely to vote Republican this time around.
quote:Well, there is infamous GOP dirty tricks operative Roger Stone's bogus anti-Clinton 527 advocacy group. It's supposed raison d'être is to make T-shirts with a caconymic acronym mocking Senator Clinton. No hotlink from me; if you must know google: "Roger Stone" clinton 527
Originally posted by sndrake:
*Imagines David Axelrod using this on a conference call to the press and asking just how many jobs McCain or Clinton have helped create in the past year*
quote:Yeah, I was unaware of this until today, and am a little confused about it. I'll have to look into it to make sure I ge tthe most bang out of my vote(s).
Very cool, vonk. But it's even better than that. As I understand it, you get to vote twice - legally. Provided you show up at the caucus, that is.
quote:I'm contracted at one of the major election system companies, and the product I'm currently working on is the bridge between their county-level registration system and the state-level system that stores vitals and MVD (motor vehicle department) records. The purpose of this is to check registrants for whether they are felons, dead, or duplicates.
This is dissimilar to Chicago, where they have gotten very strict about the "everyone gets to vote only once" rule. And voter turnout from the cemeteries is at an all-time low.
quote:I find it very comforting to know that long after I've passed on, my vote will count for something in the great city of Chicago.
Originally posted by sndrake:
Well, back in the 1960 election, Chicago went heavily democratic. That allegedly included a lot of votes from people whose current residence was a plot in a cemetery.
quote:This is the original post I objected to in its entirety. I read this that it's a load of crap to always be proud of your country. I'd like to point out that the Jim Crow era did not encompass the whole country.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Actually, I find the response to Michelle Obama's remarks more interesting, as a discussion outside of this particular political issue, anyway.
The one where she said something like, "I always have been and always will be proud of my country," something along those lines.
Boy, what a load of crap that is! It's my home, and I can't see myself ever not loving it as my home, but I won't say I will always be proud of it. I certainly wouldn't have been proud of it had I lived in the Jim Crow era, for example.
quote:To say, "I will always be proud of my country," and have that be your exact literal meaning (which would include the meaning, "No matter what changes or doesn't change in the future, I will continue to be proud of my country") is a load of crap, in my opinion.
This is the original post I objected to in its entirety. I read this that it's a load of crap to always be proud of your country. I'd like to point out that the Jim Crow era did not encompass the whole country.
quote:Yep, I am a Precinct Captain here in Texas, and I know three things:
Vote in the primary, then go to your caucus site at I think 8pm local and vote in your caucus. 30% I believe of the delegates will be allocated based on the caucus, 70% from the primary.
quote:I think it depends, and Lyrhawn may be able to give actual numbers to support or reject this, but as of this moment, Obama has about a 150 delegate lead and Clinton has about a 75 super-delegate lead. If we say that if Ohio and Texas are close and Clinton wins and Obama takes Vermont and Rhode Island (though the numbers for RI are a surprise), then basically that delegate lead for Obama would stay the same. If Clinton wins by big margins in Ohio and Texas and takes Rhode Island as well, then I think the delegate lead might shrink, but I think the worst case scenario for Obama and best case for Clinton is that Obama will come out of March 4 with at least a 50 delegate lead and anywhere from an 80 to 90 deficit in Super-delegates.
Would someone like to help me out with the numbers here then?
quote:Clinton can "insist" all she wants. Won't happen. She'd lose more superdelegates by making a stink than she'd gain from getting ALL of the MI/FL delegates.
Clinton will insist on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, and unless the DNC orders a new Caucus or Primary in those states, the DNC will have to seat those delegates because they know that if they don't that will hurt the Dems in Florida and Michigan.
quote:Really? Where? Maybe he's saying it to people in Texas and Ohio to try and motivate them, telling them how Hillary has to win or it's over.
Even BILL said as much.
quote:Florida's results, as Pooka noted, were not uncontested. However, I bet Dem turnout in Florida was far lower than it would have been if people had expected it to count.
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I am of the opinion that the party will certainly not allow the uncontested results to be counted, since the states were officially disqualified.
quote:Just because both were on the ballot, doesn't mean it was fair. Without campaigning, Obama had very little name recognition, while Clinton has the most recognizable name in politics. It's a no-brainer that Clinton was going to win there.
I think there is a good possibility Florida's delegates will get seated, since everyone was on the ballot, at least.
quote:Would that mean Bush stays in office?
if 50% of the people vote no one, then no one wins.
quote:Then we get no president.
Originally posted by lem:
quote:Would that mean Bush stays in office?
if 50% of the people vote no one, then no one wins.
Or we have a revote one month later with all new candidates (ok, it would take some thinking to figure it out, but I still like the general idea).
quote:Far from naive, this seems to have been a remarkably prescient statement. The struggle there would require American forces to remain for an undetermined time, as McCain has recently said. Going in without a rationale - or a post-invasion plan - did result in a PR nightmare, and according to our own intelligence it did result in more Al Queda recruitment where it had not existed before. He didn't predict the effects American torture would have on the war and our image both at home and abroad, but only because he probably didn't think even our administration was capable of it.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
quote:Clearly 1991 Mr. Cheney is just as naive and silly as Mr. Obama. Probably a liberal.
Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all.
quote:"Really don't mind if I sit this one out. My words are a whisper, your deafness a shout..." -Jethro Tull, Thick as a Brick
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Way to ignore or trivialize everyone supporting Obama, Ron. Well done.
I'd ask you to list specific views of Obama that are silly or naive, with reasons why you think so, but I wouldn't expect a response so I won't bother.
quote:What crack or L. Ron Hubbard inspired work of fiction are you reading?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The way things have gone so far, I think what is most likely to happen to the Dems is something no one expects, something so far out, people will exclaim that it wouldn't be believable in a fiction novel. I do not know what that is. I just feel there is something strange out there about to happen.
Neither Obama or Hillary have a lock on the nomination. Obama has a few more delegates, even when superdelegates are counted, but March 4 could change this. Clinton still has a slight lead in national polls. The Florida delegates could be seated at the convention, but the Michigan delegates could not, since Obama had removed his name from the ballot at the request of the DNC. This would only cause division and infighting in the party. Then again, March 4 could force Clinton to concede if it turns out badly for her. Obama might ask her to be his veep running mate. And then, I don't know, something could happen to Obama. It could be Clinton against McCain in the fall, with the youth vote sitting out the election in a fit of angst.
I would like to see McCain go against Obama, since I think McCain would have no difficulty exposing the naive silliness of Obama's foreign policy views.
Whatever strange things happens to the Dems, McCain is going to win the presidency. He has had "the Luck of the Irish" this past year. It is just incredible all the unlikely things that have broken his way. But whether he will live out his term is another reasonable question. So his choice for veep running mate could ultimately matter a lot.
quote:How on earth do you think that's going to happen?
I'm going to laugh a lot when McCain doesn't get the Republican nomination.
quote:Unless he dies or this lobbyist scandal has legs, I don't see how that's going to happen.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:How on earth do you think that's going to happen?
I'm going to laugh a lot when McCain doesn't get the Republican nomination.
quote:Actually, even if the lobbyist story has legs, unless he is indicted for some crime, he still will have the nomination because the Republicans couldn't legally do anything about it. But I don't think that story has legs so the point is moot...
Unless he dies..
quote:Nope. It's amazing just how much animosity exists in the Obama campaign amongst some of his supporters, in fact, some of them won't even refer to Hilary as Hilary, she is HRC to them. The dirty politics Hilary constantly falls back too is something that has created something within those who support Obama, so I think that debate you were having and the disconnect is actually fairly common. Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are disconnected, and the further the democratic race goes on, the worse it is going to get.
Is it weird that I feel as much disconnect from Clinton supporters as I do Huckabee supporters?
quote:Well, theoretically, if it was proven to be true, I think he'd be crushed by Huckabee or a resurgent Romney in every remaining primary, which would keep him from clinching. At that point, the first ballot would deadlock, and on the second ballot, he'd lose all his support, when delegates can vote for whomever they want.
Actually, even if the lobbyist story has legs, unless he is indicted for some crime, he still will have the nomination because the Republicans couldn't legally do anything about it. But I don't think that story has legs so the point is moot...
quote:Hey, now, just so it's clear -- I use "HRC" for the same reasons as I use "OSC." It is about not typing a lot, not about a personal or political dislike of her. I'd use "Clinton," but there was a relatively recent "Clinton" running for the presidency. I don't actively seek out confusion in my written or verbal speech.
Originally posted by Humean316:
It's amazing just how much animosity exists in the Obama campaign amongst some of his supporters, in fact, some of them won't even refer to Hilary as Hilary, she is HRC to them.
quote:I thought that too (and I still think some of it is) but then I noticed that most of her campaign signs use her first name as the big name across the middle. So she either started it or is at least encouraging it.
Originally posted by Lisa:
It is interesting that so many people refer to the two Democratic candidates as Obama and Hillary. I think there's a little sexism going on there.
quote:Referring to Hillary Clinton as Hillary is more pragmatic than anything because we have already had a President with the last name of Clinton, and in that sense, it's about telling them apart. It's the same for W, part of the reason behind that I believe, is to distinguish between his father and him.
It is interesting that so many people refer to the two Democratic candidates as Obama and Hillary. I think there's a little sexism going on there.
quote:That, and I think Obama just rolls off the tongue easier. At least, it does for me.
Originally posted by pooka:
If another Obama had run America for 8 years, we'd call him Barak.
quote:Wouldn't do the former, didn't do the latter.
Originally posted by pooka:
If another Obama had run America for 8 years, we'd call him Barak.
I mean, how disrespectful is W?
quote:
Originally posted by Humean316:
And the reason I say that HRC is meant from a perspective of animosity is that they told me so. They actually cannot say her name in public
quote:I am not "[your] Claudia," bad or otherwise.
My bad Claudia, I should have said that along with my last post.
quote:I refer to her as "Hillary" to distinguish her from her husband.
It is interesting that so many people refer to the two Democratic candidates as Obama and Hillary. I think there's a little sexism going on there.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The way things have gone so far, I think what is most likely to happen to the Dems is something no one expects, something so far out, people will exclaim that it wouldn't be believable in a fiction novel. I do not know what that is. I just feel there is something strange out there about to happen.
...
Whatever strange things happens to the Dems, McCain is going to win the presidency. He has had "the Luck of the Irish" this past year. It is just incredible all the unlikely things that have broken his way. But whether he will live out his term is another reasonable question. So his choice for veep running mate could ultimately matter a lot.
quote::>
Originally posted by me
See, if you're Ron, you could reimagine the world carefully enough to make it into a foreordained, perpetually assured victory against foes that you understand only as paper-thin caricatures with obvious motives and embarrassing delusions. And who cares if it never actually turns out like you think it should! It's always just about to.
It's like a never-ending teacup ride of smug anticipation, and you can hang around and reassuringly pat people on the back and assuage them with your neverending wisdom.
quote:Here's some more recent commentary by her on that interview.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Very interesting interview with Samantha Power, Obama's senior forign policy advisor
quote:You know, I find this entire tangent Hillar-ious!
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Actually I assumed her camp intentionally used "Hillary" to soften her image somewhat.
quote:Yep. That's why Nader's running on the Independence ticket.
Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
I was thinking about Nader's announce for candidacy just now. Haven't the views espoused by the green party become core issues in this election already? Green energy thinking has become ingrained in our heads--so the green party's been a success already, right?
quote:I know that it sounds like the green party is really a one issue environmental party, but that really isn't the case. Here's the official Ten Key Values of the Green Party.
Haven't the views espoused by the green party become core issues in this election already? Green energy thinking has become ingrained in our heads--so the green party's been a success already, right?
quote:True. I wonder if Ohio and Texas will end up being equivalent to the truck exploding....
It reminds me of that part in Groundhog day when the truck lands in the bottom of the quarry and Larry says "He might be okay."
quote:No. She's a girl.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Could she run for president?
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
There have been precedents in the past where someone born in Puerto Rico and another in Guam, were deemed to have the status of U.S. citizens . . .
quote:If they were going to make an issue of it, they'd do it now, take him out of the running, and you'd prop up a much more easily defeatable candidate. It's a non issue. And wow, that's rich, you don't want democrats to interfere by use of the courts? I guess only Republicans get a turn with that eh?
I just hope that after McCain is elected, Democrats don't try to use the courts again to interfere in the electoral process, and dispute his right to assume the presidency. Since he is a genuine American war hero, born of parents who were both American citizens, whose father was a naval officer who later became Admiral-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, and was born at the U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was a U.S. territory at that time, anyone who tries to suggest there is any question whether McCain is qualified constitutionally to be president is going to come in for universal scorn.
quote:I don't think it'll be an issue. Regardless of where he was born, his father at least, if not both his parents, are US citizens and I think jus sanguinus applies and he could've been born in the Arctic and he'd still be a natural born American citizen.
This is a non-issue, and needs to stay a non-issue. I can't see Obama or Clinton ever bringing it up. I could see one of Clinton's people doing so and then apologizing, again, or MoveOn or somebody else. I can also see Obama publicly denouncing such a stupid act.
Of course, that would also annoy me greatly, so I guess it is good that I don't get that many. I am fine with eliminating robo-calls. It is telemarketing, just a different product.
quote:I complained about this once, possibly when McCain-Feingold was originally being discussed.
Originally posted by aspectre:
I never read that corporations had free will either. Nor were corporations granted the right of free speech in the Constitution.
If you care a little, you vote, if you care a lot you vote and caucus. If we just had a caucus, people who only cared a little wouldn't get a vote. Also, the delegates are apportioned by likely voters, not population, which makes sense if you are looking at picking who will do best in the general election. Totally unfair system if it was for something other then the opportunity to run as the party's choice, but for what the election is, an interesting system.
quote:I was looking at representational integrity, not winnability. However, as you mention, MI and FL are not quite the wins they seem. NM was 50/50 popular votes, while New Hampshire was 50/50 delegates awarded. AR is also atypical.
And again, the race between Democrats is much tighter than suggested by the probable officially-qualified pledged-delegate count, or by the news media.
quote:
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested she will press on following crucial primaries Tuesday, arguing that momentum was on her side despite 11 straight losses to rival Barack Obama...etc.
How she can claim she has momentum with a straight face I'll never know.
quote:link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23441880/
"Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.
"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
quote:Rush is telling his listeners to vote Hillary in open primaries because the Obama/Clinton conflict is good for republicans and the republicans want to run against Clinton
"It didn't happen," said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy.
Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy.
"Neither before the Ohio debate nor since has any of the U.S. presidential campaigns called Ambassador Wilson or the Canadian embassy to raise NAFTA," he said.
quote:Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
quote:lol. Lovely.
Originally posted by pooka:
Does the acceleration of gravity count as momentum?
quote:I'm sorry, your water? Pretty sure it's ours too. I've said before that I agree wholeheartedly that the Great Lakes need to be managed responsibly, which is why there are dozens of laws in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other GLS to make sure that water is not taken out of watershed areas and makes it back into the lakes, especially with reduced rainfall in the last couple years. It's a shared resource, but we I think are in agreement that there's an argument with the federal US government over how it is managed, and we're just as worried as you are, if not more, about southern states trying to take the water.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
make sure that they don't steal our water thats an improvement.
quote:Is there serious talk of his taking Sebelius as his VP? I hadn't heard that! I've definitely got mixed feelings about his doing so; I like her quite a bit, and if something were to happen to Obama I'd feel comfortable with her sitting in the Oval Office. On the other hand, I like her as Kansas' governor; I don't really want to see her leave that position yet.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
quote:This is just one of the polls. Several others have them very close to each other.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Recent polling shows that Clinton has a solid lead in Ohio, maybe 5 points.
quote:Water doesn't just come from lakes, there are other fresh water sources north of the border.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Also don't forget that they have an extremely popular Democratic governor that will open up a lot of resources for them. If Obama takes on Sebelius as his VP, I think Kansas will have a better than average chance of going Democrat. I agree that Kansas is a tough state for any Democrat to win, but that this is the first year in a long time, certainly in my lifetime, that a Democrat, assuming it's Obama, has a seriously good chance to take it.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Kansas is almost always a lock for the Republicans in presidential elections, but there is a faint chance that the "native grandson" angle could help Obama to carry the state. It isn't terribly likely, but there's more chance of the Democrats carrying Kansas than there ever has been in my lifetime.
quote:lol. Lovely.
Originally posted by pooka:
Does the acceleration of gravity count as momentum?
quote:I'm sorry, your water? Pretty sure it's ours too. I've said before that I agree wholeheartedly that the Great Lakes need to be managed responsibly, which is why there are dozens of laws in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other GLS to make sure that water is not taken out of watershed areas and makes it back into the lakes, especially with reduced rainfall in the last couple years. It's a shared resource, but we I think are in agreement that there's an argument with the federal US government over how it is managed, and we're just as worried as you are, if not more, about southern states trying to take the water.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
make sure that they don't steal our water thats an improvement.
We'd love it, by the way, if you'd stop sending us all your trash.
quote:Snow and ice?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Though now I'm curious. What are you talking about specifically? Aquifers?
quote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html
Sen. Hillary Clinton's Democratic presidential campaign dumped the traveling press corps exactly where many voters believe they belong today -- in the men's room of the Burger Activity Center.
quote:Perhaps this is changing with some "blame Canada" rhetoric from Clinton:
Originally posted by pooka:
You have to understand that when Obama and Clinton speak against NAFTA, they are speaking against sending jobs to Mexico. ...
quote:... and some accusations that our Conservative government may have leaked the memo to help the Republicans (a definite possibility, although without proof yet) ...
She said she knew the real pitfalls of NAFTA because she represents a state bordering Canada and she said farmers from New York are not being treated fairly under the agreement. "You get up to that border and they've got a million excuses why you can't move your apples or your dairy products across the border,'' she said.
"But those trucks come zooming down from Canada.
"What's wrong this picture?
quote:link
In Ottawa, Harper denied accusations from Layton that he was trying to influence the U.S. political process, but the NDP leader called on the Prime Minister to fire his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, alleged to have leaked the original information to CTV. "I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election,'' Harper said.
...
quote:My mom bought into that stuff too.
Originally posted by scholar:
I just got home from an Obama rally. Wow- who knew they were actually democrats in Texas? Lots of fun, very positive, people were friendly and hyper. And seeing him in person, I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
quote:What the....
I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
quote:I really don't get how people can be so willfully uninformed. Maybe it isn't willfull on your mom's part, scholar, but even the tiniest bit of investigation would show her that her assumptions are incorrect. How does she react when you point out to her that they are?
Originally posted by Javert:
quote:My mom bought into that stuff too.
Originally posted by scholar:
I just got home from an Obama rally. Wow- who knew they were actually democrats in Texas? Lots of fun, very positive, people were friendly and hyper. And seeing him in person, I don't think he is the next Hitler or the anti-Christ (my mom and her co-workers are claiming that).
Her exact quote: I don't want there to be prayer mats in the White House.
quote:Lisa takes the whole "next Hitler" angle with regard to him, doesn't she? And she's pretty well educated. If I recall correctly she chalks it up to a gut feeling.
Originally posted by pooka:
Folks don't feel right about dissing his race, but they are happy to believe this made up crap. It's why Clinton does better with less-educated people.
quote:I'm not a Muslim, and it bothers me quite a bit. The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true (and to make them stop listening, really). For that reason I view it as an issue to be addressed outside of the context of Obama.
Originally posted by Mucus:
If I were a Muslim, I would be a little bit annoyed at the implication that if Obama were a Muslim, that alone would be a reason for him not to be a President.
quote:You know, I wonder--with all other things being equal between the two candidates, would a Muslim or an atheist fare worse in a general election?
As an atheist, who would probably even have lower odds than a Muslim, I could only wish to have the same odds as a Muslim Obama
quote:Agreed on all points.
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:I'm not a Muslim, and it bothers me quite a bit. The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true (and to make them stop listening, really). For that reason I view it as an issue to be addressed outside of the context of Obama.
Originally posted by Mucus:
If I were a Muslim, I would be a little bit annoyed at the implication that if Obama were a Muslim, that alone would be a reason for him not to be a President.
quote:Yep, did it first thing this morning. Got the sticker and everything.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So, Noemon, did you vote yet?
quote:We require photographic evidence of this sticker. What does Snopes say about whether or not Noemon voted?!?
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Yep, did it first thing this morning. Got the sticker and everything.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
So, Noemon, did you vote yet?
quote:Yep, Obama is a real son of a beach. (second to the last sentence)
Lisa takes the whole "next Hitler" angle with regard to him, doesn't she?quote:
I never used the term "next Hitler". I do think he's extremely dangerous.
quote:I would be unsurprised, since now the entire Republican machine appears to be pulling for Clinton.
One interesting thing is that the Rassmussen polls taken about a week apart show Clinton gaining a little.
quote:True if this was outside Hatrack. I was more expressing my opinion here, specifically the portion of Hatrack which has managed to slog through 39 pages of primary posts and thus I would assume already know Obama isn't a Muslim
Originally posted by Noemon:
... The problem is that it's a seperate issue from people believing stuff about Obama that isn't true, and if you start arguing the former with people that think that he's a Muslim and that it's a problem, it tends to reinforce their belief that it's true
quote:This was was what I was kind of referencing, this is before 9/11 so things may have changed for the better:
You know, I wonder--with all other things being equal between the two candidates, would a Muslim or an atheist fare worse in a general election?
quote:link
A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:
Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%
...
Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists. Attitudes towards "Muslim Americans" were even better than this.
...
There is a large drop for each group, but the drop for atheists is smallest and the final number of people who remain prejudiced against atheists is significantly higher than for every other group — so much higher, in fact, that non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups. Born-again Christians are more prejudiced in absolute terms, but they are generally more prejudiced against everyone.
quote:Is the belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong any more inherent to Mormonism or atheism than it is to other Christian sects or other monotheistic religions?
Originally posted by pooka:
I wonder if there's any relationship between the % of distrust and the inherency in one's belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong.
quote:Perhaps, but if that were a significant component I suspect that Catholics and Jews would be a lot higher on the list. I suspect that the those who say they would never vote for "a Muslim" or "a Mormon" or "a Gay" or "an Atheist" do so for two predominant factors.
Originally posted by pooka:
I wonder if there's any relationship between the % of distrust and the inherency in one's belief that everyone else has got it all tragically wrong.
quote:At least until the convention, of course. At that point, all bets are off.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would be unsurprised, since now the entire Republican machine appears to be pulling for Clinton.
One interesting thing is that the Rassmussen polls taken about a week apart show Clinton gaining a little.
quote:Maybe?
Maybe people just aren't too bright in the Lone Star State.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
A lot of the enthusiasm I had for this election just sort of deflated. I marvel at the ways Democrats try with all their effort to hand national elections to the Republicans, even when they have EVERYTHING going for them.
quote:Probably. It's a pretty petty wish.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Why would you want to force Hilary on us? To let republicans win!?
quote:I think that's unfair. I happen to think that McCain is incredibly hard beat, for either candidate. Hillary Clinton has too many negatives, and Obama is black. For blacks, he is around the middle, and way right of me, but it's not hard to paint him as left of the nation. McCain is a considered a reasonable white guy. It's hard enough to unseat a candidate after one term. We are talking about trying to unseat a legacy that's been winning for over 200 years.
A lot of the enthusiasm I had for this election just sort of deflated. I marvel at the ways Democrats try with all their effort to hand national elections to the Republicans, even when they have EVERYTHING going for them.
quote:I would say his biggest problem was his obsession with having a hand in EVERY decision remotely related to the presidency.
Originally posted by Morbo:
I think Obama will close the margins in Ohio, but he's very unlikely to win.
I'm excited tonight about the primaries!
But Aspectre's YouTube link of Clinton really bothers me. I hope 2008 isn't a replay of 1980, where a bitter primary battle between Ted Kennedy and Carter really hurt Carter in the general. (Not that Carter didn't have other weaknesses: stagflation, Iran hostages, etc.)
quote:If you look at CNN, the counties that contain the big cities (which, yes Obama won) have not fully reported everything, though the small counties where Hillary won are all done. The gap between them could close.
Originally posted by Threads:
Clinton currently has more delegates from Texas than Obama probably due to her dominance in rural areas.
quote:Blah blah blah. McCain is a difficult candidate yes, but come on, he's a guy who runs saying that Democrats are all looking into the past and that we have to focus on the future, and then says that we should vote for him because his past experience! I think there are a lot of holes in his arguments that Democrats could easily poke holes in, and he's making it fantastically easy for Democrats to tie him to Bush's legacy.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I think that's unfair. I happen to think that McCain is incredibly hard beat, for either candidate. Hillary Clinton has too many negatives, and Obama is black. For blacks, he is around the middle, and way right of me, but it's not hard to paint him as left of the nation. McCain is a considered a reasonable white guy. It's hard enough to unseat a candidate after one term. We are talking about trying to unseat a legacy that's been winning for over 200 years.
A lot of the enthusiasm I had for this election just sort of deflated. I marvel at the ways Democrats try with all their effort to hand national elections to the Republicans, even when they have EVERYTHING going for them.
quote:It's a skewed pool.
The fact that a bunch of white guys barely got a nod whilst millions voted for a woman and a black guy aren't proof enough to you Irami?
quote:Such as?
Originally posted by aspectre:
Carter's biggest problem is Reagan getting credit for Carter's policy successes.
quote:I can top that. My favorite anecdote about the Carter WH was that after West Wingers repeatedly bickered about scheduling at the freaking WH tennis courts, Carter stepped in and started vetting the schedules himself. It's a very depressing image to me: here's the most powerful leader in the world, squinting over meaningless schedules.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I would say his biggest problem was his obsession with having a hand in EVERY decision remotely related to the presidency.
Originally posted by Morbo:
I think Obama will close the margins in Ohio, but he's very unlikely to win.
I'm excited tonight about the primaries!
But Aspectre's YouTube link of Clinton really bothers me. I hope 2008 isn't a replay of 1980, where a bitter primary battle between Ted Kennedy and Carter really hurt Carter in the general. (Not that Carter didn't have other weaknesses: stagflation, Iran hostages, etc.)
But at least eventually he stopped trying to personally check the accounting on every single budget proposal.
quote:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Bauers_conference_call_ambush.html
Bauer's conference call ambush [updated with audio]
Barack Obama's top lawyer, Bob Bauer, made an unexpected appearance on the Clinton campaign's conference call this evening, calling in on a line intended for reporters to challenge Clinton aides' claims of irregularities in several Texas precincts.
Bauer used his guerrilla appearance to call on Clinton's aides to "stop attacking the caucus process."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson eagerly engaged Bauer on what quickly became one of the campaign's sharpest exchanges, and possibly the most entertaining conference call in campaign history —
quote:You mean she wins all the big states the Democrats would have won anyway, plus a couple they have no prayer of winning, and she has offended a lot of small blue states that are still crucial in November.
(3) she has continued her claim that she wins all the big states that Democrats have to win in November, while almost all of Obama' victories have come in smaller states that will likely go Republican in the general election.
quote:No, actually, he didn't. He needs 1,917 delegates, and he has 922 actual pledged delegates. Ohio's delegates, for example, are unpledged.
Originally posted by pooka:
Aaaand McCain hits the magic number.
quote:<shrug> Huckabee's been pulling a lot of votes by pretending to be for some of the things that Paul is for. Even if McCain wins the next primaries, watch and see how well Paul does with ex-Huckabee people.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Lisa -
Even if he didn't, what does it matter now? Is there any serious dispute about him hitting it at some point in the next couple months? Huckabee has dropped out. You think Paul will take up the banner and stymie him to the convention where he'll be elected from the floor? I give it one in a gajillion odds. Huckabee had a claim to the Conservative mantle, he picked it up and ran with it. Paul has a claim to the Republican/Democratic fringe voting/hippy college vote mantle, and it's been running without him having any control over it for quite some time now.
quote:He kept his seat without breaking a sweat. And like I said, it's over when it's over.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
He'll get reelected to his seat in Congress I think, and that's it, but McCain has this thing locked up, realistically, if not in actual numbers.
But he did secure a crucial win towards that eventually happening last night.
quote:Josh Marshall went on to say he sees a 4-9 net delegate pick-up.
Todd [Chuck Todd, MSNBC's political director] was just on and said, not surprisingly, that Rhode Island and Vermont (the battle of the New England micro-states) basically cancel each other out. What he seemed quite confident of is even with Clinton's currently very solid spread in Ohio, she nets only 7 delegates. He seemed pretty solid on that number.
quote:Hey, it's not my state; I'm a Kansan. I just happen to be living in Ohio. But yeah, I know. If Obama hadn't won my county I'd be feeling horrible for not having done more to help his campaign.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Noemon, you know I adore you, but more than half your state sucks. Again.
And by not even 500 votes. When I went to bed last night, Obama was winning my county. of course, my district in the one that voted for Tom Delay how many times?
quote:So you are saying that CNN gets to decide the election?
CNN doesn't get to decide the election any more than Diebold does.
[/sarcasm]quote:According to the Post, McCain has 1,224 delegates, of whom 129 are unpledged, leaving him with 1,095 pledged delegates. He needs 1,191 to clinch the nomination. That means he only needs 96 additional pledged delegates to absolutely clinch it.
No, actually, he didn't. He needs 1,917 delegates, and he has 922 actual pledged delegates. Ohio's delegates, for example, are unpledged.
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The picture is still confusing in Texas with its ridiculous caucus on top of a primary, but it looks like Sen. Clinton will win the popular vote by three or four percentage points. I see the networks have finally called Texas for Clinton. Analysts on Fox are saying she will probably wind up gaining around 23 delegates over Sen. Obama, closing his lead in delegates by that amount. But in view of her smashing double-digit win in Ohio, and in Rhode Island, in addition to gaining a small victory in Texas, Clinton has accomplished her three main goals: (1) She has stopped Sen. Obama's momentum, (2) she has gained somewhat in the delegate count, and (3) she has continued her claim that she wins all the big states that Democrats have to win in November, while almost all of Obama' victories have come in smaller states that will likely go Republican in the general election.
Another accomplishment is that Obama's Teflon coating appears to have been pierced; he has lost his rock star status, and now the media and voters are finally begining to give him the same kind of critical examination that they have been giving to Clinton and Sen. McCain. Regardless of who wins, I am glad that now it is less likely anyone is going to be elected by the acclaim of star-struck fans, without proper vetting. Because Obama is so new, it was especially important that he be vetted, the way that McCain and Clinton have over their long careers in the national spotlight. His name still may come up in the federal corruption trial of Tony Vezko, in the eight months we have before the November election. Obama also should impress upon all his staff and advisors not to talk out of school to foreign government officials, the way his chief economic advisor did. Evidently, that did hurt him, in Ohio especially.
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
quote:Alternatively, if the parties hadn't tried to dictate electoral procedural to the states, this bumblescrewup wouldn't have happened.
I am appreciating the irony of the fact that, as things have played out, if Michigan and Florida had just stayed put their votes would have counted, people would have paid attention to them and their elections wouldn't have been bumble...screwups.
quote:Oops. Thanks, Morbo. Replace "Bauer" with "Wolfson" in my post. I read the transcript last night just before bed and got a little confused on the names.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Peter, Bob Bauer is Obama's top lawyer. About the Texas caucus, TPM said there were various allegations from both camps but it's still unclear what the really serious matters there are.
quote:Yes, and now it all comes down to Pennsylvania. Oh my!
Alternatively, if the parties hadn't tried to dictate electoral procedural to the states, this bumblescrewup wouldn't have happened.
quote:Dude man, we were all hoping held win those primaries we didn't think he would we all KNEW though that he'ld gain a nearly 50-50 split of the delegates. And once more whole Canadian thing, bunk. Your like one of those moon landing conspiracists.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The good thing about Obama's Teflon-coating finally being punctured and him finally being subjected to the same close, critical scrutiny as all the other candidates, is that it allows him to be properly vetted, something especially important in his case since he has not spent decades in the national public eye. I would be very unhappy to see someone elected president by the acclaim of star-struck fans, without being properly vetted.
Now everyone sees that Obama is just another politician, capable of saying one thing to one group, and something contradictory to another group--like when his chief economic advisor talked out of school to the Canadian consuler officer and told them not to take seriously the harsh language Obama would be using about NAFTA in Ohio. This alone probably hurt him greatly in Ohio, where NAFTA is a big issue.
It is also likely that Obama's name will come up in the trial on federal corruption charges of his supporter and long-time friend, Tony Rezko, over the course of the next eight months until the election. Obama admits he did have business dealings with Rezko. He has admitted vaguely to making some "bone-headed decisions" in that regard. We will undoubtedly see just how bone-headed they were as the trial proceeds.
Dragonee, in your count of delegates for McCain, don't forget the delegates won by Huckabee that he will ask to vote for McCain. People who would vote for Huckabee are not likely to vote for Ron Paul. And running virtually without opposition in the remaining ten Republican primaries, McCain will wind up with enough delegates to satisfy anyone.
quote:On another site, a former Hatracker mentioned how at his precinct the disorganized site leader was a Clinton supporter. Since we're throwing anecdotes out there.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
First, I'm somewhat disturbed by the Bauer allegations of Obama-squad foul play in the TX caucuses. The two anecdotes of Hatrack Texans who caucused seem to indicate 1) the environment was sufficiently dis-organized for such shennanigans to occur and 2) that Obama supporters were over represented in their particular caucus site leadership. Anyway, the idea of Obama's team doing some real dirty politicking bothers me, a lot. That's probably why the Clinton people made the accusations, regardless of their truthfulness.
quote:I think Lisa might still take that bet for $1 or so. Hell, I'd take the bet for a cent, a gajillion divided by 100 is still bigger than a billion right?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
... I give it one in a gajillion odds. Huckabee had a claim to the Conservative mantle, he picked it up and ran with it. ...
quote:Ron, my comment was directed at people who were primarily concerned with reality. As such, you should feel free to disregard it in favor of your normal partisan talking points.
MrSquicky, you said: "The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet...." They emptied an Uzzi at their feet, and you say they missed?
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:On another site, a former Hatracker mentioned how at his precinct the disorganized site leader was a Clinton supporter. Since we're throwing anecdotes out there.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
First, I'm somewhat disturbed by the Bauer allegations of Obama-squad foul play in the TX caucuses. The two anecdotes of Hatrack Texans who caucused seem to indicate 1) the environment was sufficiently dis-organized for such shennanigans to occur and 2) that Obama supporters were over represented in their particular caucus site leadership. Anyway, the idea of Obama's team doing some real dirty politicking bothers me, a lot. That's probably why the Clinton people made the accusations, regardless of their truthfulness.
-Bok
quote:whats in bold clearly says other then you think it is.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
MrSquicky, you said: "The democratic party hasn't really shot themselves in the foot yet...." They emptied an Uzzi at their feet, and you say they missed?
Blayne, read the memo. Especially note the portions I highlighted in boldface. How do you honestly think these words played in Ohio? This memo is real. It came from the consul general of Canada. Nothing has been debunked; it has been proven. Unless you are living in De Nile. In which case you'd better watch out for the crocks.
scholarquote:True dat. I've just about completely tuned out the whole horse race media narrative. Much easier on the nerves.
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
I should know better than to get caught up in the sturm and drang of primary night politics.
quote:They broke the rules of the DNC by making decisions based on them determining when the should hold their primaries with an eye towards actualy having their votes count towards who was selected. The DNC responded by disenfranchizing them (so did the RNC, just not quite as severely). This does make the Democrats look bad and could turn into something very damaging.
MI and FL werent removed arbitrarily they were pulled because THEY BROKE THE RULES.
quote:Super delegates have only been around since 1980 and, as they have been drawn into the spotlight during this election, have been viewed with a great deal of disfavor by the voting public.
Super delegates have been largely how they always run things and as a system it makes sense.
quote:Really? California (52%-43%), New York (57%-40%), and Ohio (54%-44%) don't matter?
double digit? puhleaze, every clinton victory in every state that matters is no more then a 49-51 victory on average.
quote:They're banking on picking up those numbers in the Texas caucus where he's currently up by 12% with 39% of the votes in.
Obama's campaign is claiming Hilary gained 4 delegates. Do they have data we don't (like results of the caucus)? From CNN's projections (without the caucus data), Hillary gained 18.
)quote:Actually, Florida Democrats had nothing to do with that. The decision to move the primary up was made by the Republican-controlled legislature. Democrats didn't have a say in their disenfranchisement.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
MI and FL werent removed arbitrarily they were pulled because THEY BROKE THE RULES.
quote:Obama was polling way ahead in Indiana, last time I checked.
she might take Indiana
quote:Link: http://www.examiner.com/a-1261224~Do_Over_in_Michigan_and_Florida_.html
Mar 5, 2008 9:15 PM (13 hrs ago) By NEDRA PICKLER, AP
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count in the epic Democratic campaign.
The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.
quote:Link: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS15/80305054/1118/RSS
Granholm, who is a Clinton supporter, told the Free Press last night a publicly financed second primary is out of the question: The first one cost $10 million.
quote:See, you get better news reporting from the Detroit News.
Granholm, who is a Democrat and a Clinton backer, said she might favor a privately funded caucus or a "firehouse primary" agreed to by both presidential candidates. But she doesn't want another election paid for by Michigan taxpayers, who already shelled out about $12 million for the Jan. 15 contest. A firehouse primary is a vote of declared Democrats who would stop by a fire station or union hall that would be open all day and vote by secret ballot.
quote:According to an interview I heard on NPR yesterday with Howard Dean, it seems as if Florida Democrats could have bowed out of the state system if they wanted to and had their primary or caucus at a time of their choosing. Apparently the DNC offered to help pay for it.
Actually, Florida Democrats had nothing to do with that. The decision to move the primary up was made by the Republican-controlled legislature. Democrats didn't have a say in their disenfranchisement.
quote:Do they want to be a state?
Originally posted by pooka:
Maybe they will leverage this into statehood bid.
quote:Oh my stars.
You won't see this on the network, but I know in my heart I wrote it.lol
quote:When, exactly, do you think I was born? I realize you may be older still, but "before you were born" suggest to me that you feel my opinion is invalid due to my youth.
PuertoRico coulda become a state since before you were born.
. That sort of lines up with what I'd heard, that she refused to hold another primary that the state had to pay for, but I hadn't heard her feelings on another vote that someone else funded, or some such. Good luck getting both candidates to agree on any real format, but Obama has to walk a much finer line if he doesn't want to piss either of us off. We're both swing states. Thanks again for the links and such. quote:The Florida Democratic party could have opted out of the Florida-run primary had it wanted to. The Republicans didn't disenfranchise anyone.
In Florida, the Republican governor and the Republican-controlled legislature chose to disenfranchise Democratic voters. And they have no incentive to prevent disruption in the DemocraticConvention.
quote:Why? Both candidates would be on the ballot and both would have the same opportunity to campaign.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
It's also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama.
quote:Since when is rectifying the fact that she was the only name on the ballot unfair?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
It's also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama.
quote:I'll buy that they wanted to have the option, but I think the original scenario counted on the Republican nomination happening differently, either one of the divisive guys leading (Giuliani or Romney) or the Republicans having a 3 or 4 way race into the spring.
to coverup the fact that the current situation is exactly what they want.m -- aspectre
quote:Because changing the rules in the middle is the root harm here. Each candidate made decisions based on the rules, and Clinton broke no rule by being on the ballot in Michigan. Campaign budgeting decisions have been made based on the current rules. Positioning in other states was done based on those rules.
Why? Both candidates would be on the ballot and both would have the same opportunity to campaign.
quote:The other candidates chose to keep their names off the ballot. I thought this was stupid from the get go. IIRC, Clinton was on the ballot because her Michigan campaign did its job and got her on it BEFORE the DNC decision striking the delegates.
Since when is rectifying the fact that she was the only name on the ballot unfair?
quote:I not sure you understand the meaning of the word unfair. If something is fair it is free from bias, fraud, or injustice; equitable. If a decision or action is inequitable (or unfair) -- it is necessarily inequitable to all parties involved. Being treated unfairly is not synonymous with being disadvantaged by the treatment. One can be rewarded unfairly just as readily as one can be punished unfairly. Any other understand begs the questions "not equal to what?" Either all parties are treated equally and fairly, or none are.
It's also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama.
quote:Which is fine, but why would that be unfair to Hillary Clinton. Right now, the only benefit I can see that she could be said to be deriving from the status quo is that Barack Obama is being denied delegates. This is only a benefit if you assume that the delegates she would gain would be less than he would gain by a new election.
Because changing the rules in the middle is the root harm here.
quote:Hence my original statement: "It's [holding Michigan caucuses is] also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama."
In which case the Michigan delegates should not be seated.
quote:I'm not sure you understood my point, since you seem to be saying that unfair doesn't mean a lot of things that I didn't say it did mean.
I not sure you understand the meaning of the word unfair. If something is fair it is free from bias, fraud, or injustice; equitable. If a decision or action is inequitable (or unfair) -- it is necessarily inequitable to all parties involved. Being treated unfairly is not synonymous with being disadvantaged by the treatment. One can be rewarded unfairly just as readily as one can be punished unfairly. Any other understand begs the questions "not equal to what?" Either all parties are treated equally and fairly, or none are.
quote:I agree. That's why I didn't do it. In fact, I've made no comment whatsoever about what the Democratic Party should do about this mess they created.
I think that judging what should be done based on what is fair to the candidates is looking in the wrong place.
quote:Wooo! I'm going to assume you haven't thoroughly thought through the implications to the democratic process of having a candidate pay for an election.
Originally posted by scholar:
Obama does a great job at fundraising. I think he should offer to pay for new caucuses. That act would win a lot more votes to him then his ads. And caucuses favor him.
quote:And I disagree. Having to do a "do over" rather than being able to take advantage of a rigged situation, is not "as unfair".
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Hence my original statement: "It's [holding Michigan caucuses is] also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama."
In which case the Michigan delegates should not be seated.
quote:
Personal attacks are not the way to convince voters that you're capable of being president of the United States
quote:I don't see a sovereign state setting its primary to when it wants - nor the parties in those states going along - as unfair.
The way I see it, the Michigan and Florida legislatures were trying to gain an unfair advantage over all the states that chose to follow the rules.
quote:Elected state governments are not and should not be answerable to the dictates of national party committees. Ever. Moreover, the state parties could have opted out and did not. The disenfranchisement was not committed by any elected rep. It was committed by the state parties and the national committees.
The voters of Michigan and Florida have been disenfranchised but not by the DNC, but their own elected reps.
quote:I don't think there is a maybe about it. The current primary system is unfair.
Maybe the rule itself was unfair and so it should not have been enforced.
quote:The DNC were the ones who made their votes not count. Their reps were the ones who tried to make their votes more meaningful and wouldn't back down from threats by the central powers trying to maintain the status quo.
The voters of Michigan and Florida have been disenfranchised but not by the DNC, but their own elected reps.
quote:The problem I think most of us are having is that in your original statement you implied that holding a caucus was equally unfair (although disadvantaging Clinton rather than Obama).
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Hence my original statement: "It's [holding Michigan caucuses is] also as unfair to Clinton as seating the originally selected delegates would be to Obama."
In which case the Michigan delegates should not be seated.
I'm not sure you understood my point, since you seem to be saying that unfair doesn't mean a lot of things that I didn't say it did mean.
Moreover, the construct "x is unfair to y" is a well-accepted shorthand for "x is unfair, and that unfairness disadvantages y." In this case, y is Clinton and can be read to include those who want her to be President.
One more time since it seems to have been missed: I agree that seating the Michigan delegates from the primary would be unfair.
quote:Man that's inspiring news. It's so nice to see a candidate stand up for principle even when it going to hurt him.
Samantha Power has resigned as an advisor to Obama over some remarks she made about Hillary.
quote:Neither.
Is it your opinion that caucuses are fundamentally unfair and have been unfair in every state or are you saying that there is something about holding a caucus following a primary that everyone knew didn't count which makes it unfair?
quote:I hesitate to blame the sovereign law-making body of a state for not kowtowing to national political parties, especially when the state political parties could have opted out of the legislature's decisions.
I do think the current system is unfair - the same order, the same time, placing unrealistic importance on the primaries in two small states - but that needs to be addressed separately. The Republican-controlled Fl. legislature decided to push the issue despite the DNC's warning. If there is blame to be had, it rests on the state legislature's shoulders.
quote:Agreed. So in situations where we can't get justice for all, we can't have justice.
If its not justice for all, it not justice at all.
quote:Acts to challenge an unfair status quo are almost always not universal. Is the woman's movement to be criticized because they didn't focus on religious prejudice? Is fighting oppression in one country wrong when you're not fighting it in all countries? Should you be criticized for fighting corruption in the justice system in your own case and not working to reform the entire system at the same time?
If its not justice for all, it not justice at all.
quote:I have no idea.
Well, Dagonee, what, given the situation, do you think would be fair?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Neither.
Is it your opinion that caucuses are fundamentally unfair and have been unfair in every state or are you saying that there is something about holding a caucus following a primary that everyone knew didn't count which makes it unfair?
Holding any new delegate selection process in Michigan would be unfair.
quote:Because people who would have voted in the Democratic primary were it going to count but instead voted in the Republican primary would not be able to vote in the new primary.
Why would it penalize people who voted in the Republican primary?
quote:Because I bet a lot of people chose the Republican primary because the DNC was entirely mooting the Democratic primary. Participating in one party's delegate selection disqualifies someone from participating in the others for obvious reasons. These people were disqualified before they had the necessary information.
Why would it penalize people who voted in the Republican primar
quote:This is why the state party bears some of the responsibility for their own disenfranchisement: they could have bowed out of the legislature's decision because they control the method of candidate selection.
Political parties have long been recognised as private entities which have the right to choose their own methods of candidate selection; including the choice of who is eligible to participate in their candidate selection process.
quote:Bull. There might be some state constitutional or statutory requirement, but there is NO federal constitutional requirement that states bow to political parties' timelines. States schedule elections. If a party wants to ad on a primary and the state wants to let them, all well and good. But there's no requirement that the state block one party from using that because the other party chooses not to.
Even in Courts dominated by a Republican majority, it would take a degree of sophistry well beyond Rehnquist's Gang of Five 2000Election decision for the Courts to rule in favor of the states**.
quote:You have no idea what my opinion about that decision is.
We also disagree on the 2000Election decision, even though the writer of the majority decision agreed that it sucked by proclaiming that the decision should not be used as precedent in future cases.
quote:Wrong. But I suspect that people will keep reporting that until the bitter end. He said he's staying in it through the convention, and unlike the average run of politicians, he actually stands by what he says.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Ron Paul just ended his delusions of some of his more hardcore followers. I mean, his candidacy. :/
quote:His swan song means this is the bitter end.
I suspect that people will keep reporting that until the bitter end.
quote:Then the hell with international politics. The US shouldn't be playing chess with other countries as the pawns. There's plenty of need right here at home. With poverty what it is in the US, sending money away from the country is criminal.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
One wonders what without US military and economic aid Israel would use to defend itself with.
I'm not saying I'd approve of withdrawing that support, I'm all for supporting genuine democracies that need our help, though I'd like it more if our help wasn't used to kill civilians, sometimes it's unavoidable.
But you don't get something for nothing, not in international politics.
quote:Who cares if the UN condemns Israel? Honestly, Israel should have pulled out of the UN a long time ago.
Originally posted by Sid Meier:
considering how often UN resolutions condemning Israel get passed that always get vetoed by the US ild be more careful about what you wish.
China might veto such bills for you but yould have to sell them an F-22/F-35 before they'ld risk angering their oil supply.
quote:Why? He has not withdrawn from the race. He hasn't even "suspended" his candidacy, the way Romney did. He's still in it.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:His swan song means this is the bitter end.
I suspect that people will keep reporting that until the bitter end.
Er, but only for the people who still unrealistically imagined that he still had a shot at president.
quote:But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
quote:Romney has a better chance at being the Republican nominee for President in 2008 than Paul does.
Why? He has not withdrawn from the race. He hasn't even "suspended" his candidacy, the way Romney did. He's still in it.
quote:Its almost like China is attempting to become the next economic colonial power
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...
And even if all that weren't true, China is busily spending billions on investing in oil sources in Africa.
quote:The US has vetoed every sanction and condemnation proposal brough to the UNSC, they do have tooth and merit do not doubt that.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
quote:I do doubt it.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:The US has vetoed every sanction and condemnation proposal brough to the UNSC, they do have tooth and merit do not doubt that.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
quote:Because you can't say "this is off the record" in the middle of an on-the-record interview.
I'm a little confused at Power's comment. They keep quoting her as saying "off the record, I think she's a monster." If it was off the record, why was it reported?
quote:I'm with you on that one.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
quote:I had a bigger rant all written out, but in the end I decided it wouldn't get me anywhere, so I'll just say this:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Its almost like China is attempting to become the next economic colonial power
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...
And even if all that weren't true, China is busily spending billions on investing in oil sources in Africa.
But seriously, the concept of a citizen of a former colonial power, an American no less, criticizing a near-former colony for exploiting nations in the third world almost fills up my irony meter for today. The fact that we're doing it on *environmental* grounds is just the icing on the cake.
quote:We didn't shoot all of them, just the ones denying us the right to self rule. Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that you guys are responsible for a ridiculously large number of the world's present problems, and for the subjugation of millions across the world under military dictatorships. America doesn't hold a candle to what Britain did.
Because we asked nicely for our indepdence whilst you grabbed guns and started shooting every redcoat in sight?
quote:Keep thinking that.
China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis. Getting all high headed over ideology is what limited Soviets influence there somewhat and what limited US influence, for as long as you think you can dictate the terms you will never get anywhere.
quote:He did not stand a chance at the presidency and anyone who has been harboring that notion for the past month or so is being incredibly stupid.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Why? He has not withdrawn from the race. He hasn't even "suspended" his candidacy, the way Romney did. He's still in it.
quote:Heh. Now on the one hand, it was a crappy ad, it was fearmongering, and I have no problem with her getting slapped back in the face with a sarcastic riposte from Obama. On the other hand, she couldn't possibly have known that a random piece of stock footage would come back to bite her in the butt like that, and I feel bad for her, just a teeny, tiny, TINY, TEEEEEENY bit.
Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her.
"I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary," she said. "They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it."
That said, Knowles said she plans to vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
quote:Number one, the Arab states will do to Israel whatever they want, regardless of the UN.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
If the US withdraws it will amount to the same thing, imagine if a resolution was passed demanding the sanctioning of the state of Israel and the US wasn't there to veto it? The Arab states tasked to it would legally be allowed to do so and no one would be able to help Israel then.
quote:Irony strikes again! Afterall, these are pretty much the same kind of arguments that foreign companies used (and are still using) to support foreign investment in so-called "sweatshops" in places such as China itself. (which does not necessarily make the arguments wrong BTW, but that is a much longer discussion)
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:...
China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis. ...
I see China's market share in the rose colored glasses industry has increased substantially since they started exporting to Canada.
quote:First, contrary to popular belief, not all Canadians are of European descent, let alone British descent. My parents are from Hong Kong, which gives me a rather unique perspective to slag both European colonialism AND the PRC, if you have some basic familiarity with its history
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...
Should the West just shut up and let Africa become China's tool? Doesn't much seem fair to me to let Africa fall prey just because we made our mistakes, in some cases decades ago and long since passed. So it's their turn? Everyone else got a turn at it, so China is next? Flimsy argument.
And by the way, America is a former exploited colony itself, but I guess we don't get points for that do we, because we're America. Most of the time these days I wish America would just return to isolationism, so the rest of the world can deal with their problems and stop blaming everything on Earth on us.
And I'm sorry, but aren't you Canadian, and thus a subject of the British realm? I don't know where anyone remotely tied to Britain gets the moral authorty to tell ANYONE off when it comes to colonialism.
quote:Thats like bringing nukes into the equation, except these nukes don't exist.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Number one, the Arab states will do to Israel whatever they want, regardless of the UN.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
If the US withdraws it will amount to the same thing, imagine if a resolution was passed demanding the sanctioning of the state of Israel and the US wasn't there to veto it? The Arab states tasked to it would legally be allowed to do so and no one would be able to help Israel then.
Number two, we have God.
quote:
“Honeybun,” said the next president, “I expect the press to ask some questions about how you handled the 3 AM calls during your administration.”
“I don’t know why my prostate needs to become an issue in this campaign,” said the last president.
“Not those 3 AM calls. The ones where national security was at stake.”
“You should know,” said Last. “The smartest thing we ever did was put the phone on your side of the bed.”
“That’s because half the time when the phone rang at 3 AM it was you calling,” said Next.
“And the other half the time it was Boris Yeltsin drunk dialing or Tony Blair needing to talk to someone about the Church of England. I wish I knew how to hang up on people but I don’t. You were totally remorseless.”
quote:There also pioneering the use of Pebble bed nuclear reactors and doing experimental research into their own Tokomak Fusion reactor, there's plenty of stuff they're doing on their own, where they buy spare parts shouldn't be a part of your rant its condenscending and belittling of their achievements.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Mucus -
Well alright, parents from Hong Kong takes some of the wind out of my sails. Thanks for that.
But I guess it comes down to this: If people like me had shut up throughout history, we'd never be as far along as we are. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I don't get to speak up about things going on around the world. You must've seen me speak out against what the US does on energy use, and I rail against the EPA constantly. I'm no happier with what parts of my country does than anyone else is, and I won't be silent because of it. Ratifying Kyoto was far from simple, and interestingly, the lynch pin of not signing something like Kyoto today is: China. They're making all the mistakes that we made in their rush to industrialize their country.
So call me a hypocrit, even though on this issue I'm really, really not. Call it ironic, call it whatever you want, but it's something I'll never be quiet about. And I'm pretty sure Africa would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They don't care about irony, they don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the prosperity and survival of their nations. I think it's a bit callous to tell someone who wants to help someone else that they should be quiet because of what others in their country have done. Shouldn't that make their help all the more necessary?
They get renewable technology from us by the way, (by us I mean the West in general, but mostly Germany and the US). They continue to buy it from us, just as we continue to spend large sums of money on it ourselves. Meanwhile, across the US, plans for coal plants are being shelved as companies fearing new greenhouse gas legislation wonder how expensive it'll be in the long run to operate a coal fired plant, and instead are opting for renewables, whereas in China, a new coal fired plant comes online every day. Don't get me started.
quote:What is this in reference to?
where they buy spare parts shouldn't be a part of your rant its condenscending and belittling of their achievements.
quote:It would be laughable if I actually said that China was a *technological* leader in renewables. Let's examine what I actually said:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
... that all of that technology was pioneered in the West and was sold to China, where they adapted much of it, bought some of it straight out, and then progressed.
I'm not dissing China, but pretending that China is somehow any sort of leader of renewables over the West is laughable...
quote:A repeat for those a bit slow, what I said was that China is using a "fair amount of renewable energy" given its "level of technological and economic development."
In fact, I'm *glad* that the Chinese are *not* following the North American example and are using a fair amount of renewable energy and resources for their level of technological and economic development.
quote:http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060612/12china_2.htm
"China is rapidly moving into a world leadership position in the industry," says William Wallace, an adviser to the United Nations Development Program in Beijing. "The government knows the limited oil supply is a situation it needs to pay attention to, from both an energy security and a development point of view. Its goals for the next five and 15 years are very aggressive."
...
In 2004, an estimated $5.5 billion was invested in renewable energy in China. The rest of the world spent a total of $30 billion. "There is no renewable-energy law in the U.S.," says Eckhart. "We fund research and development, and give incentives. China is giving directives--getting right to the point."
Small solar panels can already be seen across the rooftops of major Chinese cities like Beijing. These supply power to solar water-heating systems, of which China is already both the largest producer and consumer in the world. At least 10 percent of all households in China (that's 30 million households) have them--and the market is growing by 20 percent to 25 percent a year, according to Eric Martinot, a leading researcher on renewable energy at Beijing's Qinghua University.
quote:Actually, we'd probably be precisely as far along as we are
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
...
But I guess it comes down to this: If people like me had shut up throughout history, we'd never be as far along as we are.
quote:Only if we conflate "complaints" with "help."
So call me a hypocrit, even though on this issue I'm really, really not. Call it ironic, call it whatever you want, but it's something I'll never be quiet about. And I'm pretty sure Africa would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They don't care about irony, they don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the prosperity and survival of their nations. I think it's a bit callous to tell someone who wants to help someone else that they should be quiet because of what others in their country have done. Shouldn't that make their help all the more necessary?
quote:http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/20/business/angola.php?page=2
Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP and others have poured billions into Angola in the last decade to unlock petroleum resources in the country's deep waters, where the vast majority of the oil is, and the payoffs are finally coming in.
In recent years, Angola has become the fastest-growing source of exports to the United States and, along with Nigeria and smaller West African countries, it is about to become an important component of American energy security.
...
Within three years, oil-producing nations in western Africa will account for one of every three new barrels pumped worldwide. By 2015, the United States is projected to import a quarter of its oil from Africa, up from 15 percent today.
China has identified Angola as a promising source in its rush for energy resources, providing billions in loans and development aid in return for favorable treatment of its oil interests. Last year, Angola overtook Saudi Arabia as the largest oil supplier to the Chinese. It is the sixth biggest exporter to the United States.
...
While oil companies talk at length about how welcoming the government is to foreign investors, they are much more circumspect when it comes to the government's lack of transparency or the history of corruption among its leaders.
Angola suffered through a devastating civil war for 27 years and became a focus of Cold War proxy battles between Western and Soviet allies in Africa. When the fighting ended in 2002, an estimated 500,000 people had died and much of the country was in ruins.
These days, Angola still has a terrible record on corruption and ranks on the lowest rungs of nearly all development indicators. Elections have been postponed several times and are currently scheduled for 2009.
The nation's contradictions are glaring. Angola earned more than $30 billion last year from its petroleum exports. But according to a recent World Bank report, 70 percent of the population lives on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, the majority lack access to basic health care and about one in four children die before their fifth birthday.
quote:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
quote:And on the eight day...
I may also speak about the superdelegates, since I was involved with their creation."
quote:
Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton
Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.
Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.
Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
quote:
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. ...
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
quote:
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - DO WE EAT HERE OR AT THE NEXT PLACE?!
Sinbad: Ready On Day One!!!
quote:I am actually highly concerned that she brought her daughter on a trip that was considered dangerous. So, right now, I feel like I am either being lied to or Bill and Hillary were horrible parents. And to be honest, I have never actually questioned their parenting before. But either way, this quote upsets me.
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. ...
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
I'm interested to read about an election process named for stew.
quote:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html
If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race
quote:http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=what_if_1
Yes, it's fairly reprehensible that Geraldine Ferraro said "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." But in a weird way, there's much less to this comment than meets the eye. After all, Obama is not a woman, nor a white man. He's who he is. To say that if he were different, things would be different is to say nothing at all. As a white woman, maybe he would have led a military coup and established himself dictator. Who knows!? Hell, if he were a slightly less inspiring speaker, or had an off-night at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he wouldn't be in this position either. Similarly, if Hillary Clinton were a black man, it's unlikely that she would have been a national political figure for the past 15 years, as it's unlikely that she would have married another man from Arkansas, and unlikely that the country would have put an interracial, same sex couple in the White House. But so what? This is an election, not Marvel's "What If?" series.
Meanwhile, folks are forgetting that Ferraro has been trying to ruin her reputation for months now. Check out her awesome New York Times op-ed explaining that superdelegates were created to vote for Hillary Clinton for an example. I bet if she were a multi-headed alien from the plant Zblatt, she wouldn't be doing any of this.
quote:That's certainly how I interpreted her comments implying that she felt that McCain was better qualified for the presidency than Obama. Well, that was one of the possible interpretations that I came up with, anyway. The other was that she was just trying to shift the mantle of "uneletability" off of her shoulders and onto Obama's.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I'm troubled by the possibility that Hillary Clinton is...set[ting] up a situation where Barack Obama loses the general election, setting up a 2012 Hillary Clinton run.
quote:Interesting. That mirrors the problems that she has with funding as well, in which pretty much everybody who is likely to give her money has already given her as much as they can, while Obama's contributers still have more to give.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
According to some of the commentary I've heard (Tim Russert, I think, and others) Senator Clinton has static positives - as many people as are going to like her, already do.... Obama's positives are not static, not everyone knows him already.
quote:Me, too. At this point, I'm close to being unable to vote for her. She's really digging herself a hole. Desperation is never pretty.
Originally posted by Noemon:
I will say that I have become completely disenchanted with Clinton over the past month or so. At the beginning of the year I felt fairly neutrally toward her. I supported Obama, but I felt like either candidate would make a decent president, and fully intended to vote for her in the general election if she won the Democratic nomination. Now...not so much. If she's the Democratic candidate in the general I'm really not sure at all what I'm going to do. I don't care for 2008 McCain at all, but I really don't know.
quote:I wrote her campaign a letter to this effect. I don't expect that it'll actually do any good, and in fact I'd guess that it will just be thrown away when it isn't accompanied by a check, but it felt like the thing to do.
Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Me, too. At this point, I'm close to being unable to vote for her. She's really digging herself a hole. Desperation is never pretty.
Originally posted by Noemon:
I will say that I have become completely disenchanted with Clinton over the past month or so. At the beginning of the year I felt fairly neutrally toward her. I supported Obama, but I felt like either candidate would make a decent president, and fully intended to vote for her in the general election if she won the Democratic nomination. Now...not so much. If she's the Democratic candidate in the general I'm really not sure at all what I'm going to do. I don't care for 2008 McCain at all, but I really don't know.
quote:That's a really good idea.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It might make some sense to write to local democratic leaders - anyone who is a superdelegate. Since it seems that it will come down to who the superdelegates believe has the better "story", we should make sure, they have all the facts.
quote:Maybe you should have made out a check with something like "buy yourself some dignity" in the memo.
Originally posted by Noemon:
I wrote her campaign a letter to this effect. I don't expect that it'll actually do any good, and in fact I'd guess that it will just be thrown away when it isn't accompanied by a check, but it felt like the thing to do.
quote:Why, thank you! Here's your list! http://www.politicalbase.com/groups/ohio-democratic-superdelegates/13898/
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:That's a really good idea.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It might make some sense to write to local democratic leaders - anyone who is a superdelegate. Since it seems that it will come down to who the superdelegates believe has the better "story", we should make sure, they have all the facts.
She'd just cackle all the way to the bank.quote:Few people remember the vicious slams GHW Bush made against Reagan during the 1980 primary election. They were long forgotten before the general election. Heck even when his predictions that Reagan's policies would cause the deficit to balloon were proven true, no one remembered them. Even Bush himself never pointed it out.
I think it's hurting her credibility as much as his, and some day when she has to drop out and endorse him, people are going to wonder why she's endorsing Obama when she said McCain would be better. She's going to have a credibility gap bigger than what she already has.
Not sure if they can kill it, or force another alternative. My guess now is, between them, the DNC, the FDP, the 2 campaigns, The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and everyone and anyone with an ax to grind, no Florida re-do will happen. Too many parties to please, unwilling to consider compromise, and not enough time to negotiate equals the status quo: either the delegates won't be seated, or a deal without a redo will be struck. quote:
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has embraced the mail-in idea, but the nine Florida Democrats in the U.S. House adamantly oppose it.
"A mail-in campaign would likely result in fraud, would disenfranchise seniors who have left the state, college students who change addresses, some of those who rent or have moved in the last few months," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach. "Such a mail-in primary would result in yet another election controversy that Florida does not need. We are playing with fire."
quote:I think it's going to far to say her approach is being effective. We don't know how many of her voters were Red Rovers. Actually, I'm pretty comfortable asserting that the margin between her turnout and the polls going it probably were.
But she took three out of four states in minisupertuesday, and has everyone talking about her making a little comeback. Clearly her approach is being effective.
quote:Wow! I was poised, after reding the first sentence in the above quote, to post something to the effect of "did they really learn that skin color didn't matter, or did they just learn that his skin color didn't matter[/cynical]", but the second sentence answered the question. Very cool.
Originally posted by dkw:
They decided to get over it, fell in love with the baby, got to know his father, and found out that skin color really didn't matter....She wouldn't have voted for a black presidential candidate 2 years ago, and now she might.
quote:
["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]
quote:Or pulls an Elliot Spitzer.
Originally posted by pooka:
Well, sure, if McCain dies or something.
quote:
Some Democrats suggest Clinton's tactics have already sabotaged one way to reconcile the two camps. "Take it from me, that won't be the ticket," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday about Clinton and Obama in any configuration. Clinton "has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Sen. McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama," she told New England Cable Network earlier in the week.
quote:I don't know any republicans who want her to win so she can be beaten in 2012. Some may want her nominated because they assume McCain can beat her. I don't think that's very smart, personally, because if she were to make a comeback on Obama, she'll go into the general with momentum.
Clinton is so decisive that some Republicans want her to win to give them something to beat next time, or possibly this time.
quote:Seems like CNN heard your plea with less then granting hearts.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I would be well pleased to have a president who shares the theology that I personally have heard preached by their clergy.
quote:Did you even read the article you linked to?
and I have a hard time believing that Wright does not have close personal relationship with Obama where he could have made such sentiments known.
quote:
Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school, and Obama's best-selling book, "The Audacity of Hope," takes its title from one of Wright's sermons.
But Obama also has long maintained he is at odds with some of Wright's sermons, and has likened him to an "old uncle" who sometimes will say things Obama doesn't agree with. He has also specifically denounced Wright's 9/11 comments.
quote:
"When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama wrote. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."
quote:Um...yes I did, unless you think I am incredibly lucky at linking random subject matter on the internet that just happens to have direct import with what is being said in this thread. But I did think the article was wrapping up and missed that last two paragraphs which make mention of their close personal relationship and the "crazy uncle" dynamic.
Did you even read the article you linked to?
quote:
Obama and Wright have been close for years. Obama has been a member of Wright's church since his days in law school...
quote:It was a very long time between his "days in law school" and, "The beginning of his presidential campaign."
When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign...
quote:I wonder if this is a trend? Several analysts had expressed the opinion that Clinton's people were more experienced and would have the advantage over Obama's people at the county and state conventions that ultimately pick the national party delegates (depending on each states' rules), potentially losing Obama some of his delegates.
Counting Iowa's results Saturday, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,610 delegates and Clinton with 1,496.
quote:I wish they specified whether the 72% overestimated or underestimated the toll.
Originally posted by aspectre:
Whether that diminished media attention is a side effect from or a cause of the purported disinterest/malaise, "two weeks ago...only 28 percent knew that just about 4,000 Americans have been killed" when previously about "half of Americans have consistently been able to correctly estimate how many U.S. military personnel have died there, most recently last August."
quote:Don't underestimate the bad blood between those two. McCain and Bush still hate each other, eight years later. The rift between Romney and McCain is a lot fresher, and frankly, Romney isn't any more popular, if anything he's even more unelectable than McCain. I don't think he adds anything to the ticket, and I think he'd make a lot of people nervous as a heartbeat away from a very old president.
My guess is that he'll probably announce Romney as his choice inside a week of the Pennslyvania primary.
quote:--Enigmatic
"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.
quote:Yeah, Hillary believes it. Otherwise she'd spin this into how America is finally waking up to its unfulfilled need for experienced leadership.
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.
quote:As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
quote:I'm willing to bet the ads began as a response to the number of Republicans who crossed over to vote for Hilary in OH and TX.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
quote:But I don't think Obama's adds are saying "Vote for me so that it's easier for McCain to win in November!" That IS what Rush and others are encouraging in terms of voting for Clinton.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
quote:There's a clear difference between those two tactics. Obama's ads are based on the idea that he is the best candidate for president. He is asking republicans to switch sides to vote for him. That's a lot different than trying to sabotage the quality of your opposing party's nominee. Do you vote for a candidate based on his party or his views?
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
quote:And him doing that is a bad thing because?
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:As I posted above, Obama is running constant radio ads asking Republicans to register as a Democrat to vote for him, so I think people would be justified in crossing over to vote against him too
I think even with GOP voters trying for a sabotage Obama is still going to win. All this will do is have him emerge battle hardened.
quote:Not so coincidentally, I picked up and started reading a book that's been sitting on my bookshelf for over a year on Friday. I've got about 50 pages to go in "Dreams from my Father" by Barack Obama.
Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now.
He was pressed there, as he has been at recent appearances, on statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
"I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," he said.
He added that he would "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example," he said.
He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips from recent Wright sermons.
"The caricature that’s being painted of him is not accurate," he said.
The speech could offer Obama an opportunity to move past the controversy over his pastor, and to turn the conversation to a topic he'd rather focus on: his Christian faith. But the speech also guarantees that the Wright story will continue to dominate political headlines.
quote:How come?
Originally posted by pooka:
That was great. I really do love the man, even though I won't vote for him.
quote:I don't think Clinton will touch this speech. I think it will get enough positive response from Democratic party regulars that any attempt to use it against him in any way will be hazardous to her.
I was also wondering which parts Clinton would take out of context and distort.
quote:I think you are right this time. If she tries to take this speech apart it can only hurt her.
Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:I don't think Clinton will touch this speech. I think it will get enough positive response from Democratic party regulars that any attempt to use it against him in any way will be hazardous to her.
I was also wondering which parts Clinton would take out of context and distort.
I've been wrong before, though.
quote:Replying to the speech with her already-tired sounding "ready on day one" theme is just sad.
Hillary Clinton said this afternoon that while she hasn't seen or read Barack Obama's sweeping speech on race in America, "I'm very glad that he gave it. It's an important topic."
Issues of race and gender have been complicated, both in the Democratic campaign and in the nation's history, she said at a news conference in Philadelphia.
"This is a historic moment for the Democratic Party and for our country," Clinton said, adding that all Americans should celebrate that the Democratic nominee will either be the first woman or first African-American.
Voters, she said, should pick the candidate who can best solve a growing list of worsening problems. "It will take a president ready on day one," she said.
quote:That's why I won't ever run for public office.
I've been trying to think of all the people from whom I would have to "distance myself" in the unlikely event of my running for public office.
quote:Day one was January 3rd, I think.
Originally posted by sndrake:
Replying to the speech with her already-tired sounding "ready on day one" theme is just sad.
But I am more than a little biased.
quote:
There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.
And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and thats when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.
She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mothers problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.
Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man whos been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why hes there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, I am here because of Ashley.
quote:That's probably wise, really; at this point commenting much on the election would just keep the whole "monster" comment in public awareness, and continue to help Clinton. I'm looking forward to reading her book too, but I haven't yet gotten a copy of it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Noemon - The Power interview should be up by now. She had a lot of good stuff about the book she wrote, which I really want to get soon, but not much about the election.
quote:Me too.
I hope Obama brings her back aboard after Clinton drops out.
quote:Oh I agree entirely. You need only look as far as Geraldine Ferraro to know what NOT to do in this case. She's been on every show that will have her from here to eternity talking about how she just wishes people would drop it, but that she stands by it still. If she wanted them to drop it, she'd stop talking about it.
That's probably wise, really; at this point commenting much on the election would just keep the whole "monster" comment in public awareness, and continue to help Clinton. I'm looking forward to reading her book too, but I haven't yet gotten a copy of it.
quote:I think that it's a combination of the latter and of an awareness that saying anything substantive will give one's current and future enemies a larger "attack surface", so to speak.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I don't know if those critical thinking skills are really absent in the majority of public figures or if they simply don't have the confidence in the public to reason with us through the issues or the communication skills to do it if they tried.
quote:In our current leadership, I suspect quite a bit of the former as well. What they say do say indicates such a strong black and white view of situations the "If you aren't with us, you are against us" mentality is just completely impossible for a person who is truly thinking critically. Add to that their complete cluelessness regarding how US actions over the past 7 years have impacted the world's view of the US and US leadership and I'm left with a very strong impression that our leaders have very poor critical thinking skills.
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:I think that it's a combination of the latter and of an awareness that saying anything substantive will give one's current and future enemies a larger "attack surface", so to speak.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I don't know if those critical thinking skills are really absent in the majority of public figures or if they simply don't have the confidence in the public to reason with us through the issues or the communication skills to do it if they tried.
quote:It was incredibly refreshing to get that level of analysis and detail about an issue. It's been a long time since I've heard a speech like that.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The man knows how to think and reason through a complex issue, understand all sides of the issue, come to some resolution of the issues and then communicate his reasoning in a way that is clear and moving.
quote:Those are some pretty impressive 13 minutes. Thanks for posting that, Alcon.
Taken together, that means a guy who was looking to (anonymously) show a little love for a candidate was able to look into the camera for more than 13 minutes combined and draw in more than a million clicks with an impassioned but reasoned pitch.
quote:It worth noting that John McCain has been repeating this "gaffe", saying that Iran is training and supporting al Queda after being corrected. I'm getting the feeling it wasn't a mistake so much as a deliberate lie that is part of his strategy.
Lieberman had to whisper into his ear to get him to correct himself, and they're going to lose to that if they don't get their stuff together.
quote:Make sure your state superdelegates know this. Write to them. If you don't know who they are, post here and we'll find them.
Originally posted by Saephon:
There is this fear amongst me and my friends that if Clinton manages to get the nomination, all of us (and perhaps many young/new voters?) will feel very cheated. I know that the more I listen to Obama, the more I like; this feeling of actually LIKING a politician is a completely new thing to me. He and Ron Paul are the only people running for a major office I have truly trusted and liked at the same time.
So help me if Clinton wins; I will be very miserable with my country.
quote:Really? How many times? I'd read that he'd made the gaffe twice. If it's not a gaffe, it's a pretty stupid move. Either way Democrats will seize on that as him not having a clue as to what is going on over there. But I suspect if he is doing it on purpose, it'll play well with a base that is more inclined to believe whatever McCain says so long as he is on the war march, so maybe it's not a horrible idea, but it'll bump out smart independents, which is what this election will hinge on. It's just one more arrow Obama can put in his quiver.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It worth noting that John McCain has been repeating this "gaffe", saying that Iran is training and supporting al Queda after being corrected. I'm getting the feeling it wasn't a mistake so much as a deliberate lie that is part of his strategy.
Lieberman had to whisper into his ear to get him to correct himself, and they're going to lose to that if they don't get their stuff together.
Also on top news, Hillary was in the White House when Bill was with Monica. I am sure in the 8 years of being first lady and however many thousand pages Hillary just released, that was the only "significant" finding.
quote:
MIKE HUCKABEE: There are two different stories -- one is Obama’s reaction, the other one is the Rev. Wright’s speech itself. And I think that, you know, Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it’s a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one and one that he had to deliver, and he couldn’t wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.
And he made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't -- whether it's me, whether it's Obama, anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon.
Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."
MSNBC HOST JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but you never came close to saying five days after September 11 that America deserved what it got -- or that the American government invented AIDS...
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though: For a lot of people ... would you not guess that there are a lot of independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the US-KKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October this is going to be the defining issue of the campaign and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
quote:There's a huge difference between engaging the reasoning and justifying it.
I can't follow that reasoning, and I personally won't engage that on whatever its merits are supposed to be. As far as I'm concerned, September 11th was a statement of selfish self-pity. I didn't get what I wanted so everyone is going to pay.
quote:There are probably two different levels to this - the gross negligence/inncompetence of the supervisors in these instances vs. the possible motives of the three contract employees who gained unauthorized access to Obama's passport file.
What do we think of this passport thing? A few nosy screwups then an idiot middle manager trying to keep it quiet? It is always the cover up that'll get you.
quote:There's more about the exchange - and links to actual video of it - on the site.
On Fox and Friends this morning, hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson spent multiple segments sensationalizing a comment Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) made yesterday, in which he referred to his grandmother as “a typical white person” in some of her racial reactions. Obama made the comment while discussing his recent speech on race relations in America on a Philadelphia radio show.
When the trio welcomed Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace onto the show, instead of previewing his show this weekend, Wallace announced that he was going to take his fellow Fox hosts “to task” for their “excessive” and “somewhat distorting” coverage of what Obama said:
"Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say."
Wallace — who said that the issue “was a little more complicated than we’ve been portraying” — went on to chastise his very uncomfortable-looking colleagues for the next five minutes.
quote:
The passport files of the three presidential candidates - Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain - have been breached, the State Department said Friday.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the breaches of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the privacy violation regarding Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.
quote:Yes and no. On the one hand, yes, I was responding to his assertion that you can't say he's wrong. I can, and I did.
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I suspect Lisa's comment was tongue-in-cheek. She did indeed say "he's wrong."
quote:I want to add that this is a good example of what we call "weasel words". Had he condemned it, you would have said, "He condemned it." Or "His speech condemned it." Saying "His speech condemned it, really" is just another way of saying, "Even though his speech didn't actually condemn it, it's sort of like he kind of did."
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Second, I don't think Obama was really justifying it. His speech condemned it really.
quote:Hey cool. Maybe, just maybe this can actually be a discussion.
That anger in the black community is not justifiable. It's an excuse. People like Wright set up demons to hate, and his community eats it up. And Obama was just fine with it all until it came up as an issue in the campaign.
quote:And I'd like to add that this is a good example of what we call "over thinking what someone else said." Seriously. He said Wright was wrong. I don't know what you get out of parsing language to that fine a degree.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I want to add that this is a good example of what we call "weasel words". Had he condemned it, you would have said, "He condemned it." Or "His speech condemned it." Saying "His speech condemned it, really" is just another way of saying, "Even though his speech didn't actually condemn it, it's sort of like he kind of did."
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Second, I don't think Obama was really justifying it. His speech condemned it really.
quote:That seems like a great way to make sure it never goes away. When dealing with an angery opponent, I don't think the best way to achieve rational discourse is to tell them they are being irrational. I think that's likely to only piss them off more. They DO have justifiable reasont o be angry. Are all their reasons valid? No, but then the "black community" doesn't speak with one voice, and they don't move together, they're all over the spectrum. Needless to say there's a lot of junk arguments in there like slavery reparations, but there is also some valid stuff like what Humean mentioned (the thing that jumps out most to me is Mandatory Minimums, which may not be intentionally so, but by the nature of what happens they DO target blacks).
That anger in the black community is not justifiable. It's an excuse.
quote:Its also a great way of pitting some minority groups against other minority groups instead of having to deal with them as a unified group.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
... Rich white people get to use AA has a peace offering because it's a really, really cheap way to ignore a lot of valid problems.
quote:Actually, I felt it did the opposite. However, I did manage to glean something not so different from what Mr. Squicky described, so maybe it wasn't all bad. But I only know that much because I watched the Nova episode about LTCM.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
I think that's good, because I think it is complex. An article that explains the facts, but doesn't register an opinion? Whoddathunkit?
-Bok
quote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html?_r=1&pagewanted=printp&oref=login
She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
quote:That's awesome.
In February alone, more than 94% of donors To Senator Obama's campaign gave in amounts of $200 or less. Meanwhile, campaign finance reports show that donations of $200 or less make up just 13% of Senator McCain's total campaign funds, and only 26% of Senator Clinton's.
quote:The inability of Clinton's team to understand how something they are saying will sound to normal people staggers me. I mean, that advisor to Obama at least wanted her monster remark off the record, and Wright's comments were 5 and 7 years in the past. Well, except the more recent ones about Clinton, but... yeah. He's just your old fashioned uncle, right? To be honest, I I'm a little blurry on Wright's comments.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Carville wasn't speaking to voters. He was speaking to the superdelegates. He wanted to make sure that the superdelegates understood that the Democratic machine would regard that kind of defection as a betrayal.
quote:Huh?
"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," [Carville] said.
quote:It explains how these practices resulted in the detachment of the assets from what it was that had previously made them secure, and freed mortgage companies to relax underwriting standards, because the risk was no longer theirs.
Why would a bank set up a separate vehicle where the parent bank is not even listed on the balance sheet as a primary beneficiary? One word: Greed.
quote:You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
Write to your state superdelegates. Ask them to end this.
quote:Agreed. I don't like it, but she has every right to continue to run. I would be very against the party or any branch thereof trying to "smack her down" or "end this."
Originally posted by Dagonee:
You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
quote:Actually, that generally IS how it works. You mean to say that's not how it SHOULD work. Historically parties have not blushed at knocking people out of contention that they don't want, or in edging people out for the good of the party when they think more damage is being done than good. Sometimes they make it in despite the will of the party, generally due to overwhelming popular support from the people, but if the Democratic party were to do so to Clinton, it wouldn't nearly be unprecedented. It is the JOB of those party leaders to do so, for the good of the party in general. In fact, superdelegates were designed SPECIFICALLY for this instance.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Agreed. I don't like it, but she has every right to continue to run. I would be very against the party or any branch thereof trying to "smack her down" or "end this."
Originally posted by Dagonee:
You think it's right to have the superdelegates "end this" now when there are hundreds of thousands of democrats left to vote in primaries and the Michigan and Florida issues haven't been settled one way or the other?
That's NOT how it works.
quote:De facto, yes. But officially?
Originally posted by Alcon:
Actually it kinda is. Usually it's over long before we even reach this point.
quote:Woah there, I'm pretty sure that position has already been filled.
Hilary Clinton will have been POTUS and the most powerful woman on the planet.
quote:Works for me. But I don't know that it would be effective.
Originally posted by dkw:
I do, however, think it would be highly appropriate for them to tell her that behavior that is this potentially damaging to the party is not endearing them to her cause.
quote:Would you describe this year's republican nomination race to be "officially" over or on "de facto" over. All the candidate but McCain have suspended their campaigns and McCain has won enough delegates to take the nomination. Of course it won't be officially over until the republican convention but that seems like hair splitting at this point.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:De facto, yes. But officially?
Originally posted by Alcon:
Actually it kinda is. Usually it's over long before we even reach this point.
quote:This is what the right wing, or at least the neo-conservatives, are hoping for.
There is a final possibility, but it is beyond unlikely, and that is she somehow manages to come from 700,000 votes down and wins the popular vote.
quote:De facto. No one from the party has declared it over, and that's precisely my point.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Would you describe this year's republican nomination race to be "officially" over or on "de facto" over.
quote:But she doesn't believe this, is the trouble. She thinks she can steal people from Obama, or more likely, get back people she sees it as Obama stealing from her.
Her positives are static - as many people who are likely to favor her already do.
quote:Either that or Clinton's constant barrage will bring Obama down to the point where they'll be happy to run against either of them.
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:This is what the right wing, or at least the neo-conservatives, are hoping for.
There is a final possibility, but it is beyond unlikely, and that is she somehow manages to come from 700,000 votes down and wins the popular vote.
quote:
March 25, 2008 3:44 PM
l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
quote:I am pretty sure that he will not accept money from special interests. If you donate, you have to electronically sign that you are not a pac or special interest.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Has Obama pledged not to take special interest money or refused donations from big donors? I know almost all of his money has come from small donors but that isn't the same thing as refusing money from the big donors.
quote:Probably requires login, but it's a free registration, so completely worth it. It goes on to mention case after case of Clinton lying to the public. I ran across it because somebody commented with it in response to a blog about Clinton's Bosnia lie.
Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.
quote:And today on the Huffington Post:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has been accused in recent days of padding her foreign policy resume while First Lady, admitted today that she may have exaggerated about an encounter she said she had with al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 1998.
quote:Fun stuff.
Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.
"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."
quote:Agreed
Fun stuff.
quote:
In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."
quote:Oh bloody hell. Clinton needs to drop out, now. And she needs to throw her support behind Obama when she does it. Otherwise the Dems are so very screwed.
The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
quote:It can't. But that sounds a heck of a lot better than "I lied" or even "I exaggerated and embellished."
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I just don't understand how "I was tired and I misspoke" can explain an inaccurate claim that she landed under sniper fire.
quote:I feel like the statistic would be even more pronounced the other way.
Originally posted by Alcon:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/
quote:
The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
quote:I can't help but wonder if *this* little bit is meant as a sign that maybe his enthusiasm might be going in a different direction:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, said Tuesday it would be easier for a black man to be elected to the White House than a woman.
The former South Dakota senator has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he has known for decades since she helped campaign for him. She is in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama for the party nod.
"I have a feeling that in this country where we're at today in our thinking, it's going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I wish that weren't true ... I'd love to see Hillary as president."
quote:Of course, there aren't too many people his endorsement means much to. "Many people" would include me, and I actually put on a suit and tie to canvass for his campaign when I was in high school.
He says he likes Obama but didn't know much about him when he endorsed Clinton last year.
"I think very highly of him now," McGovern said.
quote:Not to mention the African American voters and young voters who, instead of donating and volunteering for years to come are liable to not even show up. At best.
Originally posted by Strider:
quote:I feel like the statistic would be even more pronounced the other way.
Originally posted by Alcon:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/
quote:
The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
I can't tell you how many Obama supporters I know who are not democrats and are specifically supporting Obama. The majority of them would not vote for Hillary in the general, and possibly wouldn't even vote at all.
quote:It's not like the story is something that just came out of her mouth once, either. From this Salon.com piece:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:It can't. But that sounds a heck of a lot better than "I lied" or even "I exaggerated and embellished."
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I just don't understand how "I was tired and I misspoke" can explain an inaccurate claim that she landed under sniper fire.
quote:
In an earlier interview with a Pittsburgh radio station, she said:
I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else. The military took great care of us. They were worried about taking a First Lady to a war zone and took some extra precautions and worried about all sorts of things. I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke.
The Obama camp wasn't letting her slide on that, either. Burton e-mailed reporters to say that Clinton had actually given a similar account on multiple occasions. The full e-mail from Burton:
MARCH 17:
Clinton: “There Was No Greeting Ceremony, And We Basically Were Told To Run To Our Cars. Now, That Is What Happened."
"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened." [CNN, 3/17/08]
MARCH 17:
Clinton, Speaking About Her Trip To Bosnia, Said "I Remember Landing Under Sniper Fire. 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 Vehicles To Get To Our Base."
Clinton: "Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. 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. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children." [Clinton speech (remarks as delivered), 3/17/08]
FEBRUARY 29:
Clinton Said That The Welcoming Ceremony In Bosnia "Had To Be Moved Inside Because Of Sniper Fire."
"At the rally, she belittled the idea that Mr. Obama's 2002 speech 'at an antiwar rally' prepared him to serve as commander in chief. She said he was 'missing in action' on the recent Senate vote on Iran and as chairman of a subcommittee responsible for NATO policy in Afghanistan. Contrasting that with her own experience, she evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony 'had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.' She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was 'on the front lines' as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo." [NYT, 3/1/08] VIDEO
DECEMBER 29:
Clinton [said] That When She Went To Bosnia, "We Landed In One Of Those Corkscrew Landings And Ran Out Because They Said There Might Be Sniper Fire."
Clinton, in Dubuque, Iowa on December 29, 2007, said "I was so honored to be able to travel around the world representing our country. You know, going to places that often times were, you know, not necessarily a place that a president could go. We used to say in the White House that if a place was too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the first lady. So, I had the time of my life. I was the first, you know, high-profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac. We got there and went to the base where our soldiers were and I went out to a lot of the forward operating bases to thank our young men and women in uniform and to thank the Europeans, including the Russians who were part of that effort." [CNN, 1/1/08]
quote:I hear you, X; that sums up how I feel as well (although I'd already come to this opionion about Clinton before the FL/MI thing got nasty). I think, though, that instead of simply not voting I'll probably do a write in for Obama.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I'm not sure what I would do if Clinton wins the nomination. I started out this as "Both are good choices, but Obama is the better choice". Seemed obvious to me that if Clinton won, I'd stand behind her.
But her actions during this election have pissed me off. Especially the "Obama is standing in the way of Michigan and Florida! He doesn't want your votes to count!" rhetoric. The reality is so far from this that I question her integrity, judgment, and overall character.
If the Republicans had nominated Huckabee or Romney, I'd still be voting for Clinton. McCain isn't nearly as distasteful as those two for me though.
I probably just won't vote at all.
quote:What I don't understand is what grounds Clinton supporters have for this. I can point to all sorts of instances of where Clinton played dirty or went negative or showed little integrity or consideration for the greater interest of the party. What can they point to with Obama? The Wright stuff? I thought he was pretty honest and thoughtful with that, he handled it about as best as anyone could have possibly done I thought. What they want him to disown his pastor because some snippets of his pastors more inflammatory sermons got taken out of context? Gimme a break.
It's interesting reading all the comments on this blog and similar ones; many Hillary supporters believe it is Obama tearing the party apart and that he is "a sham" or "has no integrity." Lots of people say if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, they'll vote for McCain....I'm sure Hillary herself is one of those.
quote:
MCCAIN: I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with, and I don't believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those, as well.
HANNITY: He's been — but he's been going to the church for 20 years. His pastor — the church gave a lifetime achievement award to one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, Louis Farrakhan. Would you go to a church that — where your pastor supported Louis Farrakhan?
MCCAIN: Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.
quote:Story today in Time.
And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.
quote:So? If Hatrack were a primary itls b 95% Obama. We have the facts and the facts say a certain thing and that thing makes us believe that Hillary more and more is shooting herself, the dems, in the foot the longer this drags on.
Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged:
I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please.
quote:WIP: The Hilary bashing is more often than not in response to Hilary bashing Obama. It didn't show up until HRC start going so very dirty and negative towards Obama and that pissed all us Obama supports off to no end. The bashing isn't often even bashing but merely pointing to things the Clinton campaign has been doing and going "WTF?!"
I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please
quote:If you don't like hearing Hillary bashing, pray she isn't elected.
Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged:
I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please.
quote:Bingo.
Originally posted by pooka:
That's just the heat of the moment. Remember the conservative wing, up to 1/3, of Republicans saying they would vote for Clinton over McCain?
quote:This is how I feel, and I'm sure a large portion of Obama supporters share this feeling. I've read similar posts a few times in this very thread. (Maybe Lyrhawn??)
Originally posted by Alcon:
Before Clinton went all negative I didn't support her but would have voted for her in the general, I would have said I didn't like her, I wasn't a fan of her trying to steal Obama's message when she didn't get it -- didn't understand why so many people liked Obama, and I had a feeling that she would go the way she has, but I wouldn't have straight up bashed her. Now I'm pissed as all hell at her.
quote:Sounds pretty close to how I feel about it, and I'm sure I've said it before. I started off this election not caring which of them won, I'd happily vote for either of them. I liked Clinton, I loved Obama, and I finally felt like I was in a win/win situation.
I've read similar posts a few times in this very thread. (Maybe Lyrhawn??)
quote:Excerpts from the letter can be found at the TPM site linked above.
Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.
I've obtained a copy of the letter, which comes from some of the most influential fundraisers in the Democratic Party, including Hassan Nemazee, Steven Rattner, Maureen White, Stan Shuman, and Alan Patricof.
quote:The combination of this with the "we want your vote to count!" claim to MI and FL is kind of infuriating. Advocating for pledged delegates to go against the votes that put them there is basically trying to disenfranchise the voters of every state.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Alcon, I think a lot of that is just bluster to pump up the candidate of choice.
Clinton is continuing to talk about faithless pledged delegates switching their vote:quote:Story today in Time.
And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725514-2,00.html
If she won because of superdelegates, that's one thing. I and I guess most Dems could live with that, even if we weren't happy about it. But if she won through a significant number of faithless pledged delegates, she would be committing political suicide and guaranteeing a McCain win.
quote:Clintion tactics turn off superdelegates, including both SDs pledged to Clinton and uncommitted SDs.
As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag.
[snip]
...he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
quote:
Shorter version:
Dear Madame Speaker,
Believe and say what we tell you to believe and say or else.
Sincerly,
Money
quote:The news shows and the talking heads from last night are a little blurry, but neither Carville's "Judas" comment nor this latest tactic are playing well with some uncommitted superdelegates - if you can believe what some of the political reporters are saying.
(The Politico) Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded late Wednesday night to a letter by supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton urging his boss to stop making comments about the superdelegates respecting the will of Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers:
“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August," Daly said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”
The Clinton supporters had asked Pelosi, who remains neutral in the presidential contest, to refrain from making comments that could influence undecided superdelegates to back the candidate with the most votes - who, at this point, happens to be the New York senator's rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. But Daly's comments suggest the speaker will not be backing off of her stance any time soon.
quote:All Democratic Governors, members of Congress and members of the DNC are superdelegates. How are they screened by PLEOs? They are PLEOs.
...superdelegates screened&selected by PLEOs (party leaders and elected officials)
quote:The bolded sentence contradicts other info I have seen in papers and wikipedia. According to wiki, superdelegates = unpledged (AKA unbound) PLEO delegates + unpledged add-on delegates. This corresponds to what I just quoted from you.
Originally posted by aspectre:
"All Democratic Governors, members of Congress and members of the DNC are superdelegates. How are they screened by PLEOs? They are PLEOs."--Morbo
By DemocraticNationalParty rules, PLEOs are automaticly unbound delegates. Those PLEOs are then merged by the media with other unbound delegates, who as a whole are commonly referred to as superdelegates.
However the majority of superdelegates are not PLEOs.
quote:
Clinton's claims about a "corkscrew" landing in Tuzla, Bosnia, have been challenged by the pilot who commanded the C-17 that flew her from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Speaking in a radio interview on the "Rusty Humphries Show," retired Air Force Col. William "Goose" Changose said that he did not undertake any kind of "evasive" maneuver on the approach to Tuzla, and that the only reason the descent was a little steeper than normal was because there were hills around.
"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around," Changose recalled.
quote:Write-in. If Obama is who you support, don't throw that support to a candidate you don't like as much--if that's how you feel about Clinton, that is.
Originally posted by Alcon:
And that's a long list of the reasons why I'm becoming more and more likely to go third party should she, god forbid, actually succeed in winning the nomination.
quote:Pretty sure they endorsed Obama. Could be misremembering, cause I can't find any evidence of it now.
What is the well known bias of Kos?
quote:Sieg Heil!
Originally posted by Morbo:
The SS and military wouldn't have allowed it.
Squick
quote:for those of us who havent seen the show but are curious what happened 6th season?
Originally posted by katharina:
I'm starting to wonder if the West Wing had Nostrodamus on the writing staff for the sixth season.
quote:Every time I rely on
for those of us who havent seen the show but are curious what happened 6th season?
quote:I think it far more likely that they think Hillary is the easier candidate to defeat in the general. I agree with them.
That's interesting. I guess it's possible there are people who want to keep Obama as far from the White House as possible the same way I want to keep Clinton as far away from the White House as possible.
quote:I don't think that is any likelier than Huckabee or Giuliani or, while we're at it, John Edwards. They all have insurmountable liabilities with factions of the Republican base. I'm pretty sure Condaleeza Rice is likewise compromised from a P.R. standpoint. I don't know who McCain will wind up with. Fred Thompson is possible, or some rich guy none of us recall hearing about before this year (a la Cheney).
Originally posted by katharina:
Romney is angling for vice-president, I think.
quote:I think quite a few of us knew who Cheney was before he was elected
or some rich guy none of us recall hearing about before this year (a la Cheney).
quote:Well, right, that's the conventional wisdom, but if you read the link, it showed that the red rovers were 90% against Obama and 75% agains Hillary (to grossly simplify what it said).
I think it far more likely that they think Hillary is the easier candidate to defeat in the general. I agree with them.
quote:I had no idea! I mean, I knew that Bush was CIA director, but I didn't realize that Cheney put him there, that he didn't want the position, or that he harbored resentment against Cheney because of it. If that's the case, why did he appoint Cheney Secretary of Defense?
Originally posted by Morbo:
Cheney also saddled Bush Sr. with the position of director of the CIA. This killed any chance for him to be president for years, and Bush Sr. never forgave him. Which is why Bush Sr was shocked and dismayed at Jr.'s VP choice: Cheney.
quote:Sounds like Dean is calling for it to be over by July 1st. Here's hoping it doesn't drag on that long.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think the party leadership will end it in June, if it goes that far.
quote:I guess that was part of the "kitchen sink" negative attacks.
University of Chicago: Obama was a 'professor'
(CNN) – The University of Chicago said Friday Barack Obama accurately described himself as a onetime law professor at the school, despite the fact his formal title was "Senior Lecturer."
The university's statement comes after the Clinton campaign recently suggested on several occasions that the Illinois senator was embellishing his role at the school by calling himself a professor.
The campaign also sent out a press release quoting a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times column that stated of Obama's professor claim: "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter."
But in a statement, the university said its senior lecturers are considered professors.
"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School," the statement said.
"He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track," it also said.
– CNN's Alexander Mooney and Peter Hamby
quote:Good question. I just tried to research that and I can't back up Cheney's tie-in to the CIA appointment, although he was Ford's chief of staff. Bush Sr. didn't seek the CIA position, it did knock him out of the race for president in '76, and he did have some resentment about that. But I can't pin all that on Cheney.
Originally posted by Jake:
quote:I had no idea! I mean, I knew that Bush was CIA director, but I didn't realize that Cheney put him there, that he didn't want the position, or that he harbored resentment against Cheney because of it. If that's the case, why did he appoint Cheney Secretary of Defense?
Originally posted by Morbo:
Cheney also saddled Bush Sr. with the position of director of the CIA. This killed any chance for him to be president for years, and Bush Sr. never forgave him. Which is why Bush Sr was shocked and dismayed at Jr.'s VP choice: Cheney.
quote:And the detail that they have left out is that the titles mean different things at different institutions. In the British system, their are Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Professors. At most US universities, their are instead "Assistant Professors", "Associate Professors", and "Full Professors" all of which are commonly called "professors". It sounds like University of Chicago law school has retained the British system in its "official" titles, but culturally uses the more widely used US convention of referring to all the doctoral level teaching staff as "professors".
The campaign also sent out a press release quoting a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times column that stated of Obama's professor claim: "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter."
quote:http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2007/01/a_rare_day_in_w.html
George Herbert Walker Bush served with him in Congress and was then sent by Ford to China, and finally to the CIA. Being sent to Langley briefly took Bush out of politics, causing resentment in the Bush camp at the time. Today, the elder Bush instead recalled Jerry Ford's decency and sense of humor.
quote:I don't think that will matter anymore because I don't think Senator Clinton is aiming at 2008 anymore. I mean sure, it would be great if she got the nomination, but I also think she recognizes that it will be nearly impossible to get the nomination this year. As an article previously linked here suggests, I think the purpose of her refusal to leave the race is so that she can do as much damage to Obama and McCain as she can before she leaves, and then in 2012, after Obama loses to McCain, an incredibly old McCain will be easing picking for her.
Obama at least has the luxury of running straight in the other direction, strategically. He can use his relative youth and Senate outsider-dom as a selling point- bringing substantive change to Washington and all that. Clinton can't do that, because first of all she's viewed as a Washington insider at least as much as McCain is, and secondly because she's now spent a year convincing people that "experience" is her biggest asset. When November rolls around, people will remember her question regarding phone calls at 3:00 am, and let's face it, your average American is not going to think "ex-First Lady Hillary Clinton" when the other option is "War Hero and Maverick John McCain."
quote:Yes, because what a horrible thing it will be if the Constitution is not interpreted by the whims of a couple of left-wing activists. Oh the horror that will be when the conservatives (i.e; anti-progressive originalists) start deciding that the constitution works when its original meaning is respected, and not something to be view as an obstacle keeping us from a human utopia where babies are aborted at every whim, child pornography and flag burning is the highest form of patriotic speech, border defense is illegal, criminal acts are to be treated rather than punished, religion is outlawed (except Islam, of course), all laws are subject to international approval... well, I could go on, but I'm about to punch my monitor.
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Let me be clear on one thing- if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.
quote:Happily we will probably never find out whether it actually is the truth or not. Cause anyone who knows is not going to reveal it. It does look an awful lot like that right now though don't it?
If I ever found out the truth was that Clinton is working to have McCain beat Obama so that she'll have a better chance in four years, I would be disgusted to the point of wanting a new place to live.
quote:There are at least as many people who will vote for McCain for much the same reason.
The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.
quote:As they have every right to.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
There are at least as many people who will vote for McCain for much the same reason.
quote:There are so many possible equitable defenses here that simply referencing the statute isn't enough to make it "doubtful." A lot more analysis is required.
doubtful, because the law that he himself created says the FEC has to release him, and it hasn't
quote:Here's the relevant Ohio Statute. Per the statute, "[a]ny candidate for the presidency of the United States who is eligible to receive payments under the 'Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act'" is eligible to be on the ballot without filing a petition. The time period for this is 60 days before the primary. Is there an allegation that he wasn't eligible for such funds at the time he filed the petition, or at the 60-day deadline?
then he forfeits all of his delegates from states like Ohio,
quote:Yeah, but Paul's still out of it whether McCain is the candidate or not.
I told y'all that it wasn't over until it was over.
quote:I strongly disagree (to put it mildly) with Bush's policies, but that still makes me feel bad for him.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
President Bush is booed as he throws out the ceremonial first pitch at the Nationals' home opener.
quote:Reminds me of another baseball game where Al Capone was cheered as he took his seat and Herbert Hoover was booed.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
President Bush is booed as he throws out the ceremonial first pitch at the Nationals' home opener.
quote:I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
So much for respect the office if not the man.
quote:I've linked this before. I don't agree with every word, and it's slightly out of date now, but I think it would be worth your while to read it. Provided you can refrain from punching your monitor, of course.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Yes, because what a horrible thing it will be if the Constitution is not interpreted by the whims of a couple of left-wing activists. Oh the horror that will be when the conservatives (i.e; anti-progressive originalists) start deciding that the constitution works when its original meaning is respected, and not something to be view as an obstacle keeping us from a human utopia where babies are aborted at every whim, child pornography and flag burning is the highest form of patriotic speech, border defense is illegal, criminal acts are to be treated rather than punished, religion is outlawed (except Islam, of course), all laws are subject to international approval... well, I could go on, but I'm about to punch my monitor.
Originally posted by Tarrsk:
Let me be clear on one thing- if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. The possibility of another Republican appointing Supreme Court Justices to replace Stevens and Ginsburg is far too worrisome for me to bear a long-term grudge against Hillary for her mean-spirited tactics in the primary campaign.
quote:PDF link.
...the battle over the judiciary is part of a much larger political campaign not only to determine the constitutionality of abortion and the role of religion in public life but also the very character of our Constitution, and thus our national government. Many people assume (no doubt because they are told) that the meaning of the Constitution is set in stone, and that the disputes raging in the Senate and on the Sunday talk shows are between liberal judicial activists and conservative "strict constructionists" who adhere to the letter of the text. In fact, the contest is much more complicated and interesting -- and, in most important respects, this conventional view of the subject is badly wrong.
quote:So, the argument is that the Constitution shouldn't be interpreted to agree with one's preferences, and that liberal judges seek to place their own interpretation from that progressive perspective. But isn't that what you are doing from a conservative perspective? Isn't this entire paragraph like saying, we shouldn't interpret the constitution unless we do so in agreement with me? And isn't that exactly what you condemn all those "liberal" judges for?
Yes, avenues for change were written into the constitution. Amendments may be made. But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences, and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint. Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography, yet your progressive judges insist on this to be the case.
quote:Bullcrap.
Yes, avenues for change were written into the constitution. Amendments may be made. But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences, and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid. There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint. Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography, yet your progressive judges insist on this to be the case.
quote:It indisputably is interpreted differently as society changes. Even within the 20th century, Supreme Courts comprised of different members made rulings predicated on vastly different interpretations of the same document.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
But if you think that the constitution may merely be interpreted to agree with ones preferences...
quote:This is why the author is a proponent of verdicts that are narrow in scope: he apparently shares your belief that at least some issues that appear before the Supreme Court should actually be addressed legislatively.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
...and the resulting laws that have been handed down to us ---not by our elected legislatures but by unelected judges--- are constitutional, you're the one drinking the kool-aid.
quote:If you read a right to "reasonable privacy" into the Constitution, your main disagreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade appears to be with their take on what the original meaning of the Constitution was with respect to the word "person."
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
There is a reasonable expectation to privacy afforded us by the constitution, not a right to abort babies up to the moment of birth. Yet this is the logic that is used, by judges of the sort Obama, Hillary, and probably McCain would appoint.
quote:Why not? Isn't this a matter of interpretation?
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Freedom of speech is protected, and for that I might actually tolerate flag-burning. Freedom of Speech does not equal freedom to produce pornography...
quote:Are you saying that you believe there are times where Bush is not acting as president of the United States? IMO he is president 24/7 as long as he is entrusted with the office.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
So much for respect the office if not the man.
quote:Because its a right.
Originally posted by AvidReader:
I actually never understood porn. Erotica with one person in a provacative pose, ok. But depictions of actual sex acts? How isn't that covered under prostitution laws?
Both people are getting paid so that's different from one person getting paid? (Assuming of course that one of the actors isn't also the producer and paying the bills.) Being paid for sex while someone takes pictures is somehow inherently different from just being paid to have sex?
I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense.
quote:Even on the 360+ vacation days he's had since taking office?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Are you saying that you believe there are times where Bush is not acting as president of the United States? IMO he is president 24/7 as long as he is entrusted with the office.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'm not sure I understand how this was showing disrespect to the office of the president. He wasn't performing any of his duties. He was enjoying a perk of the job. At that point, it seems all about the man to me.
So much for respect the office if not the man.
quote:Assuming this is an accurate report, Clinton may be forced to suspend her campaign. If word gets out that she can't pay her bills, then she won't be able to keep advertising, traveling and planning events.
Originally posted by aspectre:
Yipes!
quote:Hehe
"So much for respect the office if not the man."
Why should the office be respected if its filled by a person unworthy of respect?
On a related note, why are we criticizing people for booing the president for not respecting the office, when in the last election more then half the voters voted for someone that had already demonstrated his unsuitability for the office? Doesn't that show those voters do not respect the office?
quote:No, it doesn't.
Doesn't that show those voters do not respect the office?
quote:The constructive avenues of voicing dissent don't seem to be doing the people a whole heck of a lot of good do they?
But publicly attempting to humiliate him is not a constructive way to voice dissent.
quote:Not when those decision lead him to do something I think could not be justified by any set of circumstance (such endorse as torture). Bush has tarnished the office in ways that pale in comparison. When Bush took office, the US was a respected moral authority in much of the world. He squandered that. Now we are only feared. The harm he has done to the country and the office are immeasurable and enormous. We will be lucky to every recover.
At an ethical level, we may disagree with many if not almost all the decisions a leader may make, but it's very difficult to do so with integrity when we ourselves know not the conditions under which he/she made those decisions.
quote:That is a very interesting suggestion. The article seemed not terribly urgent, while surprisingly brazen. And event planners are one class of vendor whose fortunes do not depend on who gets into power. The show must go on.
I wonder if this is real. It could misinformation from any number of sources. Clinton's campaign could be using scare tactics to get backers to open their wallets like they did in Feb.
quote:That makes zero sense to me.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense."
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
quote:You've got that backwards. Just because Congress doesn't pass a law saying you can do something doesn't mean you don't have the right. In fact, the Founders, leery of your specific argument, created the 9th Amendment:
Get the legislature to write a Constitutional amendment giving you the right to get married to someone your gender and I will support you 100%. I'm not so right-wing brainwashed to think I necessarily know better than what a majority of the country thinks is best for itself (I'm not speaking of morality; that doesn't matter here.)
quote:In other words, despite the fact that they specifically outlined the most important things to them at the time, it doesn't mean you don't have a lot of other rights specifically mentioned.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:Regardless of gender, people all have the same rights, including the right to marry whomever they please, regardless of their gender.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
quote:Marriage, defined only as a man and a woman, is a religious issue. It doesn't matter which religion, it doesn't matter if it's every religion, it's still a religion, and violates the rights of the non-religious. If the government is going to deny rights to citizens based on religious doctrine, that's a violation of the first amendment (and the 14th I'd say). The government does NOT have a right to tell churches and the like that they must marry gays, but the rights that most gay couples want, like social security benefits, joint income tax filings, etc, are all given by the State, and as such are subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and can't be limited to only some citizens because of the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
quote:Thanks, Chris. I still think it's a silly arguement since the actors are being paid to provide others indirectly with gratification, but it's nice to know what the rationale is at least.
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
quote:With abortion, I am tenuously in favor of the issue reverting back to state legislatures, actually. With same-sex marriage, not so much. If an individual state wanted to go back to segregated drinking fountains, I wouldn't have a problem with 'judicial activism' smacking them down.
As far as that goes in relation to what Rakeesh was saying, if it isn't in the Constitution, it should be decided by the states. But that is not what happens in these large scale issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. No, the Constitution does not say anything about an unborn baby's "personhood," or homosexuals' right to marry, but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question. It just goes to show how twisted our values have become since those days.
quote:Well, that's certainly a clever rejoinder that doesn't actually do what I asked. Which, by the way, since you're the one wanting to seriously alter freedom of speech in the USA, is what you need to do. You don't just get to say, "Boy, we've got too much freedom of speech," and then not explain why, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Which brings me to this, Rakeesh. You say "[f]reedom of speech definitely includes the right to produce pornography." You go on to prove your point by asking me to show how it doesn't. You got mad debate skilz, I'll give you that.
quote:Eh, I'm sure it's a lot easier for a Christian white dude without much civil historical perspective to say things like that. At least you support-for now-the idea that the majority should make decisions on an issue like same-sex marriage. I wonder what you'll be saying in a generation or so when the majority accepts and permits it?
My objection lies not with the morality of the issue, but with the attempts of an activist minority to do the same thing as they did with abortion: force it upon the rest of us without letting us have a say in the matter.
quote:If the law as it is written permits judges to say, "Such and such law is unconstitutional," and someone doesn't like such and such law...why shouldn't they avail themselves of the judicial process?
Sure, but how do we decide what is a right? Do we let the judges fill in the blanks, or do we let the majority decide? Neither way is perfect, but surely the latter is preferable?
quote:Oh, I'll just bet it's not an issue for you. After all, 'no sane person' would consider that homosexuals should have any right to marriage, right? So I guess it wouldn't be much an issue for you. Anyway, the balance of power is hardly out of whack. The executive and legislative branches still have enormously greater power than the judicial branch.
As for gay marriage, that's not really such an issue for me. It's just part of the larger issue I see where activists who know they can't get their way by convincing enough people of the rightness of their side take the tactic of using the judicial branch to impose their will for them- something it was not intended to do and is throwing the balance of power out of whack.
quote:Oh, I already have. Unlike you, I don't think that no sane person could disagree with me on issues of same-sex marriage or abortion. So it's pretty ridiculous of you to suggest that I should do what I've already done-if you don't believe me, well, check my posts on other similar threads, or something. That's your problem.
Your second "point:" Why don't you try the same?
quote:Did I miss something, or was the way things were back in the 1960s really the benchmark by which we should measure our cultural and legal values? I don't normally make that kind of argument, but you brought it up.
Your third "point:" I don't want to radically change freedom of speech; that radical change occurred a few decades ago when the radicals were able to make inroads into the coarsening of society in manners that include, but are not limited to, the freedom to produce pornography. No one thought it was okay until you anti-Christian started trying to subject us to your vision of the "way things should be" back in the sixties. Good music, though...
quote:My point is that it's easy to say, "Support the majority!" when your view is in line with the majority. The US Constitution does not, however, simply say, "The majority rules." You can, you know, read it if you'd like to try to prove me wrong. We're not just a democracy.
Your fourth point: I'm a Christian White Dude, so I can't express my opinion without automatically having that thrown in my face. I should hang my head in shame for all the oppression I have forced on people throughout history. Yeah, we'll see how my opinion changes about letting the majority make decisions I don't agree with as soon as something goes my way, because things have just been going swimmingly so far...
quote:It's a good thing we don't have such an amendment, then, isn't it?
If it's an amendment, written by an elected legislature, then it is by definition *Constitutional* and a judge will not be able to say otherwise. Maybe you didn't catch that?
quote:In my entire life, I've watched perhaps one full hour of the Oprah Winfrey show. I'm talking cumulative there, in fact. How long has her show been on the air? I've also never read a book that was on her list, or at least not because it was on my list.
Finally, we come full circle. Why don't you read something other than what Oprah tells you and learn why some of us "wingnuts" think the way we do. It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
quote:Good grief, you're about as verbally scary as a talking parrot.
Oh yeah, and you're not an idiot, I just thought I'd come out swinging.
quote:Really?
It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
quote:Contradict yourself much?
but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question.
quote:Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Resh:
quote:Really?
It might not be because we're just crazy/brainwashed/evil. I don't think that about you (well, maybe brainwashed).
quote:Contradict yourself much?
but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question.
--Enigmatic
quote:Good for you! You've got more social-conservative cred than I do, then. Not that I was ever in that foot race to begin with.
About 59 minutes more than I've seen (the one minute I've seen was clips on The Soup of Tom Cruise jumping on a couch, so you lose.)
quote:OK, see, I recognize what you're doing what with all the jokes and all. But the thing is, I remember your not-so-old posting style. My personal belief is that you still believe the things you used to when you started around here, it's just that you've dressed it up a bit. So I don't think you're entirely joking when you label me a 'traitor to my own religion'.
So you're Christian of some sort (I had gathered that from your posts in other threads.) So why are you a traitor to your own religion? In Muslim countries you could get publicly executed. Here, you just get yelled at by some random internet weirdo.
Oh, you're a White Christian Dude, too huh? We should hang out, talk about our Christmas bonuses. Seriously though, why are you a traitor to your White Christian Dude-ness? I mean that, like, super-seriously.
quote:You have yet to explain why, even a little bit, how producing pornography is an abuse of the right to free speech. Remember! Saying, "It's morally repugnant!" isn't actually an answer. Important reminder for you there.
Okay, so the only real point that I'd like to address is the "1960's benchmark" thing. Did I say that? Or did I just say that one symptom of our moral decay began in the 60's, namely, the abuse of the right to free speech. While some were trying to make things better in a way that was actually wise and good, others (let's call them hippie douches) were trying to make things better in a way that was... stupid, and smelly. Don't be stupid and smelly.
quote:It's fun watching you attempt to repudiate your more bluntly trollish posting style with humor now. I wonder how many people you're actually tricking?
Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
quote:I'd just like to point out to Resh that the reason free speech exists is to protect "stupid and smelly" speech.
You have yet to explain why, even a little bit, how producing pornography is an abuse of the right to free speech. Remember! Saying, "It's morally repugnant!" isn't actually an answer. Important reminder for you there.
quote:If only that were true.
Smart [...] speech doesn't need to be protected.
quote:I have a couple of points of disagreement as well as some points of agreement here. I agree with you that many things should be taken care of legislatively; that's the whole point of having a legislative branch in the first place. However, part of the point of having a judiciary is to protect minorities from the majority. Sunstein's view that judicial verdicts (particularly at the Supreme Court level) should be rendered as narrowly as possible would allow the latter to occur while only interfering minimally with the former. Accordingly, he's said that he thinks Roe v. Wade significantly overreached.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
Twinky, yes, society changes. But the Constitution was written in such a way so that the whims of society would not erode the strength of the people to govern themselves. Changes to the constitution were not meant to be easily done. It goes to show the extent of the activism involved that something as controversial and divisive among our people will not be decided by a majority rules, democratic process. Get the legislature to write a Constitutional amendment giving you the right to get married to someone your gender and I will support you 100%. I'm not so right-wing brainwashed to think I necessarily know better than what a majority of the country thinks is best for itself (I'm not speaking of morality; that doesn't matter here.)
My objection lies not with the morality of the issue, but with the attempts of an activist minority to do the same thing as they did with abortion: force it upon the rest of us without letting us have a say in the matter.
quote:If you're saying that you're deliberately trolling here, then it's difficult to tell the difference between your intentionally obnoxious joke posting and your normal posting style. The thought had occurred to me that you might think you're just messing with Rakeesh, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as a mature poster. My apologies for that.
Uh, yeah... Have you not figured out what's going one yet?
quote:On the off chance that you're serious, allow me to explain it to you: You are (once again) doing exactly what you acuse your opponents of doing. You complain that people think you (and other right-wingers) are just crazy or evil or brainwashed, and claim that you do not think that way about people who disagree with you. However, that claim is demonstrably false.
Nevermind, I don't get what you're saying after all.
quote:I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:That makes zero sense to me.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
"I just don't see how porn makes any legal sense."
When porn actors were tried for prostitution in California some time back, I believe the defense's argument (which won) was that the director was not paying them for personal gratification the way a prostitute's customer would. He was instead hiring two performers to perform.
quote:This may ruin my plan to have a legal brothel by advertising it as "produce and star in your own adult film!" and giving the john the tape to distribute or license as he sees fit.
I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
quote:And yet, what you practice is in fact conservative activism, and according to your own argument, that kind of activism is wrong. The reason that you claim that liberal judges practice activism is because you disagree with the manner in which they interpret the constitution, you believe that no sane person could possibly believe that homosexuals have the right to marry or the person-hood of un-born babies, and you judge those who read the constitution differently or from a progressive view as those who are inconsistent and twisted. Yet, you want that interpretation written into the constitution, you want your ideas and your interpretation to be the one acted upon, and thats a problem for you because you are motivated by a want to read your own morality and conservative agenda into the document.
As far as that goes in relation to what Rakeesh was saying, if it isn't in the Constitution, it should be decided by the states. But that is not what happens in these large scale issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. No, the Constitution does not say anything about an unborn baby's "personhood," or homosexuals' right to marry, but that's only because no sane person would even consider those things to be in question. It just goes to show how twisted our values have become since those days.
quote:I've been kicking around the same idea for quite a while myself (not in an "I'm going to do this" sort of way; more of a "hey, here's a loophole"). It seems like you could get around this by having a pimp act as middle man--the pimp is officially both the producer and the agent of both of the "actors" in the movie, and charges the john a fee for his services as agent.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:This may ruin my plan to have a legal brothel by advertising it as "produce and star in your own adult film!" and giving the john the tape to distribute or license as he sees fit.
I imagine the logic is that prostitution implies paying someone for your own sexual gratification, and the director of a porn movie isn't paying someone for their own sexual gratification. Ergo, no prostitution.
--Enigmatic
quote:No it's not! It is when done by Judges in their own courtroom, rather than their sworn and sacred duty. By all means, activate to your hearts content. And I don't think I hate anybody, so please don't say I do.
Humean:
And yet, what you practice is in fact conservative activism, and according to your own argument, that kind of activism is wrong.
quote:Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
Enigmatic:
If you're saying that you're deliberately trolling here, then it's difficult to tell the difference between your intentionally obnoxious joke posting and your normal posting style. The thought had occurred to me that you might think you're just messing with Rakeesh, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as a mature poster. My apologies for that.
quote:Yes, in fact I have read arguments that that was in fact the sole reason, and that freedom of religion was a separate issue, but otherwise, the Framers felt that society should set it's own standards and the Government, as usual, should just stay the hell out of our business.
Rakeesh:
Well, actually I think the reason freedom of speech exists is to restrict the government from stifling political dissent.
quote:Show of hands? Who believes this? I don't. From your activity in this thread, your 'not taking things seriously' is just a mechanism you use to be able to spout of your rants every so often and avoid replying to criticism when you don't want to.
Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
quote:There are many attempts at honest discussion, though the ranters *wink* get more attention. Furthermore, just because someone says, "Forbidding same-sex marriage is wrong and unconstitutional," does not, in fact, mean they're trying to 'impose their will on others', it could just as easily mean that they're trying to stop others from imposing their will on them.
The truth is, we live in a different world than in those days. I recognize that. Different from the fifties and sixties even. So it is necessary that we make up new rules and standards for our behavior, our government, all that. This is the problem, though. There has been no attempts at honest discussion, there are just factions trying to impose their will on the others, democracy be damned. And they use the Constitution as if what they want was actually what the Founder's wanted (or would have wanted) in the first place. Can we not at least agree that that is a bad thing, and representative of the reality of the situation?
quote:Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views. In short, you're seen as a joke whether you were in on it or not. The only reason people ever try to reply to you seriously is they are very patient about giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Apology accepted. But did it ever occur to you that there is no difference between my intentionally obnoxious joke posting and my normal posting style? I have consistently taken everything I say FAR less seriously than the rest of you, for a few years now.
quote:Yeah, seriously. Could people think about this?
For someone who is seen as a joke, I sure seem to get a lot of foaming-at-the-mouth attempts to neutralize my words.
quote:no it doesn't
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
quote:Not to me.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I was almost out the door when I thought of this: "Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views."
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
quote:And Borat did really well at the box office. It doesn't mean anything he said should be taken seriously.
Everyone hates Bill O'Reilly and think he's a joke too, but he sure gets high ratings, doesn't he?
quote:What, exactly, does it say about me? Merely that I'm aware that this view has been expressed. I did not say I came up with the idea, nor that I think it particularly likely. However, it seemed relevant to mention that the idea has been floated, since you said that everyone else is taking your posts far more seriously than you are.
Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
I was almost out the door when I thought of this: "Actually, there has been a long-running theory that you are in reality a liberal atheist who believes in evolution, creating "Reshpeckobiggle" as a ridiculous parody of someone with right-wing and religious views."
That truly says much more about you than it does about me.
quote:Right after you fell for my April Fools' joke and ate the soap!
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
At what point was I 'foaming at the mouth', I'm just curious?
quote:Aww, you're doing it again:) Not replying to direct questions exposing gaping holes in your ideas, and doing so with a joke so you don't have to admit it, either.
ElJay, you are probably on to something there...
quote:Maybe she doesn't remember how Rocky ended, but that seems to be more apt than she probably intended.
"Let me tell you something. When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit," she said.
quote:That's honestly the first thing I thought of when I heard the comment.
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Back to the primaries for an amusing tidbit, Clinton compares herself to Rocky
quote:Maybe she doesn't remember how Rocky ended, but that seems to be more apt than she probably intended.
"Let me tell you something. When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit," she said.
--Enigmatic
quote:Also, I don't think it's "crazy", just funny. I'm not presenting it as an arguement that she should lose or anything. But maybe it's deeper than I thought: She's not overlooking the ending of Rocky at all, but she's already setting up 2012 as Rocky II for her victory there!
"Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'? That's not the way it works," Clinton said, referring to a famous scene in the first "Rocky" movie.
quote:source
"Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets overhyped," Obama said. "In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is I'm Rocky in this situation"
quote:That's why Hong Kong is so awesome. It's the city of Jackie Chan who in reality is equally cool if not more so than the fictional characters he portrays in films.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It must be hard for a city to have only one famous fictional person in it.
quote:Yes, exactly! And they pretty much all miss the fact that Rocky lost.
The funny thing is every underdog that comes to Philly Compares themselves to Rocky.
quote:I used to love that cartoon when I was a kid.
Originally posted by pooka:
What about that mouse that told Ben Franklin how to discover electricity?
quote:She's like a basketball team that was heavily favored. Now it's the fourth quarter, and she's down and throwing fouls just to stop the clock.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Just musing, does Hillary Clinton count as an underdog now? To me, she doesn't feel like one, although she is definitely unlikely to win.
Coming from a by far first place spot with a whoel ot of heavy weight support pretty much invalidates being an underdog to me. To me, she's just losing.
quote:You poor, persecuted minority.
Your fourth point: I'm a Christian White Dude, so I can't express my opinion without automatically having that thrown in my face.
quote:Of course not, Launchywiggin. But to claim or hint at victim status as a white Christian guy is just absurd in the United States. But it's not an uncommon claim from the religious and social right.
Because all white males are rich and don't get persecuted.
quote:Actually, no I wouldn't agree with that. His argument amounted to, basically, "These things are wrong and no sane person would disagree with that." He then went on to suggest that the way things were generations ago was some sort of inviolable trust with regards to how we should do things.
I don't think he was claiming a victim status, but arguing that it's unfair for people to discount your opinion based on the color of your skin. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
quote:He was and it's not at all surprising since he has done so multiple times in the past.
I don't think he was claiming a victim status
quote:His suggestion of a claim to victim status obviously has a bearing on his skin color, Launchwiggin.
You wouldn't agree that your opinions should be credited or discredited based on their merits--and not your skin color? That's the only thing I'm talking about. I don't know or care about your argument, or whatever statement you want me to take out of context.
quote:I'm almost a little surprised that she'd have a face to face with him after all the stupid crap she's pulled lately. Obama will find a way to call her on a lot of it I think. Especially I hope he asks her how she can attack him for not being democratic while suggesting that the votes of millions of Americans don't matter and the delegates should disregard them and vote for her. That's why I think she wanted to have the debate AFTER the election, and not days before. Obama might have been happy not to have one at all, and Clinton to have one at any time, she needs the free air time, but Obama will probably benefit from a face to face before Pennsylvania, maybe even taking a couple points from her.
Originally posted by Jake:
Looks like Clinton has agreed to another debate. In an earlier article I read covering this it said that Obama wanted to hold it on the 19th, while Clinton wanted to hold it on the 27th, but the linked article doesn't give any indication of this disagreement.
quote:While it's not something I'd really throw much of a hissy fit over, I DO think there is a very subtle form of, not oppression, but acceptable prejudice against white guys in society. It's not something that would keep them from voting, or getting jobs or pay raises or any of the things groups traditionally complain about. But I think white males are maybe the one group in society that it's pretty much 100% okay to beat up on. Television is full of stupid white guys. I've seen several times during the current election the candidates on all sides have pandered to women and minorities, and the few times commentators have said "well, what about white men?" or "this election might come down to white men as a swing vote" they've almost been laughed out of the room.
Originally posted by: Rakeesh
If a 20-something white Christian male living in the United States (wherein us white folks are usually around 70% of the population) claims that society is oppressing him, I'll say, "What? Who's oppressing you?" and then probably laugh and ask just how he is being oppressed.
quote:Somehow I don't see that happening any time soon.
If Florida's delegates are approved to participate in the convention, then the two candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will have to come to an agreement on just how the delegation will be seated.
quote:No, it's not uncommon. From anyone. It's "cool" right now to be the poor oppressed people deserve affirmative action. I've heard it everywhere. Christians, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, Hispanics, atheists, young people, old people, gays, straits, all have members that claim that their group is the most loathed minority in modern culture.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Of course not, Launchywiggin. But to claim or hint at victim status as a white Christian guy is just absurd in the United States. But it's not an uncommon claim from the religious and social right.
Because all white males are rich and don't get persecuted.
quote:Thanks for the clarification Rabbit. Like I said before, it's not something I'd get up in arms about, it's just something I'd like noted. There are a lot of other much bigger substantive issues that need to be addressed first.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I'm sorry Lyrhawn, I wasn't so much responding to you as I was to white men I have previously heard whine about how oppressed they are.
Yes, white men are the butt of a lot of jokes, but being the butt of jokes when you are more prosperous and powerful than the average person is very different than being the butt of jokes when you poor and disenfranchised.
quote:I wish you would either back this claim up or stop making it.
One can also assume that Granholm&Gang rigged the primary to favor Clinton, and have been actively opposing all attempts to hold a fair revote, despite the fact that the "election" was illegal. Not merely breaking Democratic rules, but breaking the Law of the Land. ie Michigan cannot hold a similar primary in 2012 because the bill which enabled the 2008 primary has been voided.
quote:Not true. The DNC has decided they aren't going to seat the delegates. That decision has been so unpopular that many are pressuring them to change the decision. That isn't the same as saying they haven't decided. The fact that they could change the decision they've made is irrelevant.
I think Michigan and Florida have proven they can hold their primaries any time they want. The DNC has yet to tell us exactly what they're going to do about it.
quote:That's not true either. Off the top of my head, Nevada is a new addition to the early voting thing, so, at the very least that's wrong, but let's look at the ACTUAL rules from the DNC shall we?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
That's not technically correct Lyrhawn. The DNC rule had a specific section dealing with those 4 states separately on the grounds that they held their candidate selection procedures outside the given window (First Tuesday in Feb and last Tues in June) in 1984. The rule specifically forbids any state that held its candidate selection procedure inside that window in 1984 from moving outside the window.
I think its unfair that the DNC wrote separate rules for those 4 states, but it is not correct to say those states broke the rule.
quote:It has that bit in it about 1984, but, you left out the part where they SPECIFICALLY say when those states must hold their elections. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina violated those rules by holding their elections before the dates specified for them. I guess you got me a little big, Nevada didn't violate the rule.
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
quote:In other words, they should lose half their pledged and all their superdelegates. Instead? South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa were given a special leave that absolved them of punishment for breaking the rules. Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. give the Rules and Bylaws Committee the power to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And apparently they chose to give three rule breakers a break, and to issue Byzantine punishments to two of the biggest states in the country.
Rule 20.C.1.a: Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
quote:Granholm has more international experience than Obama does. She's spent the last six years going overseas to meet with foreign leaders and business heads to bring jobs back to Michigan. I'd gladly vote for her on an Obama ticket, but she was born in Canada, can she even run?
Despite that, Granholm remains the most obvious candidate on the short list for the VicePresidential slot on an Obama ticket. The quid pro quo being, ignore Michigan superdelegates while selecting its governor as the reconciliation VicePresidential Nominee. It ain't as if Bill had national&international experience before his Presidency. So the lack shouldn't be a barrier for Granholm.
Because she helped rig Michigan's primary in favor of Hillary, Granholm would only be a further drag on a Clinton ticket.
quote:Okay, so maybe not such an outlier. Well, this is getting mighty interesting.
Originally posted by pooka:
The three most recent polls have Obama in the 40's. The most recent one has him leading by 3. That's really something. I'm sure the PPP poll is an outlier.
quote:I think that characterizes the main difference between the operation of their campaigns. Clinton's campaign is staffed with 20 or 30 years of loyalists, people who've been with them for years and years.
Originally posted by scholarette:
In many ways, the way Obama has run his campaign has made me think that he will be a good president. He has not been changing staff frequently, but from my limited knowledge, he didn't hire staff based on friendship or loyalty. He hired the best he could. He planned for the long haul, and went about creating an efficient and well organized network. He says he isn't good at the details, but his campaign seems to be run well anyway.
quote:Hmmm... This is actually a really good point. One that I don't see discussed all that much. While we're (the American people) deciding who to elect as our President, that choice is more than just that individual. It's also all about who they bring along with them.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If for no other reason alone, this shows what kind of Administration they might put together after they get elected. Clinton's will be full of old hats arguing with each other and battling over turf. Obama's will be much better run. Some might think that doesn't matter, but I think the last seven years are a testament to how a badly run Administration can effect policy. I think Clinton's would almost be worse in some ways.
) So I looked at all of their stances on all of the things that were important to me, and scored them, but then what? Are all those things weighted equally? Okay, no, so I weighted the issues based on how important I thought they were. But at what point does a number of lesser disagreements outweigh a more fudamental agreement? And even that's not enough. Where do I factor in the likelihood that a candidate will say one thing while campaigning and do another in office? (Remember how Bush was going to be the Environmental President? Or was that the Education President?) How strongly do I weigh a candidate's agreement with me when he or she previously espoused a contradictory stance? And what about electability? What about ability to get stuff done in office? What about the ability to inspire the nation? What about known ethical concerns? What about propensity to scandal? What if someone you disagree with appears to approach the fundamental questions more democratically and reasonably, and maybe at this moment in time democracy is more important than any single issue?quote:Well, he's much more likely to be president now than he was a year ago. So if a President Obama scares you, for whatever reason, it's no surprise you'd be more scared now than before.
For the record, in case anyone cares, I'm significantly more afraid of Obama now than I was a year or more ago the first time I mentioned that the man petrifies me.
quote:That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
I don't know if it's Russian racism coming out or some sort of Jewish fear that he's secretly a Muslim terrorist, but regardless, there is no basis for it and it's infuriating.
quote:Its sad how acceptable harboring racist fears of Muslims has become.
That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
quote:I think a careful paying attention to my positions would reveal this.
Originally posted by pooka:
I'm trying to figure out if that is enthusiasm or sarcasm.
quote:My best friend told me the other day that he was shocked to hear that his mother was voting for Obama, "Even if he is a Muslim." On the one hand, good for her on thinking a Muslim could run this country, on the other, how do people still believe Obama is a Muslim?!
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Its sad how acceptable harboring racist fears of Muslims has become.
That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
quote:A sizable amount of people think that 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated by our own government.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
My best friend told me the other day that he was shocked to hear that his mother was voting for Obama, "Even if he is a Muslim." On the one hand, good for her on thinking a Muslim could run this country, on the other, how do people still believe Obama is a Muslim?!
quote:It's a sad anecdote. Obama is far too slick. The idea of someone most Americans hadn't even heard of a few years ago all of a sudden becoming this rock star candidate is more than a little creepy, in a very Stepford sort of way.
Originally posted by Strider:
There are people in my family who have said things along the lines of "there's just something about Obama I don't trust...I don't know what it is". When pressed for specifics, they can't give any.
Translation: I'm a racist, but since I don't want to admit it to myself or others, I'll just say there is some indeterminant quality about him that rubs me the wrong way.
I don't know if it's Russian racism coming out or some sort of Jewish fear that he's secretly a Muslim terrorist, but regardless, there is no basis for it and it's infuriating.
note: this is not to say anyone's reasons on this forum for disliking Obama are racist, just relaying an anecdote.
quote:I most certainly reject the monstrous idea of a "social contract" that places each of us, willy nilly, at the service of whatever some majority determines is for the "greatest good".
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Lisa finds Obama scary because she is an extreme libertarian who does not recognize the legitimacy of the social contract and sees all those who ever value community over individuality as equivalent to Hitler or Stalin.
I find her very scary!
quote:I guess representatives of Islam should take a lesson from that and do what they can to stop their own adherants from giving Islam a bad name.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Its sad how acceptable harboring racist fears of Muslims has become.
That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
quote:Isn't it obvious? I mean, doesn't belonging to a church make someone a Muslim? It's so weird how a big fuss can erupt about his Christian pastor, but people still see him as Muslim.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:My best friend told me the other day that he was shocked to hear that his mother was voting for Obama, "Even if he is a Muslim." On the one hand, good for her on thinking a Muslim could run this country, on the other, how do people still believe Obama is a Muslim?!
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Its sad how acceptable harboring racist fears of Muslims has become.
That fear of Obama being an evil Muslim seems to be quite widespread. My mother, a German Catholic, has it, as does my stepdad who is a Midwestern protestant.
quote:like i said, i wasn't attacking yours or anyone else's reasons at Hatrack for disliking Obama. This was specifically in regards to family members and friends of family. All of whom are Russian Jews. And sadly, Russians tend to be pretty racist on average(maybe just older Russians, i don't hear any of this from the children of all these people), and some of the stuff I've heard them say about Muslims makes me ill.
Obama has been manufactured. And he scares the hell out of me. To even pretend to paint that in racist terms is ludicrous.
quote:Here's a good article from The New Republic on some of Obama's advisers. A brief excerpt, but I recommend reading the whole article if you're curious:
Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
Is there any place that has a breakdown of the remaining candidate's current staffs and their resumes?
quote:
...
Sociologically, the Obamanauts have a lot in common with the last gang of Democratic outsiders to make a credible run at the White House. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers. Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn't be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals--like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You'd be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama's inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with Goolsbee, one of the profession's most respected tax experts. A Harvard economist named Jeff Liebman has been influential in helping Obama think through budget and retirement issues; another, David Cutler, helped shape his views on health care. Goolsbee, in particular, is an almost unprecedented figure in Democratic politics: an academic economist with a top campaign position and the candidate's ear.
...
quote:Seconded.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn (In response to Ic):
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
People like you think that if there are enough of you, you're entitled to force the minority to support goals and programs that you favor. You've elevated "might makes right" and mob rule into a sort of sacred principle, and stolen the label of "social contract" in a propagandistic attempt to justify it and as a tool by means of which you can try and intimidate those who simply want to be left to live their lives in peace.
Talk about scary.
quote:Replace "Iranian" with "Persian" and I don't really have a problem with that, since they've long been a separate people from Arabs and consider themselves an ethnically separate people. They're ethnically different, they speak a different language (Farsi as opposed to Arabic), and they see themselves as different. Fair game as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by pooka:
Oddly, I just filed a labor law update that a judge ruled that Iranian can be considered a race for discrimination purposes, even though Iran is a country, and complainants are not born in Iran. However, there is more basis to seeing Iran, which is pretty ethnically distinct from the rest of the Middle East, as a race than Arabs or Muslims in general.
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
People like you think that if there are enough of you, you're entitled to force the minority to support goals and programs that you favor. You've elevated "might makes right" and mob rule into a sort of sacred principle, and stolen the label of "social contract" in a propagandistic attempt to justify it and as a tool by means of which you can try and intimidate those who simply want to be left to live their lives in peace.
Talk about scary.
Yeah I've always supported mob rule and might makes right. Me and Hitler are just two peas in a pod.
quote:Non sequitur. When Obama speaks, I hear slick speech writers. When Paul speaks, I hear someone speaking like a person; not like a politician.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Lisa -
You don't think it's a little ironic that a Ron Paul supporter would attack Obama for having come from nowhere and being a manufactured candidate? Ron Paul hasn't been in charge of his campaign from the start. It's being run by a large group of people, an uncoordinated alliance of young people who don't totally understand his policies and libertarians who will happily take those young people's money bombs.
quote:I've been told Obama writes many of his own speeches. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
When Obama speaks, I hear slick speech writers.
quote:
What specifically do you think Obama is gonna do that will restrict your individual freedoms? Are you just against any kind of government programs that use public tax dollars? Do you draw the line some where as to which government programs are acceptable and which are unacceptable? I mean, do you support public education? The keeping of a military? The NSF? Environmental protection agency?
quote:That's really not a non sequitur at all. Do I need to provide a definition? You saying "non sequitur" after what I said is more of a non sequitur.
Non sequitur. When Obama speaks, I hear slick speech writers. When Paul speaks, I hear someone speaking like a person; not like a politician
quote:And I most certainly reject the monstrous idea of a society where money is god and where the democratic will of the people cannot be implemented through regulation but rather must be implemented through force. It's easy to jam the negatives of an idea into a sentence (with a little "flavoring" if you know what I mean) and paint it as an absolutely atrocious idea.
Originally posted by Lisa:
I most certainly reject the monstrous idea of a "social contract" that places each of us, willy nilly, at the service of whatever some majority determines is for the "greatest good".
quote:Well yes, I am against such government programs. I'm also against the whole idea that there are "public tax dollars". Taxing to protect people from violations of their rights is one thing. Taxing to give goodies to people is quite another.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Lisa, I'm just gonna repost this to call your attention to it. I'm really curious to hear the answer:
quote:
What specifically do you think Obama is gonna do that will restrict your individual freedoms? Are you just against any kind of government programs that use public tax dollars? Do you draw the line some where as to which government programs are acceptable and which are unacceptable? I mean, do you support public education? The keeping of a military? The NSF? Environmental protection agency?
quote:And if you are in a crowd you may find that you can't swing your fist at all with out hitting someones nose. If you happed to find your self on the Suq Al-Silseleh at midday on a Friday, you will find that you can't make any movement in any direction unless a thousand other people move first. One individualist who decides to stand fast in the road, can effectively eliminate a thousand peoples freedom to move. How many people must that immovable individualist block before forcing him out of the way becomes a defense of peoples freedom and not a violation of it?
The social contract says that my freedom is only to be limited to the extent that it infringes on that of another ("my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins"). The social contract says that everyone is free to try and convince others to do anything, but that no one is permitted to force others to do anything.
quote:And he wants the US out of the UN which would single handedly signal the end of the Pax Americana and the return to Pre-1941 isolationalism.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:That's really not a non sequitur at all. Do I need to provide a definition? You saying "non sequitur" after what I said is more of a non sequitur.
Non sequitur. When Obama speaks, I hear slick speech writers. When Paul speaks, I hear someone speaking like a person; not like a politician
Anyway, that's a matter of opinion, so I can't fault you there, but, when I hear Obama speak, generally I hear something fairly unlike what regular politicians have said for quite some time, and he's written the speeches himself. Oratorical styling isn't generally what I base my vote on, but hey, to each his or her own.
When I hear Paul speak, I hear a lot of awesome common sense...but it's badly mangled and garbled by someone who isn't naturally adept at communication. A lack of polish might be desireable to you, but it's one of those things that makes him unelectable. He can't get his point across clearly most of the time. During the debates he would've need a trail of bread crumbs to find his way back to the point he was trying to make from the answers he gave that went off the track.
I'm not dissing him, if you REALLY pay attention, he was making some fantastic points, but he was laughed at and derided by the other Republicans (much to my annoyance) and it was all too easy because his message was getting lost somewhere between his brain and his mouth.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Threads:
Firemen?
quote:No, it isn't. For me to receive all of the money I earn from my employer would interfere with no one else's freedom.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Not every place in this world is as crowded as the Suq Al-Silseleh at noon on a friday, yet still it is true that all our actions affect others. In a very real sense, every thing I do or you do interferes with someones freedoms.
That is not just a metaphor, it is verifiable fact.
quote:Please, do provide a definition, since you clearly don't know what it means. You were comparing Obama's being a sleek little manufactured product and Ron Paul not being the driving force behind his own campaign. The two things are entirely different. Ron Paul is who he is, and has been for decades. He isn't some daemon ex machina like Obama.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:That's really not a non sequitur at all. Do I need to provide a definition? You saying "non sequitur" after what I said is more of a non sequitur.
Non sequitur. When Obama speaks, I hear slick speech writers. When Paul speaks, I hear someone speaking like a person; not like a politician
quote:No, he isn't. But he's clear enough, and as you said, it's awesome common sense. As opposed to the cliches in which Obama is drenched.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
When I hear Paul speak, I hear a lot of awesome common sense...but it's badly mangled and garbled by someone who isn't naturally adept at communication.
quote:I'd rather have someone who isn't the Great Communicator, but who makes sense, than a slickster who just panders to the immature gimme-ism of too many Americans.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm not dissing him, if you REALLY pay attention, he was making some fantastic points, but he was laughed at and derided by the other Republicans (much to my annoyance) and it was all too easy because his message was getting lost somewhere between his brain and his mouth.
quote:Actually, I was comparing Obama and Paul's "come from out of nowhere" candidacy and national appeal and recognition. And I was comparing the driving forces and control of their campaigns. Near as I can tell, they are directly comparable.
Please, do provide a definition, since you clearly don't know what it means. You were comparing Obama's being a sleek little manufactured product and Ron Paul not being the driving force behind his own campaign. The two things are entirely different. Ron Paul is who he is, and has been for decades. He isn't some daemon ex machina like Obama.
quote:When you word it like THAT, then I can see how you might come to that conclusion. The two aren't different, they are really very closely related. I was comparing the driving forces and genesis of their campaigns and who controls them. That's directly tied to your view of one of them being manufactured and the other being pure and untainted, despite the fact that they have very similar origins in this campaign. That's the point I was trying to make. You seem to have skipped over it entirely to form your own conclusion.
You were comparing Obama's being a sleek little manufactured product and Ron Paul not being the driving force behind his own campaign.
quote:Depends on how you look at that one. While I'd rather folks made real plans for retirement, we can't deny that many people rely on Social Security for their sole income. If we stop paying in to SSI, there won't be any money to pay out. If there isn't money to pay out, many of the elderly, disabled, and orphaned would suddenly be without food. And that would deprive them of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For me to receive all of the money I earn from my employer would interfere with no one else's freedom.
quote:Yeah but, not in the way that the Framers intended. They have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there's no rule that it has to be subsidized by the government. To be honest, good liberal that I am, I'm very much against Social Security. I think it's a poorly conceived, poor managed institution in the 21st century. People should be able to plan for their own retirement and use their own money to do so, rather than paying into a wasteful Administration that results in low yields and a lot of paper pushing.
And that would deprive them of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
quote:Say what? My boss would pay me more if he didn't have to pay employment taxes on what he pays me.
Originally posted by scholarette:
Except that the reason you get the pay you do is largely reliant upon taxes.
quote:No, ma'am. That's ridiculous. That sounds like the shoplifter's excuse. "They price things in the store knowing that a certain amount of the merchandise is going to be stolen, so no one is really being hurt." Feh.
Originally posted by scholarette:
When you negotiated your salary, that expense should have been factored in.
quote:Public education does not affect the economy in a positive way. It takes money away from people unfairly and gives it to other people unfairly. But worse than that, it gives the government the ability to indoctrinate children. Which, of all the powers the government has wrongly usurped is probably one of the most dangerous.
Originally posted by scholarette:
I don't know your exact job, but public education definetely effects the economy in a positive way.
quote:If someone mugs me than then buys me a cup of coffee with some of the money he stole, I don't owe him any thanks.
Originally posted by scholarette:
There are probably other ways that tax funded programs have helped allow for your job to even exist.
quote:See, and I wasn't talking about anything like that. Hence "non sequitur".
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Actually, I was comparing Obama and Paul's "come from out of nowhere" candidacy and national appeal and recognition.
Please, do provide a definition, since you clearly don't know what it means. You were comparing Obama's being a sleek little manufactured product and Ron Paul not being the driving force behind his own campaign. The two things are entirely different. Ron Paul is who he is, and has been for decades. He isn't some daemon ex machina like Obama.
quote:What's this mean then?
The idea of someone most Americans hadn't even heard of a few years ago all of a sudden becoming this rock star candidate is more than a little creepy, in a very Stepford sort of way.
quote:God, it's hard to know where to start. I mean, I could start with the obvious fact that neither you nor I are ever going to see a penny from Social Security. That we're paying into a system that simply cannot last, no matter how much people want it to. But I'm sure you have some sort of expectation that someone (who?) will manager to pull a rabbit out of a hat and supply that money eventually.
Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Depends on how you look at that one. While I'd rather folks made real plans for retirement, we can't deny that many people rely on Social Security for their sole income. If we stop paying in to SSI, there won't be any money to pay out. If there isn't money to pay out, many of the elderly, disabled, and orphaned would suddenly be without food. And that would deprive them of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For me to receive all of the money I earn from my employer would interfere with no one else's freedom.
quote:So you want to create another generation just like that one? Or do you want to solve the problem instead?
Originally posted by AvidReader:
I'm all for programs to help people plan better from now on, but there's a whole generation that it's just too late for. They're retired on SSI and they can't go back and undo that.
quote:Ron Paul has been in Congress for a very long time. While his supporters have helped him a lot, this isn't even the first time he's run for president. It's apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Really?
quote:What's this mean then?
The idea of someone most Americans hadn't even heard of a few years ago all of a sudden becoming this rock star candidate is more than a little creepy, in a very Stepford sort of way.
quote:So sorry Lisa, you've got no leg to stand on arguing that the government has no right to tax you. And I'd say the generations of people who have interpreted that to mean the government can tax you for social programs are on pretty solid turf. And if you think being taxed in anyway is evil as you seem to... I'd suggest you find yourself a new country. Because you're very alone in your view in this country and -- unfortunately for you -- for the most part, majority does rule here.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
quote:I'm just wondering why you're using the Declaration of Independence as a source for the laws of our country, what they were and what they should be.
Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a lein on the life and liberty of others.
quote:http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3320/trending_towards_inanity/
I first flipped through Microtrends while at the YearlyKos convention, and Penn, astonishingly, seemed to comprehend the importance of the loosely connected, grassroots-driven, progressive movement’s flowering. “I suspect the lefty boom will bring a surge in the promotion of sheer creative energy,” Penn writes, “driven by an idea that is at the heart of this book—that small groups of people, sharing common experiences, can increasingly be drawn together to rally for their interests.” I was shocked—Penn was speaking admirably of “lefties,” not trying to recast them as moderates, not trying to write them out of the party? He was endorsing open-source politics, rather than a top-down structure? I had misjudged the man!
I read on. Penn was talking about actual lefties—people who are born left-handed. Increasingly grim, I absorbed the first hard blows of Penn’s interpretative technique: “More lefties,” he enthuses, “could mean more military innovation: Famous military leaders from Charlemagne to Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar to Napoleon—as well as Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf—were left-handed.” He uses the same thunderingly awful logic to argue that we’ll see more art and music greats, more famous criminals, more great comedians, more “executive greatness,” and better tennis and basketball players.
This is what statisticians—or anyone who has taken a statistics class—call a “correlation/causation error.” It is not enough to cherrypick a couple famed military leaders, notice that they’re lefties and assume that something intrinsic to their handedness caused their tactical genius. It is not enough to say that past cultures discouraged left-handedness and use that as a stand-in for discouraging creativity of all sorts. To say that Bill Gates is right-handed does not suggest that a greater proportion of right-handed people would mean more Bill Gateses. For a professional pollster to imply that correlation equals causation is like a firefighter trying to put out flames by tossing a toaster into the blaze—it bespeaks a complete unfamiliarity with the relevant techniques.
quote:Clinton should never have let him become a chief strategist of her campaign. Like her choice of her former scheduler to become Campaign Manager, it reflects a loyalty over competence mindset in Clinton. Something 7 years of Bush has shown is a bad idea.
As microchapter after microchapter passed, reviewing this book began to feel like dropping a grenade into a barrel of fish.
quote:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/187959.php
Meanwhile, even those who have signed on to the AQI myth can't keep it straight. Is it Shiite? Sunni? Oh, whatever:
quote:It's Sunni.
MCCAIN: There are numerous threats to security in Iraq and the future of Iraq. Do you still view Al Qaida in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shiites overall...
PETRAEUS: No.
MCCAIN: ... or Sunnis or anybody else.
quote:http://newsblaze.com/story/2008040811030200003.pnw/newsblaze/POLITICS/Politics.html
The following is a fact sheet prepared by the DNC Research Department on McCain's failed leadership onIraq:
McCain Repeatedly Gets Facts Wrong On Iraq
IRAQ/IRAN, SUNNI/SHIA: WHO'S WHO?
At least five times as a candidate, three times in March 2008 alone, McCain said publicly thatIran (a Shiite nation) was supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) inIraq. Despite being corrected by the press and his colleagues, McCain continued to repeat the assertion.
quote:No. I think I'm paying in now so other people can eat. I don't expect it to be there when I retire; I'm putting money into my 401(k) and an IRA. I'm taking another retirement seminar later this month to make sure I don't need to change my retirement plan from what I came up with a couple years ago at the company 401(k) class.
But I'm sure you have some sort of expectation that someone (who?) will manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat and supply that money eventually.
quote:You do realize that I used the phrase because I was responding to a post in which the phrase was used, right? Or were you just grabbing a quote out of context for rhetorical purposes?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm just wondering why you're using the Declaration of Independence as a source for the laws of our country, what they were and what they should be.
Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a lein on the life and liberty of others.
The US Constitution is a much more valid document in that area, both on what was intended to be, what is, and what should be the laws of our land.
quote:I used it because it's one of the more basic building blocks of other recognized rights. Wiki lists a handful of folks who borrowed from Locke's original "life, liberty, and property".
I'm just wondering why you're using the Declaration of Independence as a source...
Wow.
quote:Do you understand that rights are rights? That the issue of whether a right is guaranteed is not the same thing as whether it exists?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Yeah but, it has the same legal significance as "Common Sense" or "On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms," or "The Federalist Papers."
It's great historically for getting an idea on what the Founders and others were thinking at the time, but there are no actual guarantees or rights there.
quote:Do you understand that there is no universal agreement as to what those rights are and no logical objective way to ascertain what is a right and what is not?
Do you understand that rights are rights? That the issue of whether a right is guaranteed is not the same thing as whether it exists?
quote:McCain erases Obama lead
About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.
quote:I think that most likely reflects the passions of the moment. Obama is in the lead I think most of his supporters are feeling pretty confident that he will win.
While I think a lot of these people will wind up voting democrat anyway, I think it's interesting that more Clintonites would defect than Obamacans.
quote:Talk about a way to bias a poll. Imbedded in that article you linked reporting that McCain has erased Obama's lead, there is a poll asking "Who do you think will win the Presidential election?"
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:McCain erases Obama lead
About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.
quote:I don't know if that is the proper method but I fully agree that Congress needs to be held accountable to the American people. And while we are at it, lets not stop at the legislative branch. This administration has demonstrated time and again that they have no respect for the people or the laws they were elected to execute. The American people have a right to know whether or not our President is obeying the laws. We have a right to know who is advising the President and Vice President. We should be able to expect that our rights to privacy will be respected. We should be able to expect that the American ideals of justice, freedom and human rights won't be thrown aside willy nilly at the first sign of danger.
My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen. The General Accounting Office should have full police powers over Congress. The should have the power to investigate, subpoena, and arrest members of Congress for corruption and malfeasance. I'm convinced Congress can not keep its own house in order, we need a full independent outside force with full independent legal authority to hold Congressional member toes to the fire, and hold them fully criminally responsible for their actions.
quote:That sounds like a good idea. Except:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen.
quote:If I'm not mistaken, Lisa and I may have just agreed on something.
Originally posted by Lisa:
That sounds like a good idea. Except:
- Why only Congress? Why not over the Executive as well. God knows they can't seem to be trusted either.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
quote:This is a great example, IMO, of missing the point. The problem isn't that Obama insinuated people in economically depressed small towns were bitter, or insecure (in Bill Clinton's "comparable" quote above). It's that he connected that with "cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Some thoughts on the subject...
quote:I think it's occasionally a rational, thoughtful process that's nonetheless born out of bitterness. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending otherwise.
The insinuation is that a belief in gun rights, or religion, or tighter immigration control or economic isolationism is born out of bitterness rather than a rational, thoughtful process.
quote:No, there's not. They just want to think there is.
Hard as it may be for some of you to understand, there is a line between religion and all the other crap rednecks love.
quote:That's pretty funny. Hillary really is shameless.
Laughing, the Illinois senator noted Clinton seemed much more interested in guns since he made his comments than she had been in the past. On Saturday, the former first lady reminisced about learning to shoot on summer vacations in Scranton, where her father grew up.
"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said.
Clinton has told campaign audiences that she supports the rights of hunters. She's also said she once shot a duck in Arkansas, where she served as first lady.
quote:I'd like to think Obama would a) not claim that all religious sentiment is a direct result of bitterness (which is certainly not what he said, by the way); b) admit that there was a component of bitterness in what drove him, personally, to religion.
Nice. Edit: Too bad Obama is one of your religious hypocrites
quote:Which is exactly the type of urban, educated elitism that I find so irritating about progressives.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think it's occasionally a rational, thoughtful process that's nonetheless born out of bitterness. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending otherwise.
quote:
If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns.
quote:If he saw the complexity of the issue and simply addressed it awkwardly, he could have clarified when given the opportunity. But the fact that when offered the opportunity he chose to say "Sorry if I offended anyone" rather than "I understand people come to these beliefs out of more than bitterness, but I believe people's bitterness contributes to the stridency of these beliefs," leads me to believe that rather than seeing rural poverty, and Main Street America issues in general, as a complex issue, he sees it all too simply. As, I think, most progressives do (cf, TomD).
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Who do we really think has more disdain for the American people, one who tries to address complicated issues honestly and sometimes awkwardly, or the one who is consistantly trying to fool us?
quote:I think it is difficult trying to figure out which, if any, candidate is which in your example
Who do we really think has more disdain for the American people, one who tries to address complicated issues honestly and sometimes awkwardly, or the one who is consistantly trying to fool us?
quote:Which is exactly the kind of southern backward thinking elitism that I find so irritating about anti-intellectuals.
Which is exactly the type of urban, educated elitism that I find so irritating about progressives.
I know it's no Lexington or Concord, but I think we can all agree that Massachusetts is better than Kansas.
quote:Im sorry I left my gibberish dictionary at home.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Obama is an elitist of the left-wing type. You can't possibly disagree with him honestly. No, it must be because you're embittered or somehow warped.
And Hillary is a liar. A fairly poor one, at that.
Personally, if we're going to have a liar in the White House, I'd prefer it to be someone who isn't very good at it. That's a point in favor of Hillary.
But I'd rather have someone like Ron Paul, who won't lie, and isn't the worst of the left like Obama.
quote:Actually, I made a limited statement for simplicity. In my vision the GOA (General Accounting Office) would have police powers over all departments of government, elected and non-elected, in all matters regarding expenditures. Any branch or department of government, like the Dept of Agriculture, would be fiscally and legally held responsible for the misappropriation or misapplication of government (meaning people's) funds.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:That sounds like a good idea. Except:
Originally posted by BlueWizard:
My personal belief is that the next President should create a new Constitutional branch of government. A branch that has the same power over Congress that the IRS has over the average citizen.
- Why only Congress? Why not over the Executive as well. God knows they can't seem to be trusted either.
- It wouldn't be a Constitutional branch of government unless it's in the Constitution. Which means an amendment. Which isn't to say it it's not a good idea. The more I think about it, the more I think it's a great idea. But it would have to be an amendment to the Constitution. Maybe we here at Hatrack could put our heads together and come up with appropriate language. And then send it to our Representatives and try and get it passed.
- A branch with powers like that is would be a recipe for tyranny unless there were checks and balances on it as well. I'm not backtracking on saying that it's a nifty idea, but it would definitely require there to be some weakness in it to make it safe. Maybe let the judiciary appoint and unappointed members?
quote:I'll be interested to see if there is more of this kind of response in the days to come from columnists and letter-writers in Pennsylvania papers.
What's offensive to me is suggesting that small-town, working-class, gun-toting and/or religious Pennsylvanians are somehow injured by a politician's words.
Are you kidding me?
They're injured all right, but the injury is long-term and from lots more than "just words."
They've been injured from decades of neglect by political cultures in Washington and Harrisburg driven by special interests.
They're injured by a system of isolated, insulated political leadership that protects itself and the status quo above all else.
They've been harmed by a lack of political guts to fix a health-care system that works against the poor and forces middle-class families to pay more for less, while at the same time giving politicians the best coverage taxpayer money can buy.
They've been taken for granted by political parties and candidates who stay in power by - and this was the apparent gist of Obama's remarks - forcing attention and debate on issues tied to guns, religion and race (precisely because such issues resonate) rather than real problems such as health care and the economy.
quote:Since when does an author need to have his book with him to remember the details?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Im sorry I left my gibberish dictionary at home.
quote:I agree, mostly, with what you wrote. The problem isn't intellectualism; it's elitist intellectualism. Similarly, I see a problem with elitist experientialism, espousing the idea that if you've never been hunting you can't speak about gun rights. Its the elitism (pride, if you will) that is the problem.
Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Which is exactly the kind of southern backward thinking elitism that I find so irritating about anti-intellectuals.
Which is exactly the type of urban, educated elitism that I find so irritating about progressives.
quote:Cambridge is a nice place to visit, but, well, you know.
Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
Something wrong with Cambridge, Senoj?
quote:For the record, I can relate to the alienation. I moved from the bible belt of Southwest Virginia--so it's been a big adjustment living in Cambridge.
Honestly, I've felt very alienated living in eastern MA. I identify much more with people from NH. Heresy, I know.
quote:How is that any different from automatically correlating "elitist intellectualism" with "urban"?
P.S.- You probably shouldn't automatically correlate "anti-intellectualism" with "Southern." I've met many intellectual elitists from the South and many experiential elitists from the North East.
quote:<laugh> You made me spit my drink.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Since when does an author need to have his book with him to remember the details?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Im sorry I left my gibberish dictionary at home.
quote:This gives us a pretty good statistic: 56% of Americans are not honest with themselves.
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"
quote:It's probably not; we all have our own prejudices to overcome. I used "urban" as shorthand for a set of beliefs that is certainly not specific, and only weakly correlated, to people living in urban areas. I apologize.
Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:How is that any different from automatically correlating "elitist intellectualism" with "urban"?
P.S.- You probably shouldn't automatically correlate "anti-intellectualism" with "Southern." I've met many intellectual elitists from the South and many experiential elitists from the North East.
quote:I think the statement is ambiguous, and interpreting the results as you are is unfair.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This gives us a pretty good statistic: 56% of Americans are not honest with themselves.
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"
quote:The thing giving this story legs is the deep suspicion that Obama is less like the image he wants to project and more like Tom.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:This gives us a pretty good statistic: 56% of Americans are not honest with themselves.
"Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns 'cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'"
quote:I think that's almost as bad as the caricature of what he's saying. It's essentially saying that they really don't care about those issues. Even the description of "knee-jerk issues" betrays this attitude.
The speech was about how those people aren't stupid. They knew that politicians weren't going to help them economically so they didn't vote based on economic issues. Instead they focused on issues close to home, and some of them became bitter and clung too hard to their religion, guns, and anti-immigrant stances because they were easier, they were cut and dried, and because politicians kept tossing them knee-jerk issues to vote on rather than address the larger issues.
quote:Clinton's statement is just as bad as Obama's in that regard.
Bill Clinton said essentially the same thing. So did McCain, back in the day.
quote:So that provides enough evidence to say "you hold your beliefs on these unrelated issues because you're bitter"? Not because one has strong faith or believes in the rights of citizens to arm themselves?
Religious attendence, gun ownership/defense, and anti-immigration sentiment are stronger in poorer areas.
quote:
Are working people bitter? There’s no doubt that many are extremely bitter over the economic hand they’ve been dealt. Those who believed that America’s industrial heartland was secure and everlasting have been forced to adjust over the past several years to an extremely bitter reality. Jobs and pensions have vanished. The value of the family home is sinking. Health care is increasingly unaffordable. For many, the cost of college is out of reach.
But “bitter” has a connotation that is generally not helpful in a political campaign. Bitter suggests powerlessness and a smallness of spirit. Most people would prefer to be characterized as “angry” — a term that suggests empowerment — rather than “bitter,” with its undertone of defeat.
quote:I didn't say "only." I also didn't say "anyone." I'm sure Obama thinks there are some people who holds those beliefs sincerely.
No, because at no point has he ever said that the only reason anyone would hold those beliefs is from bitterness. At no point. Yet that's how it's being parsed.
quote:Of the three things mentioned, only "trying to legislate religion" is problematic. So I'm not sure why that makes it any better to say that he meant three things are caused by bitterness, two of which are pretty ordinary and desirable activities.
I think when he says religion he means taking religion into the public square. He means voting on religion, trying to legislate religion.
quote:Can you point to what he said that makes you think that? Because, if that's what he said, I would have thought it would have been picked up on more vocally.
He means people who vote in such a way as to attempt to foist their religious beliefs on everyone else.
quote:Then again, if we can't afford to give even this simple charity to those who appear to be speaking/acting in good faith, how poor are we as a citizenry?
Originally posted by pooka:
That's because these people he's trying to describe kind of like the "One nation under God" thing. Obama, not so much.
If it takes a charitable read of something for you to get the meaning, chances are you shouldn't have said it.
Now I appreciate that I have had a few things come out wrong in my day, but denying it and insisting that everyone else needs to change isn't going to really help me or anyone else.
quote:That's like when Mormons want people to tolerate our "intolerance." If he was trying to use "religion" as a code for "family values", shame on him. Shame on me for taking him too literally. By the coded reading, we go back to my earlier statement that he has gone negative on certain voters.
Then again, if we can't afford to give even this simple charity to those who appear to be speaking/acting in good faith, how poor are we as a citizenry?
quote:No but you did say -
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I didn't say "only." I also didn't say "anyone." I'm sure Obama thinks there are some people who holds those beliefs sincerely.
No, because at no point has he ever said that the only reason anyone would hold those beliefs is from bitterness. At no point. Yet that's how it's being parsed.
I don't think there has to be an "only" or an "anyone" in there for the statement to be worthy of criticism.
quote:You should address this at the person to whom I was responding and who said:
No but you did say -
"It's the oversimplification that the bitterness/anger is what leads people to care deeply about certain issues I find problematic."
Which is a hopelessly misguided and seemingly self-serving interpretation of what Obama said. Though, you are certainly free to hold on to your opinion.
quote:
What I'm missing is why it's bad. Many people are bitter about how the promises of campaigning politicians never translate to actual economic help in many cases. People in stress do tend to become more focused on their local communities. Religious attendence, gun ownership/defense, and anti-immigration sentiment are stronger in poorer areas. You don't need numbers; drive through any city, any city, and count the number of churches in different areas per economic capita.
quote:The "coded" reading is him saying "religion" and meaning gay marriage, school prayer, science curricula and a bunch of stuff like that (the old contract with America/family values stuff). I thought when he said religion, he meant religion, which I thought was a very awkward thing for him to discuss.
Originally posted by Bokonon:
Which way is the coded reading? I'm not clear on what you mean, pooka.
-Bok
quote:Everything you say after this sounds unfair, unreasonable, very self-serving, and hysterical.
Now, let's look at what Obama said in a fair, reasonable, and unself-serving unhysterical perspective.
quote:To blame 'the rich' for an individuals economic troubles is just wrong. There is nothing stopping anyone from making more money...except themselves. Some people will have to work harder and will have to make a bigger sacrifice but you can earn more if you really want to. Most people don't want to take the risk and do the work required. You have power over your own finances. You have the power to change your life. The rich cannot and will not stop you. Why would they?
Hark working citizens have been screwed so often by failed self-serving economic policy that there really isn't much point in addressing that issue. The economy is controlled by the rich for the rich, and what should 'trickle down', never does. The rich get rich and the poor get screwed. Despite the polls indicating that the economy is a major issue with voters. They know they are powerless to affect it or control it.
quote:Once again: I haven't said "only." That is intentional.
I have not suggested that the only reason people would turn to religion is out of bitterness. But that seems to be what you're taking offense at.
quote:You made a correlation - you did it again right above ("The numbers of churches rise as the local income falls.") That's a correlation. Moreover, you've strongly implied causation:
Note that I am not even suggesting correlation between them, just observing them.
quote:Both these statements suggest causation (by the use of "instead" implying a choice to focus on something else), let alone correlation.
They knew that politicians weren't going to help them economically so they didn't vote based on economic issues. Instead they focused on issues close to home, and some of them became bitter and clung too hard to their religion, guns, and anti-immigrant stances because they were easier, they were cut and dried, and because politicians kept tossing them knee-jerk issues to vote on rather than address the larger issues.
...Some people do pay more attention to religious arguments or gun control or anti-immigration issues instead of, say, the American economy or the war in Iraq or the way the executive branch is trying to become 2/3 of the government because those are issues the people feel they can actually do something about.
quote:There are at least two ways to take this. One of the ways is consistent with Tom's whole string of commentary on this topic. This is one form of a very common accusation made by a certain set of people, many of whom are closely aligned with Obama. There was a whole book about Kansas that came to much the same conclusion. I don't blame someone for choosing that interpretation of it when Obama has purposely aligned himself with the political agenda associated with that view.
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
quote:
Clinton has polled at 55, 53, 56 and 54 percent in the SurveyUSA polls, while Obama has polled 36, 41, 38 and 40 percent. However, the contest remains tight in Southeast Pennsylvania, which includes Philadelphia. The poll also found that Obama gained ground among Democrats who attend religious services regularly.
quote:I've read several comments from Obama including the context from the original quote. It seems quite clear to me that what he was saying is that its difficult to get some working class people excited about his political message because they have been let down so many times on issues like jobs and medical care that they have become cynical and bitter about broken promises. As a result they vote on other issues that are important to them like gun rights or moral issues not because they care more about gun rights than they do about medical care but because they are cynical that politicians will actually do anything about jobs and medical care.
The problem is our politics doesn’t let the American people get heard. People know that it’s not easy solving some of these problems but they want to feel like at least someone is fighting for them.
It’s interesting. Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter.
They are angry.
They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they’re going through.
So I said well you know when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.
And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about how things are changing.
That’s a natural response.
And now I didn’t say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That’s what sustains us
But what is absolutely true is that people don’t feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives. What we need is a government that is actually paying attention. A government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream. And that’s what this campaign is about.
quote:(this is similar to what I said Obama should do earlier in the thread, but Herbert says it better.
If I were advising him, I would tell him to confront the matter head-on, meeting as often as possible with skeptical, and even hostile, working people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Let the questions rip, and answer them honestly.
No one has an obligation to vote for Mr. Obama, and it’s certainly not racist to vote against him. But the senator can make it clear that it is wrong to dismiss a candidacy out of hand solely because of the race or ethnicity or gender of the candidate.
One of Mr. Obama’s strongest points early in this campaign was his capacity to make people feel good about their country again. If I were him, I’d try to re-ignite that flame.
)
quote:The book is titled, "What's The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won The Heart of America." By Thomas Frank. It's an interesting book, so long as you realize you are reading from an author with a strong liberal bias.
There was a whole book about Kansas that came to much the same conclusion.
quote:You state these things as facts, when in reality they are merely opinions.
To blame 'the rich' for an individuals economic troubles is just wrong. There is nothing stopping anyone from making more money...except themselves.
quote:In some cases, this is not even a valid opinion it is factually incorrect.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You state these things as facts, when in reality they are merely opinions.
To blame 'the rich' for an individuals economic troubles is just wrong. There is nothing stopping anyone from making more money...except themselves.
quote:You act like the rich are wrongly accused of something they do everyday, namely exercise enormous power and influence over the economy and politics.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
*what everyone else is taking issue with*
quote:If the media was paying more attention, there might be more discussion of the reaction to the comments Davis made at the fundraiser:
Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) has apologized for using the word “boy” to describe Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at a Republican fundraiser Saturday night in Kentucky.
"I’m gonna tell you something. That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said, according to an audio recording of the event that was obtained by The Hill. The lawmaker told the crowd that he participated in “closed, highly classified national security simulations” with Obama.
quote:A bunch of big money Republicans in the south hear Obama referred to as "that boy" and applaud. To me, that's more noteworthy than the comment itself.
The comment, which was first reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader’s blog Pol Watchers, was met by laughter and applause.
quote:The issue, of course, doesn't have anything to do with "impugning" Obama or his "integrity." If that's all he'd done, it wouldn't be news. Dems are doing that to McCain and Republicans are doing it to both Clinton and Obama.
In the written apology to Obama, which he personally delivered to his Senate office, Davis wrote “my poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity. I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness.”
quote:I didn't know that -- I'd been wondering why, of all the words he might have used to denigrate Obama's judgment in that context, he chose "boy."
Originally posted by sndrake:
The issueis the use of the term "that boy" to refer to an African-American man just 3 years younger than himself. In a state where, not too long ago, this was accepted terminology for *any* white man (or child) to call a black man, no matter how old.
quote:
I’m gonna tell you something. That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button
quote:I'm sorry even if you over look the racist and condescending language, you end up with a statement which pretty much couldn't have been intended to do anything except "impugn" Obama and his "integrity"
my poor choice of words is regrettable and was in no way meant to impugn you or your integrity.
quote:A 49-year old was calling a 46-year-old black man a kid using "boy"?
Originally posted by AvidReader:
I think he was calling him a kid. "Boy" hasn't been common in my twenty-seven years, and we had parts of my county black folks just didn't go after dark. Many statements can be racist if you want them to be or not if you don't.
quote:That's where we disagree. Yes boy gets used in lots of context, most of them referring to male children. Sometimes people even use it as and exclamation "oh boy!". However, when it is applied to an adult male (which has become rare) it is, in my experience, almost always a racist remark.
It's a common word that hasn't been a default racist term for African-American men during the last quarter century.
quote:http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3f1c46a6-a691-4084-b04f-10880727e928
It has been sickening over the years to watch Republicans, who always rally to the aid of the country's wealthiest citizens, successfully cast themselves as pork-rind-eating, NASCAR-watching, gun-toting populists. To have the current White House occupant (Yale, Harvard Business School, son of a president) run as a good old boy should have been the final straw.
But here are the two remaining Democratic candidates, Obama by speaking carelessly and Clinton by piling on shamelessly, doing all they can to make it easy for Republicans to pretend one more time that they are the salt of the earth.
quote:Elite is a good thing; elitist is not.
Originally posted by scholarette:
I have to agree with Jon Stewart- elite should be a good thing. Shouldn't we want our president to be smarter and better educated than the rest of us?
quote:
The freshest fruits of bittergate: Obama is a Marxist! Opiate of the masses, yadda yadda.
quote:It's actually not that surprising. The right has been spinning Obama as a communist ever since Super Tuesday.
Originally posted by pooka:
If he's lucky, conservatives don't draw the connection between this remark and "religion is the opiate of the people".
quote:For what it's worth, I wouldn't have blinked at this.
Once during the early primary season, when Obama was just breaking through in some of the states, I remarked to her "I hear your boy did well last night."
quote:There's a video link embedded on the blog. I haven't watched it all, but the stuff I've seen is pretty funny.
“Everybody knows you and your husband are elitists,” Mr. Colbert said right off the bat. “Tell me about your elite upbringing on the South Side of Chicago. How many silver spoons in your mouth?”
“We had four spoons,” deadpanned Mrs. Obama during her late night talk show debut.
She added: “And then my father got a raise at the plant, and we had five spoons.”
“That sounds posh,” replied Mr. Colbert.
quote:
ABC News' Jan Simmonds Reports: While most of the political world has been focused on controversy surrounding Barack Obama's "bitter" comments, there has also been another scandal brewing in the political kitchen.
A savvy New York Attorney noted and cited a report on the Huffington Post website yesterday that a batch of recipes listed on John McCain's campaign website, under the headline "McCain Family Recipes", were actually taken word for word from the website of the Food Network.
The recipes in question – including Ahi Tuna with Napa Cabbage Slaw, Passion Fruit Mousse, and Farfalle Pasta with Turkey Sausage, Peas and Mushrooms — were all credited on the website to McCain's wife Cindy. Another recipe also appears to be very similar to a recipe of TV personality and chef Rachael Ray.
quote:I should have made it clear that I just consider it amusing.
Oh, I think the recipe thing is fine. "Family Recipes" to me means recipes the family loves, not that the family invented.
Credit should be given, but I don't consider it plagiarism.
quote:It certainly is plagiarism if the recipes were quoted word for word from another source that was not cited. That is virtually the definition of plagiarism.
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, I think the recipe thing is fine. "Family Recipes" to me means recipes the family loves, not that the family invented.
Credit should be given, but I don't consider it plagiarism.
quote:If they weren't credited, then it is plagiarism, pretty much by definition -- using someone else's work without giving proper credit. Even if they were properly credited, it's likely a copyright violation. But also probably not the candidate's fault. Although if Mrs. McCain was asked for her favorite recipes she should have told the staff person she gave them to that they were word-for-word off a published site. It may have come as a surprise to the person responsible for putting them on the campaign website that they weren't original (or at least modified.)
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, I think the recipe thing is fine. "Family Recipes" to me means recipes the family loves, not that the family invented.
Credit should be given, but I don't consider it plagiarism.
quote:Exactly. I think it was probably a campaign staff member, if anything. I don't have a problem with McCain seeming like a regular guy - to the degree we want a regular guy to have experience and achievements running for president.
makes me question whether Cindy McCain has ever even cooked them
quote:I'm pretty sure that term should only be applied to someone who knowingly has an affair with a married person, who then gets a divorce and marries the homewrecker. I've also heard it applied to both men and women, though usually with an ironic flavor for men.
There was a time that I saw Cindy as somewhat of a homewrecker (though I deplore the fact that that is a label applied to a second wife and not a remarrying man).
quote:I've always just seen it as a judgment against those who knowingly chase married people. However, your interpretation may well be closer to the term's original context, in which case I think your reaction is justified.
To me the term "homewrecker" (which is almost always applied to women), implies that men can't resist the wiles of a willing seductive woman so its not his fault its hers.
quote:Sorry you had to see that.
Call it plagiarized passion fruit mousse. Or a farfalle fake. Or maybe stolen slaw. Just don't call it a McCain family recipe!
quote:These are really, really excellent ads.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Also fan made ads for Obama. Made by professional film makers with donations. They're really good. The college one is my favorite I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAImJdNUzoc (college)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbOUHM8pd34&feature=related (housing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf0S_Pb_TKA&feature=related (immigration)
quote:The staffer was probably trying to make them sound like regular folks from Hawaii, where passion fruit grow like weeds and Ahi is a staple.
Originally posted by dkw:
And if the idea was to make them sound like "regular folks" why on earth would you pick recipes like Ahi Tuna and Passion Fruit Mousse?
This goes in my "What in the world was s/he thinking?!?" file.
quote:I suspect we're hitting the bottom of Clinton's base. There are, after all, a number of middle-aged women who have waited their whole lives to vote for a woman and aren't going to pass up this opportunity just because she's a big ol' ball of evil.
One thing that seems clear to me is that Obama's upward curve has flattened in the last week, and so has Clinton's decline.
quote:I read the same article (mighta been from here), I kinda want him to just give in and pay up. Yeah, it's a political machine of sorts, but the people getting the money are the people on the streets doing the work. And they need the money. It's not like it's going a few big politicians, it's going to a ton of campaign workers who give up their time to help get up the vote. Hell, if he'd pay me to drive people to the polls for him I'd love it. I mean I'd still do it voluntarily, but I don't see anything wrong with sending the volunteers some money for their efforts, if he has it to spare.
I was reading an article yesterday about how Obama turnout in Philly might be depressed because Obama refuses to grease some palms there with cash. It's a very old political machine that doles out cash to street walkers rather than relying on volunteers like most of Obama's campaign does, and though they want to support him...they want the cash more. Clinton will likely swoop in with the dollars they want and get their get out the vote support.
quote:Dead link.
Originally posted by Alcon:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/03/05/the_barack_i_knew
A profile of Barack Obama written by a dedicated conservative who knew him back in his Harvard Law Review days. She has a lot of good things to say about him.
quote:Live blogging last night's debate by Talking Points Memo staff.
7:59 PM ... Can we expect the candidates to bring any blue collar props on stage? A bowling ball? Maybe a shot glass?
8:02 PM ... No blue collar props. Maybe they're packing heat.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
ABC's Democratic debate: what the hell was that?
Hey, moderators? I don't give a crap about Rev. Wright, Bosnia, lapel pins, voter bitterness or any of the other meaningless drivel you focused on for the first 45 minutes. Those questions have been answered and answered ad nauseum already. How about the war on terror, or foreign policy, or torture? How about education, or the environment, or our rising debt, or the recession? Ooh, how about health care?
Obama did not do well. Not bad on Bitter-gate and he had the better closing words, I thought. But mostly he looked tired and worn, and he stumbled a few times. Probably to be expected when he has to defend himself against his opponent and both moderators, but that's not an excuse. He'll face much worse than that later. (By the end the audience was heckling Charlie Gibson!)
Mostly what this "debate" did was demonstrate exactly the sort of media idiocy that I cannot stand. Silly enough that Stephanopolous (former Clinton staffer) was one of the moderators, but an entire evening of gotcha questions apparently designed to trip up a candidate and get a good gaffe sound byte just pisses me off. I wanted substance. I got mean-spirited cotten candy.
quote:These comments make me glad I slept through it.
TPM Reader KB checks in: "Josh, ABC's News' posture tonight makes perfect sense. Don't you get it? In GOP primary debates the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax. In Democratic primary debates, by contrast, the media inquisitors take on the role of the true conservative pressing candidates to clearly and unequivocally state their answers on hot button social issues and economic talismans like the capital gains tax."
Why can't real issues be the focus of debates?
quote:I thought it was interesting he calls her HRC. Is that because he does or does not like her?
Also, Robert Reich comments on the 'bitter' statements -- though apparently misses the point.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-bitterness-meet-press-and-old.html
Robert Reich was secretary of labor under Clinton and is now a Prof at UC Berkley.
quote:I don't see how that is "mathematically impossible*." The adjective "mathematically" is usually used in these situations to indicate that even if the most unlikely thing were to happen, the result at issue would not occur.
I guess it depends on one's definition of mathematically. It could easily be read to mean "short of a movement among superdelegates to go against the preference of the public as measured in primaries and caucuses."
quote:That's pretty much my point.
It is not impossible, but it is highly improbable.
quote:Are you saying she's mathematically in the closet?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
She's not mathematically out.
quote:No, she's not.
Mathematically, she is out.
quote:She has to win 63% of the total remaining vote to pull ahead. There's only once place she's done that: Arkansas. And even after 'bitter-gate' Obama's only about 10 points down in Penn and is ahead in NC and Indiana.
Even a moderate scandal could easily send enough uncommitted votes over to Clinton for her to win the nomination.
quote:I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Originally posted by katharina:
Mathematically, she is out.
quote:This is precisely my point. There is a scenario, which can be mathematically described, in which she is not out.
She would have to win every single one of the remaining primaries by about 23 points in order to draw even with Obama.
quote:None of which I have argued with at all. I probably disagree about the extent of the scandal necessary, but that's an entirely different point.
Does anyone think she will? That it's probable? Likely? A possibility?
quote:Well I have heard the accusation, but generally only in the kind of supermarket tabloids that report the birth of quintuplets fathered by alien invaders.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Are you saying she's mathematically in the closet?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
She's not mathematically out.
quote:Obama gave the standard Democrat response of 'fairness' and more or less the evil rich getting richer and that's not 'fair'. But then I was even more stunned when Gibson followed up with
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
quote:
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
quote:Please. First, you don't get to determine the context. The context was your using Clinton's chances of winning the nomination as a way to speculate on the motives of reporters for their "coddling" of her.
Dag, don't get all legalistic on me. It is inappropriate for the context and you look hostile. Knock it off.
quote:It's not legalistic wrangling.
There are times and places for legalistic wrangling. This isn't one of them. Doing so is inappropriate.
quote:I wanted to correct an erroneous use of "mathematically out" in a context where it mattered to the substance of the discussion.
If you wanted to discuss the possible motives of reporters, then recasting a phrase and rigidly parsing it was a poor way of doing it.
quote:Really? When Mitt Romney dropped out, was that a betrayal? Did Edwards betray his supporters when he dropped out earlier?
Dropping out of the race while she still has a mathematical possibility of winning the pledged-delegate count would be a betrayal of her supporters.
quote:So is it your opinion that all the republican candidates who dropped before McCain had the mathematical magic number of delegates (Romney, Huckabee, Guilliani . . .) were undermining the democratic process and telling voters across the nation that their opinions didn't matter.
The far greater risk is damage to the democratic process itself by dropping out before the fat lady sings. Dropping out before obtaining a mathematical certainty that a candidate has won the majority the pledged-delegates would effectively be telling the voters of Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, NorthCarolina, WestVirgiania, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Kentucky, Oregon, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, PuertoRico, Montana, SouthDakota, Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska that their opinions don't matter.
quote:But that's what happens in the vast majority of the primaries. If this is damaging to the democratic process, then the damage has already been done many times over.
Originally posted by aspectre:
The far greater risk is damage to the democratic process itself by dropping out before the fat lady sings. Dropping out before obtaining a mathematical certainty that a single candidate has won the majority of pledged-delegates would effectively be telling the voters of Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, NorthCarolina, WestVirgiania, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Kentucky, Oregon, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, PuertoRico, Montana, SouthDakota, Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska that their opinions don't matter.
quote:Isn't that what he did? I thought he stayed in until McCain had the majority needed to secure the nomination. Or was it like the difference between pledged and bound delegates you brought up in the previous post?
Huckabee should have stayed in until McCain had won that majority in the Republican race for delegates.
quote:That is questionable. Her unpaid bills and outstanding debts (to herself and others) exceed her cash on hand. But still I understand your points.
Hillary has neither problem: her financial support remains firm
quote:While I agree with you Rabbit I still can't help but notice that at least from her perspective, the only time she successfully dented Obama's almost meteoric rise in the polls was when she attacked his experience in the debates and put out the 3'AM ad. Polling data seems to show that that worked to her advantage, and so it seems she feels the only avenue for victory since she, "never quits" is to continue throwing attacks at Obama until enough sticks.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:That is questionable. Her unpaid bills and outstanding debts (to herself and others) exceed her cash on hand. But still I understand your points.
Hillary has neither problem: her financial support remains firm
None the less, that still doesn't address my final concern. She could have chosen to stay in the race but to run in a way that would have built support for the democratic party as a whole. As it is she is repeatedly taking sides with McCain over Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race without turning to underhanded attacks against Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race but use that as a platform to emphasize the important issues that unite all democrats instead of trying to divide the party.
But she knows she can't make up her deficit without dragging Obama and the democratic party through the mud so shes chosen to do that. If she hadn't done that, I wouldn't have any problem with her staying in the race. She is choosing to do everything she can to win even if that means destroying the democrats chance at the presidency.
quote:Unless your friends are scientist, engineers and mathematicians.
Good enough for a friendly conversation.
quote:You don't have to keep defending your word choice any more than Hillary has to keep attacking Obama. If you simply conceded that mathematically may not have been the best word to express your meaning -- then it would be over. As long as you keep insisting that mathematically means what you choose it to mean, others will continue to argue that this is not the generally accepted definition.
Obviously, because people keep bringing it up.
quote:Oh I think its well outside the 95% confidence level. At least for winning the popular vote. She would have to win every remaining contest by a significantly larger margin than she has won any contest to date.
Originally posted by fugu13:
I wouldn't even call her statistically out. I don't think its at a 95% confidence at all. Maybe 90%, but barely that.
quote:I was going to say exactly what Threads did earlier, but my browser crashed. The folks piling on katharina here are like the people who have a tantrum when somebody uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively": they may be technically correct, but their complaint is so trivial that it doesn't add anything to the conversation and mostly just gets on people's nerves.
Originally posted by Threads:
I think the usage of absolute descriptions in places where they don't technically apply has become common enough that Kat's usage could be described as idiomatic.
quote:Let's be clear: there was no piling on of kat.
The folks piling on katharina here are like the people who have a tantrum when somebody uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively"
quote:Except I didn't refute what you said. I didn't try to refute what you said. In point of fact, the only comment I made about it was that Clinton is not mathematically out.
The only way to not know would be to ignore the rest of the conversation and/or assume the worst about me and then focus on the wrong part of my statement as a way to refute what I might be saying.
quote:In other words, you got the word wrong, corrected it on the same page ("mathematically highly improbable and would take an absolute miracle"), then decided to retract the correction later. Bummer. Not my fault, though. At least I'm nice enough not to order you about and speculate on your motives for doing so.
In other words, you got the social cues wrong. Sorry about that and bummer for you, but not my fault.
quote:I'm stunned by two things there. 1. The fact that Gibson is asking a dishonest question, and 2. That Obama failed to call him on it.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I was stunned when Charlie Gibson asked
quote:Obama gave the standard Democrat response of 'fairness' and more or less the evil rich getting richer and that's not 'fair'. But then I was even more stunned when Gibson followed up with
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?quote:
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
quote:Which he doesn't yet. Link.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
before McCain had the mathematical magic number of delegates
quote:According to the Washington Post, McCain exceeded the number of pledged delegates needed a while back.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Which he doesn't yet. Link.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
before McCain had the mathematical magic number of delegates
quote:Absolutely. But what the number I calculated tells you is that for Hillary Clinton to win there has to be some big event that causes a major shift in the way people view the candidates. You were likely correct when you said that the probability of this happening is beyond mathematics.
Rabbit: the question isn't the probability of a large number of independent events (not that state primaries are anywhere near independent). One big enough scandal is all it takes. The probabilities you are hypothesizing on by contest are all conditional on the revelations that come out about the candidates.
quote:Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
quote:Wow. Total burn at 1:16
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Obama had a few things to say about the debate today...
If he can get this out enough, the debate could turn into a big plus for him.
quote:Really, I'm glad to hear you're leaning Obama. I seem to remember posts earlier in this thread in which you were ripping Obama a new one (a number of times) and in which you expressed preference for Clinton over Obama. I don't really care enough to go dig em up. As for the latter, eh, it's possible that my bias makes me inflate his chances. But I still think you're inflating Clinton's.
Alcon: I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm not an Obama supporter either (or a McCain supporter). I'm slightly more inclined to vote for Obama than I am to vote for anyone else, at the moment.
Considering I have made not a single statement in the discussion of likelihoods supporting Clinton, your statement is an excellent signifier, I think, at what is really driving the urge to underestimate her chances: the overestimation of the chances of the choice one prefers. This is one of the most common biases in statistical thinking.
quote:I think you missed the important part of that link, which is that Ron Paul is currently in second place.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:According to the Washington Post, McCain exceeded the number of pledged delegates needed a while back.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Which he doesn't yet. Link.
quote:You mean unless the Republican machine has found something that the Clinton machine has not.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Rabbit:quote:Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
quote:Indeed. I definitely think that if there was a skeleton in Obama's closet it would have been found by now, and if he secures the nomination I think the Republicans are going to have to focus on misstatements he makes rather then past sins.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You mean unless the Republican machine has found something that the Clinton machine has not.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Rabbit:quote:Unless the Republican party machine has dredged one up in which case it would wait until Obama secures the nomination before leaking it.
However, I think if you looked at campaigns over the past century, you would find that the longer the campaign continues the less likely it becomes that big new revelations (including scandals) are going to happen. If Obama's got skeletons hidden in his closet, they must be very well hidden for them to have remained in the closet this long.
One aspect of this race that many have not considered thoroughly is that the length, rigor and rancor of the Democratic race is going to make it much harder for the Republicans to pull any surprises out of the hat. No matter which candidate emerges from the Democratic contest, it will be a candidate that has already stood up to public scrutiny.
That's a double edged sword. Right now it means that the Dems are doing McCain's work for him, but come this fall it could work the other way. The Rev. Wright "scandal" for example would have worked much more in McCain's favor if it had broken in October (assuming Obama gets the nomination). The samething could be said about "Bosniagate" if Clinton gets the nomination.
quote:The wiki link lists Romney as "withdrawn", I thought he suspended his campaign. I don't remember whether Huckabee technically withdrew either. Does anyone have an update on that?
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:I think you missed the important part of that link, which is that Ron Paul is currently in second place.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:According to the Washington Post, McCain exceeded the number of pledged delegates needed a while back.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Which he doesn't yet. Link.
quote:I hope you don't consider that a plus for the republicans.
I also think the Republicans are more adept at dredging than the Clinton camp is.
quote:Certainly not.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I hope you don't consider that a plus for the republicans.
I also think the Republicans are more adept at dredging than the Clinton camp is.
quote:This is precisely what I mean.
I don't know if republicans are more adept at dredging or not but it does seem that (at least in recent decades) they have been more adept at capitalizing on what they find.
Its sort of astounding that during the last election the republicans were able to make the candidate who actually served and was decorated in vietnam look worse than the one who pulled strings to avoid service .
quote:I'm very curious about your use of the word we. Along with very large fraction of the American people, I voted against him in the last election.
Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
quote:It's not just you. When I was posting the part that BlackBlade quotes in the first half of his post, I accidently hit post before I'd finished. So I opened my post and added a couple of lines.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Is it just me, or is the order of the last two posts flipped? Black Blade quotes Rabbit's post, before Rabbit's post is posted... *is confused*
quote:I think this is part of why people are so disillusioned with politics. Almost half of the country voted against Bush and that doesn't mean anything. Letters to congressmen don't mean anything, protests don't change anything. Because we have a democracy, the country we have is our responsibility, but ultimately we have no power to change anything.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm very curious about your use of the word we. Along with very large fraction of the American people, I voted against him in the last election.
Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
quote:Therefore I clearly cannot choose the glass in front of you.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's not just you. When I was posting the part that BlackBlade quotes in the first half of his post, I accidently hit post before I'd finished. So I opened my post and added a couple of lines.
Originally posted by Alcon:
Is it just me, or is the order of the last two posts flipped? Black Blade quotes Rabbit's post, before Rabbit's post is posted... *is confused*
While I was doing that, I noted that BB had quoted the first part of my post and so in order to not make BBs post seem a bit strange, I re-edited my post and then added the last part in a second post. Evidently while I was doing that, BB read the first edit edition and edited his post to comment on that part.
quote:How embarrassing for them. I mean, lets count some of the problems with that page. One, it says that Ron Paul has withdrawn. Do I have to convince you that this is flat out untrue, or are you already aware of that? Next, what about the primaries in possessions? American Samoa, for example, where McCain actually did get 9 pledged delegates.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:According to the Washington Post, McCain exceeded the number of pledged delegates needed a while back.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Which he doesn't yet. Link.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
before McCain had the mathematical magic number of delegates
quote:What can Congress do, other than impeach him and remove him from office?
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Congress. The Supreme Court. The Supremes have done more than Congress in this regard, as they have ruled against the administration in several cases regarding trials for captured Gitmo prisoners.
Congress, for whatever reasons, has let President Bush expand his own power beyond the usual contraints of the presidency.
quote:Actually, I don't think we were quite that aware of it in 2004. But even had we been, I know that I probably would have voted for him anyway. Given that the alternative was Kerry, I still think it was the best of two evil choices. The fact that the Democrats picked a rotten candidate definitely had a lot to do with Bush's victory.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Ultimately, though? Us. We voted him back into office, knowing his tactics and values and indifference to checks and balances. And we re-elected congressmen and representatives who enabled him. We failed to get angry enough to make any kind of impact on our elected officials.
quote:True, that- for all three candidates. Good grief. Obama's pastor has said things from the pulpit some white voters might find disturbing? Hillary remembers a more dramatic entrance into Bosnia than may have actually happened? McCain might have had an affair with an intern, though no one has the wherewithal to do anything more than sneer suggestively at the idea?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
That's a big if. He has to get it out via the same people that caused the problem in the first place: The media. His message is that media coverage, like the debate, is not substantive and focuses on silly personal attacks and gaffes, but for that message to get out, it has to get out via the same people he's really attacking.
quote:You've failed to take into account the fact that unpledged delegates can, in fact, pledge themselves to a candidate, and the Post accounts for this by "interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences."
I couldn't find official word on all of these, but for the most part, it certainly looks like the Washington Post's page is ridiculously and incompetantly wrong.
quote:And yet, there are many delegates that the Post counted for McCain where delegates haven't even been selected yet. Again, I think they're trying to determine the nominee, and that's not their job.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You've failed to take into account the fact that unpledged delegates can, in fact, pledge themselves to a candidate, and the Post accounts for this by "interviewing unpledged delegates to obtain their preferences."
I couldn't find official word on all of these, but for the most part, it certainly looks like the Washington Post's page is ridiculously and incompetantly wrong.
Take Montana. It has three unelected delegates. We know who they are right now. And, it seems, they've all pledged support for McCain.
quote:I pointed out one area (Montana) where you claim that delegates haven't been selected but where, in actuality, 3 delegates have been selected.
And yet, there are many delegates that the Post counted for McCain where delegates haven't even been selected yet
quote:No, it's not. They factually defined how they made their determinations.
That's factually untrue
quote:And this is true this year as well, so let's pray Obama gets the nomination neh?
Most definitely. If there had been a Democratic candidate with an ounce of charisma he/she would have walked away with it.
quote:Dean?
Most definitely. If there had been a Democratic candidate with an ounce of charisma he/she would have walked away with it.
quote:It takes a lot of courage to jump off a cliff, too.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:Dean?
Most definitely. If there had been a Democratic candidate with an ounce of charisma he/she would have walked away with it.
I think it takes a lot of courage to vote for charisma. I'm not sure that the electorate is long on courage.
quote:I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I pointed out one area (Montana) where you claim that delegates haven't been selected but where, in actuality, 3 delegates have been selected.
And yet, there are many delegates that the Post counted for McCain where delegates haven't even been selected yet
quote:No, it's not. They factually defined how they made their determinations.
That's factually untrue
quote:Funny, I'm wondering the same about you. After all, you've already relied on a simplistic reading of the Montana official site and didn't realize that three delegates were selected.
I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
quote:Dagonee, did Ron Paul withdraw from the race? Yes or no.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Funny, I'm wondering the same about you. After all, you've already relied on a simplistic reading of the Montana official site and didn't realize that three delegates were selected.
I'm trying to figure out what your deal is here. Is it just that you can't bring yourself to accept that a newspaper like the Washington Post might fudge things for political reasons?
quote:
By tracking the same group throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo! News poll can gauge how individual views change. It suggests that Clinton has paid a price for hammering Obama since early February on several issues as she tries to overcome his lead in delegates and the popular vote. Among those Democrats who no longer consider her the more electable of the two, most now see her as less likable, decisive, strong, honest, experienced and ethical than they did in January.
quote:Nope.
Does McCain have 25 delegates from Michigan? Yes or no. If he does, can you explain why the GOP site in Michigan says he has 10?
quote:I've already answered the exact same question with respect to Montana. You've ignored that twice now. It was a simple explanation, one that took a two minute google search. And I found that explanation for the first state I looked for it in. I'm not going to engage in your research for you, especially considering that you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did.
Since the Nevada state convention hasn't happened yet, can you explain why the Post says McCain has 7 pledged delegates from Nevada?
quote:I haven't ignored the factual errors. You have, in fact, twice ignored the explanation of one of those so-called errors.
And why do you keep pointing to personal statements that the Post claims have been made (and which may or may not actually have been made, and which are not binding even if they were) and ignoring the factual errors on that page?
quote:Your answer makes no sense. Since Nevada hasn't selected its delegates, there are no delegates who the Post can claim have made personal pledges to McCain.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I've already answered the exact same question with respect to Montana. You've ignored that twice now. It was a simple explanation, one that took a two minute google search. And I found that explanation for the first state I looked for it in. I'm not going to engage in your research for you, especially considering that you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did.
Since the Nevada state convention hasn't happened yet, can you explain why the Post says McCain has 7 pledged delegates from Nevada?
quote:
Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, in a joint statement, throw their support to Obama -- giving him two high-profile southerners that are both key foreign policy voices in the Democratic Party.
Both will serve on Obama's national security team, giving the Obama camp an effective weapon against the Hillary campaign's claims that Obama has not passed the "commander in chief test."
quote:More...
LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.
We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?
LINCOLN: Sure I do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?
LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?
quote:
Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top?
. He was hilarious too by the way, they all were. quote:*giggle*
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you love America this much (extending fingers), this much (extending hands slightly), or thiiiiiis much (extending hands broadly)?
quote:It's tough. Both are sounding great to me right now. AG Edwards I think would be an excellent people's champion. He's a lawyer, has had a great career in the legal field, he knows how to build a case, and he's a people's champion of sorts.
Originally posted by twinky:
VP Edwards, or AG Edwards?
quote:The concept is simple. It makes perfect sense. Montana selects all its delegates at the convention - except three. Those three are already determined. It's already been explained in full.
Your answer makes no sense. Since Nevada hasn't selected its delegates, there are no delegates who the Post can claim have made personal pledges to McCain.
quote:THey explain exactly what they mean. It's only dishonest if one refuses to read and understand the explanation.
Even if there were, the idea of a major newspaper presenting "personal pledges" as though they are legally bound delegates is dishonest in the extreme. The idea of that newspaper proclaming that a contest has ended because of its belief in personal claims of personal pledges is bizarre beyond belief.
quote:You are wrong. It's been explained. The answer is on the web for you if you care to actually learn something.
But that doesn't matter, because there are no Nevada delegates yet to make personal pledges.
quote:link
A top expert on China has resigned as an informal adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign in the wake of the candidate's increasingly harsh anti-China rhetoric.
Richard Baum, a political science professor at the Center for Chinese Studies at UCLA, resigned in light of what he called “grossly misguided accusations” made by Clinton about China.
“As a lifelong Democrat, it saddens me that Sen. Clinton has chosen to take the low road in her effort to gain our party’s presidential nomination,” Baum said in an e-mail to Politico.
...
code:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/debate-analysis-abc-asked_n_97599.htmlPolicy Non-Policy Scandal
CNN (1/31) 31 3 1
CNN (2/21) 23 5 2
NBC 24 17 5
ABC 32 14 13
quote:I'm disgusted that the stupid flag pin non-issue popped up twice.
2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his "bitter" remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayers, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.
Clinton has received only four such questions -- two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton ("If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?").
quote:Did anyone else immediately think of that west wing line about Marbury and hiding the women and booze.
and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton ("If your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?").
quote:That second last bit really underscores how different "our" conservatives are from "your" conservatives even in the conservative heartland of Alberta, in case anyone was still doubtful.
When asked which of the three candidates they liked most, respondents preferred Obama over McCain by an almost five-to-one margin - 39 per cent to eight per cent. Even among self-declared Conservatives, Obama had almost double McCain's support.
...
Obama's popularity was highest in Ontario and especially in Alberta, where he held a 23-point lead over Clinton
...
Obama also led with self-declared Conservative voters - 36 per cent of whom expressed support for him, while 31 per cent supported Clinton and 19 per cent supported McCain.
...
When asked who they thought would win the presidency, 44 per cent said Obama, 19 per cent said McCain, and only 17 per cent predicted there would be a second Clinton in the White House.
quote:Sinophobia is not going to help matters.
Originally posted by pooka:
I don't blame our problems on China. I'm just frightened to death of them.
Also, pollster is now tracking a definite bounce for Clinton in PA. Looks like the debate worked well for her.
quote:
This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)
quote:Fight racism with racism. Nice. And in what way was there three candidates in Ohio?
A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.
quote:Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
quote:Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
quote:I just looked at the data and calling that a definite bounce is an exaggeration at best.
Originally posted by pooka:
I don't blame our problems on China. I'm just frightened to death of them.
Also, pollster is now tracking a definite bounce for Clinton in PA. Looks like the debate worked well for her.
quote:We're commenting on the link to a rather frightening blog by Nora Ephron.
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
quote:To be fair here, DK didn't say he agreed with the article or not. He could have just been posting it to draw attention to the claim.
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
quote:I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to comment on items that I brought up. My bad.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because clearly, the only reason to vote for Obama is you hate women and the only reason to vote for Clinton is you hate black people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the only reason you could ever vote for McCain is because you hate women and blacks....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except nobody in this thread has said that and you brought the issue up in the first place.
quote:Particularly all those poor republicans who just hate themselves.
Besides, everybody knows the only reason to vote republican is that you hate poor people! It doesn't matter what color or gender they are.
s] in. Just to prevent any potential confusion by other readers who missed the original context.
quote:That might be a reasonable analysis if their hadn't been 4 months of primaries and over a month of campaigning nearly exclusively in PA. I think anyone who is still undecided is unlikely to make up their mind by tomorrow. They are either unwilling to reveal their preference to the pollsters or don't care enough to show up to vote tomorrow.
t all depends on how the undecideds break. And based on the past few contests, my bet is they'll swing towards Hillary- particularly after Obama's had such a bad week in the press.
quote:That's pretty confident, and goes counter to most expectation gaming we usually see.
"I'm not predicting a win," he [Obama] said in a morning radio interview with KDKA-AM radio in Pittsburgh. "I'm predicting that it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect."
quote:Well, I just voted for Obama, so OBVIOUSLY he's doing better than expected.
Originally posted by Morbo:
I predict a Clinton win by 3-6%. Any more predictions?
quote:Now is Hilary supposed to be Mr. T, or is Obama? I keep forgetting.
Originally posted by Strider:
Prediction?
quote:Well, not entirely "regardless of the point spread". In the unlikely evident that Obama wins the primary, she won't be making that claim.
Originally posted by pooka:
I predict that Hillary will say she has a "mandate" from the Pennsylvania primary to continue her campaign regardless of the point spread.
quote:That made me laugh a bit.
"I want to know the future," Pollster reader Fourth wrote yesterday. "Is that too much to ask?"
No, it's not. Unfortunately the challenge of selecting likely primary voters is what makes these pre-election polls blunt instruments as predictors. They can give us a general sense of where things stand, which way they are moving (when he movement is large) and guidance about what each candidate needs to do to maximize their support. But the problem involves too many unknown variables to try predict the outcome with precision.
The future will be here in about 12 hours. We will know soon enough.
quote:Washington Post blog has an embedded audio link on this site to the WHYY interview.
Revisionism In Record Time
April 22, 2008 12:25 PM
It's pretty straightforward.
On WHYY radio, former President Bill Clinton was asked about a Philadelphia official who took offense at his comparing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to Rev. Jesse Jackson, thinking it an attempt to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate."
Clinton was asked: "Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?"
"No," he responded. "I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along."
Today in Pittsburgh, Clinton was asked what he meant by saying the Obama campaign was playing the race card on him.
“When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?” Clinton asked, per ABC News' Sarah Amos.
“On WHYY radio yesterday," he was told by an NBC/National Journal reporter.
“No, no, no," Clinton said. "That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”
Huh?
That's exactly what he said.
"I said what I said," Clinton said. "You can go back and look at the interview and if you will be real honest you will also report what the question was and what the answer was. But I'm not helping you."
quote:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22age.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
“Barack Obama has no experience and no plans. He just works on emotions, and this is why young people like him,” said Kimberly Romm, 44, who is self-employed and heard Mrs. Clinton speak at Haverford College. “People who are more mature analyze things. They’re wiser.”
quote:I've never seen not heard this rapster and yet I understood the gesture. Its been around a lot longer than JayZ. So while Obama may have been reference this guy, I kind of doubt it. He followed it with a gesture of scrubbing his foot on the ground like you would if you'd just stepped in something foul.
Originally posted by scholarette:
The brushing shoulder is a reference to JayZ (?), a rapster according to the press. Also, did you hear that he gave Hillary the finger?
quote:Exactly. This was hardly "the moon walk", they were just widely recognized gestures.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Brushing your shoulders off in the way that Obama describes it far predates Jay-Z's "Dirt Off Your Shoulder."
He's saying get up, brush yourself off, and get back to business. Gangsta rap doesn't have a copyright on the phrase or the gesture, and it wouldn't have come up if he wasn't black.
quote:Sounds hilarious. I wonder if I can find it on line.
Originally posted by scholarette:
But referencing Jay-Z is so much more fun then just admitting it is a normal gesture used by both black and white folk. And it also allowed for a fun daily show segment about the secret black code of gestures. (I'm flipping you off right now")
quote:
Universal Coverage
Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office. His plan will
provide affordable, quality health care coverage for every American.
Reduce Health Care Costs
Obama’s plan will bring down the cost of health care and reduce a typical family’s premiums by as much as
$2,500 per year.
Reduce healthcare costs by creating a bloated goverment run healthcare system that will raise taxes? quote:Hasn't he figured out that the high cost of UNION labor is what is driving out these jobs. Non-union labor jobs are flouishing, and most of the people that work these jobs are quite content.
Trade
Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more
American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.
Labor
Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee
Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers’ rights and will work to ban
the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to
inflation to ensure it rises every year.
quote:
Reform No Child Left Behind
Obama believes that the goal of No Child Left Behind was the right one, but that it was written and
implemented poorly and it has demoralized our educators and broken its promise to our children. Obama
will fund No Child Left Behind and improve its assessments and accountability systems.
Improve K-12
Obama will improve our schools by recruiting well-qualified teachers to every classroom in America. Obama
will improve teacher compensation by rewarding expert, accomplished teachers for taking on challenging
assignments and helping teachers succeed. Obama also will reduce the high school dropout rate and close
the achievement gap by investing in proven intervention strategies in the middle grades and in summer
learning and afterschool opportunities.
Unless he can pull a rabbit out of his hat and pay for these teachers, I'm not counting on this one. Besides I thought to draw of teaching was not having to work for 3 months of the year.quote:Sure, lets waste billions of dollars on inefficient, high cost technologies when we already have a non polluting, highly efficient, PROVEN energy production technology. It's called NUCLEAR POWER.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to
advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in
hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants,
and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be to ensure that
technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the
globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding
for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
quote:Even though we are living paycheck to paycheck, many liberals consider me to be "wealthy". No, I'm a Californian.
Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families,
but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
quote:Hey, wasn't this Bush's plan? Thief!!
Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and
technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal
immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire
undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine,
learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal
immigration.
quote:Isn't part of the current housing crisis problem due to oversupply?
Increase Affordable Housing
Obama will increase the supply of affordable housing across the U.S.
quote:Missils! WE need more missils! (Guess what I work with.)
21st Century Military
Obama will give the finest military in the world the support it needs to face the threats of the 21st century.
He will expand our ground forces, develop new capabilities, and restore the trust between the commander in
chief and those who serve.
quote:I would say no considering that nut shot he took at teachers.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Trying to decide whether or not it's worth the effort of going point by point with him...
quote:Our private system is actually the most bloated and inefficient of any developed nation's systems.
Reduce healthcare costs by creating a bloated goverment run healthcare system that will raise taxes?
quote:I would be very willing to bet that the costs of the public system would be much much higher than what we currently have and that the quality of care will dramatically drop if we go to universal health care like Clinton and Obama are proposing
It's profoundly unlikely that you could possibly not reduce healthcare costs by abandoning the actuarial model system we have now in favor of a public system.
quote:Every country in the world that has a Universal Health is able to cover all the people for less than half of what it costs us in the US to cover only a fraction of the people. What's more by any quantifiable outcome of the Health Care system, they do better than the US system.
I would be very willing to bet that the costs of the public system would be much much higher than what we currently have and that the quality of care will dramatically drop if we go to universal health care like Clinton and Obama are proposing.
quote:The actual percentage of what?
Originally posted by pooka:
The percentage is actually 0.54693...
quote:Grand Coulee Dam, you're good.
Originally posted by Morbo:
The 5-8% estimate is reasonable. But even an 8% win wouldn't translate into 20 extra delegates.
If the delegates were apportioned smoothly 8% would translate into 14 delegates, according to CNN's delegate counter. But of course they aren't apportioned continuously--8% I think would work out to less than 14 delegates.
quote:Universal Health Care by Obama or Clinton is not free. This is to be funded partly by taking some percentage of a business' payroll which means you get less money
I would love universal health care.
quote:Decimal fraction of 1,258,278 divided by (1,258,278 Clinton votes plus 1,042,573 Obama votes) or ~54.7% of the "99% counted".
quote:The actual percentage of what?
The percentage is actually 0.54693...
quote:Oh, it's me who learned a lesson from the last run-in. No worries.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I apologize in advance to Pooka if this was covered before
quote:I don't see this happening with the baby boomers aging. I agree things have to change. I just don't think extending HMO insurance (or the equivalent thereof) to everyone is the answer. Hopefully it won't be too tragic and ugly, whatever the change is. But too many people are employed in the healthcare sector for us to radically streamline it without a major economic disaster.
And the long term could start in as few as five years.
quote:This Rabbit speaks the truth.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
But Clinton performed pretty much just the way the recent polls predicted. Its hard to say it was worse than expected. It was certainly worse than she'd hoped for and worse than she needed to win the popular vote. It was also considerably better than Obama and his supporters hoped for and better than some of the recent polls.
I don't think its an exaggeration to call winning with a 9.4% margin a decisive victory. It certainly wasn't close.
quote:Our system costs two and a half times the industrialized world's median for healthcare costs, and provides worse care.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
I sincerely doubt that 5 years after the plans implementation will see any reduction in what we pay
quote:I believe my original comment was too sweeping. If you consider profit for insurance companies, medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies and the entire medical/industrial complex to be a desirable outcome of the our medical system, then the US system is quantifiably out preforming most others.
Like the rabbit said, by any quantifiable outcome of the health care system, they do better than the US system.
quote:This is a specious argument. Every other industrialized country in the world has managed to do it so its clearly possible. Every other country in the world has citizens like those in New York who end up in the ER regularly. We don't have to invent the wheel. There are already half a dozen working wheels out there that have found a way to deal with all the issues you are talking about.
So how's Obama going to wave a magic wand and get the insurance, pharmaceutical, and med/indstrial complex to go away? cf. my prior comment about the suburban and the prius. You can't fix American healthcare by making it bigger.
quote:Have any switched from a privatized system to a government run system? Also, wasn't the system originally non-profit and then became for-profit in the 80's or something? Other systems have gone from non-profit to socialized, but not for-profit to socialized. I'm just saying things will get more expensive, not less, barring some kind of systemic collapse. Keep in mind that healthcare was 20% of the GNP in 2000, up from 6% in 1964.
Every other industrialized country in the world has managed to do it so its clearly possible.
quote:Small businesses don't handle employee healthcare plans. I don't see how they even could if they wanted to. They can buy into coverages.
There would probably also be significant administrative savings, as small businesses are very prominent in the US, but are very inefficient at handling the bureaucracy of providing employee healthcare plans.
quote:Yes, all of them have although most of them did it at a time when the private systems were much simpler.
Originally posted by pooka:
[QB]quote:Have any switched from a privatized system to a government run system?
Every other industrialized country in the world has managed to do it so its clearly possible.
quote:The US medical system has always had some for profit sectors. Since we have many systems some of which are for profit and some of which are non-profit it would be incorrect to say we have either one.
Also, wasn't the system originally non-profit and then became for-profit in the 80's or something?
quote:No! Very few countries have "socialized" medicine. I believe that England has such a system. I don't know of any other Western country that does. Many of them have single payer National Health Insurance but care is actually provided by private organizations. Some countries have a mixture of National and Private health insurance. Each country has a different history. All of them had for profit medical care before their current system.
Other systems have gone from non-profit to socialized, but not for-profit to socialized.
quote:I don't think immediate savings is the primary goal of any of these health care plans. The goals are to improve coverage and reduce the rate at which costs are growing. I have seen detailed proposals that show how we could provide health care for everyone at no additional expense. If you are interested, I can try to find links for you.
I'm just saying things will get more expensive, not less, barring some kind of systemic collapse. Keep in mind that healthcare was 20% of the GNP in 2000, up from 6% in 1964.
quote:Not Canada? I think you're using a very narrow definition of "socialized".
No! Very few countries have "socialized" medicine. I believe that England has such a system. I don't know of any other Western country that does.
quote:No, I am using the technically accurate definition of "socialized". Socialized medicine refers to systems in which the government owns and operated health care facilities and employs health care professionals. The UK has "socialized" medicine as do Cuba, Israel and some other countries. France, Australia, Canada and a host of other countries have national health insurance programs, where the government pays private hospitals and health care facilities for providing medical services. This is a very important distinction.
Not Canada? I think you're using a very narrow definition of "socialized".
quote:Or in the case of the Medicare prescription plan, how thoroughly Big Pharma pre-empted price negotiation by forbidding it legislatively. That was such a slick move I was both appalled and impressed by the brazenness of corruption. I wonder what the price tag for that scam was? Surely a tiny fraction of the billions it netted them.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
What you pay for a medical procedure can vary over a factor of 10 at the same facility depending on what insurance plan you have and how well they have negotiated prices.
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Grand Coulee Dam, you're good.
Originally posted by Morbo:
The 5-8% estimate is reasonable. But even an 8% win wouldn't translate into 20 extra delegates.
If the delegates were apportioned smoothly 8% would translate into 14 delegates, according to CNN's delegate counter. But of course they aren't apportioned continuously--8% I think would work out to less than 14 delegates.
What does that have to do with the price of a politician in China?
quote:As much as I'd like it to be true, it just isn't true that the delegate apportionment scheme favors Clinton. Right now Obama has about a 1.5 percent lead in the popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan) and a 5.5 percent lead in pledged delegates. If you consider only the delegates won in primaries as a opposed to Caucuses that aren't included in the popular vote count, Obama still leads Clinton by 3.9% in the delegate count. Obama is the one who has been favored by the delegate apportionment system.
Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Grand Coulee Dam, you're good.
Originally posted by Morbo:
The 5-8% estimate is reasonable. But even an 8% win wouldn't translate into 20 extra delegates.
If the delegates were apportioned smoothly 8% would translate into 14 delegates, according to CNN's delegate counter. But of course they aren't apportioned continuously--8% I think would work out to less than 14 delegates.
Actually, I didn't dig into the Penn. primary system, I just used a rule of thumb that delegate apportioning favors the loser, generally, in this year's Democratic party system. The Republicans, with many winner-take-all states, obviously favor the winner.
Which is both why Obama hasn't been able to clinch the nomination, and yet another reason why Clinton's campaign is doomed (outside of a superdelegate coup, or a contested convention): it's allowed Clinton to hang on, but now even if she keeps beating Obama she still can't catch up in pledged delegates. It's just not possible at realistic vote margins.
quote:The same thing is true for most all private insurance plans as well.
Originally posted by Sterling:
Also worth noting that Medicare and especially Medicaid often pay only a percentage of costs, causing some practitioners to refuse patients dependent on them for insurance outright.
quote:
The restrictive policies “left many of the 20,000 Medicaid-eligible children and adults in Champaign County at risk by leaving them with fewer choices to obtain quality primary medical care — if they could access primary care at all,” Madigan said in a statement.
quote:True and if you are trying to figure out what the votes caste in a caucus mean in terms of the popular vote that is really problematic.
Originally posted by scholarette:
States with caucuses tend to have lower voter turnout (since caucuses take more work), so the popular vote in those states is not necessarily comparable to that of primary states.
quote:I suspect that the Clinton camp is wracking their collective brains, trying to come up with a victory scenario. The disconcerting thing about this quote, to me, is that it smacks of someone who wants to change the system so that it works out in his/her/their favor.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Did you hear Bill Clinton say last week that Hilary would have won already using the Republican primary system?
quote:Not to mention the fact that it makes US industries less competitive in the international market. Several US auto companies have moved production facilities to Canada because their National Health Insurance makes the cost of doing business there lower.
However the increased costs in health care meant that businesses were spending more and more on health care, but able to provide less and less of it. Employees were not getting the raises they expected because that money was going into insurance, then those same employees were being forced to pick up more of their health care costs.
quote:We ought to be talking about single payer. Unfortunately no one in power or who is likely to get in power is seriously doing that. I sincerely doubt that Obama's plans, Clinton's plan or any of the similar proposals which simply try to insure the currently uninsured will do anything to reduce the escalating costs. They are a step in the right direction but not a very big step.
Are we talking about a single payer system or Uncle Sam picks up everyone who isn't insured otherwise?
quote:I guess he's saying something along the lines of "Not that it matters, but don't do it." What an integrity challenged individual.
The effect of any endorsement -- his included -- "really is pretty marginal," Bayh said...
"My advice to you is to follow the voters of your district," Bayh said he has been telling them.
He has not overtly asked them not to endorse, but, he added, his advice "would have that effect."
quote:Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
Clinton continued, “Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”
quote:Oh, I'd love to see this one; the format being proposed would make it a much more interesting debate than any of the ones we've seen so far. I'd like to see a science debate too, of course.
Originally posted by scholarette:
But does anyone still want debates? Well, I want a science debate, but that's different (and I want McCain invited to that). By this point, I am pretty sure I know what they are going to answer to any question that could come up.
quote:Short. And I don't think she's wrong either. The very people she wants to win over with words like that are the ones who probably don't remember all the contradictions in her campaign.
How short does she think our memories are?
quote:How short does who think our memories are?
Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
quote:Stupid questions, not hard or tough questions.
Was she not complaining at least as much about always being asked the hard questions in debates just a month or two ago? How short does she think our memories are?
quote:First of all, what special interests? He's accusing Obama of being in the pocket of the oil lobby? That's rich, coming from the candidate who has taken the most money from oil to the candidate who has taken the least amount. Furthermore, it's a ridiculous argument. That tax break won't help the poor, they'll just drive more. Gas taxes, other than just paying for road maintenance, help by reducing the growing demand for more gas (or they would if they were higher anyway), but if we drop the price of gas, people will just drive more to make up for it. And even if that wasn't the case, such a tax break, during the summer driving season, will explode the deficit even more. It's another irresponsible tax cut that I think would be very unhelpful in the long and short run. Frankly I think he's pandering and trying to buy votes. Where was his call for some sort of tax relief to help the poor pay for heating in the Winter?
"I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his oppositionto giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives," McCain said. "Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy."
after my link. I mean WHAT could the mayor have been thinking? quote:I only saw a portion of it this morning. I am no fan of Obama, but I think it is dirty how other politicians are trying to tie him to anti-Americanism.
I only got to hear part of the speech as I was leaving for work, but he certainly sounded a great deal more like who I thought he was before all this soundbite controversy.
quote:I can't imagine that the campaign wasn't informed about these discounts when they made the contract. They should have insisted on paying the full cost then and not after the it hit the proverbial fan. This still could easily have been a mistake by a low level campaign person, but I'm sure the fault doesn't lie solely at the mayors end.
Personally, I think the McCain campaign was bushwhacked by a well-meaning but overly "helpful" idiot. And while the campaign will probably not have to reimburse the city for the difference, I suspect that it will reimburse the city just to make sure that folks know that such "help" is NOT appreciated.
quote:I've been quoted different prices for the same municipal facilities multiple times, including in situations when I have received discounts without being told. This has happened in at least one county and two cities.
I can't imagine that the campaign wasn't informed about these discounts when they made the contract.
quote:Link to transcript:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The Rev. Wright is speaking to the press club this morning. I only got to hear part of the speech as I was leaving for work, but he certainly sounded a great deal more like who I thought he was before all this soundbite controversy. He was putting the African American church and liberation theology in context in a very inspiring and scholarly way. For those of you who are interested, I highly recommend listening to it if it available later.
quote:How did you find out that you had received a discount if you weren't told? (honest question, not intended to be rhetorical).
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I've been quoted different prices for the same municipal facilities multiple times, including in situations when I have received discounts without being told. This has happened in at least one county and two cities.
I can't imagine that the campaign wasn't informed about these discounts when they made the contract.
quote:
And I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church.
quote:How can there be reconciliation? Wright assumes white men are hateful. I'm not Jewish [white, in Wright's view] or male, but that is the tabernacle of flesh Jesus conducted his mortal walk in.
Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens.
quote:I don't think that he thinks he is helping. I am not sure that he has any interest at all in seeing Obama elected. He is smart enough to know that every word out of his mouth hurts Obama. I think. On the one hand, he is scholarly and intelligent and reasoned and then he gets almost ego maniacal and crazy. The difference between his prepared speech and the question period afterwards was striking. I don't know whether he has always been this way, but I suspect that his behavior and his retirement could be indicators of something - age, disease - going wrong with his brain.
Originally posted by pooka:
The soundbit I heard on the radio this morning suggests an ongoing disaster, which was "an attack on Rev. Wright is an attack on the black church." I have some doubt that's an accurate summation, but I really think Wright is on a whole different planet from Obama philosophically and he thinks he's helping, but he's not.
I guess this is the quote from his transcript:
quote:
And I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church.
quote:We compared to other people at later times.
How did you find out that you had received a discount if you weren't told? (honest question, not intended to be rhetorical).
quote:We had a liability and waiver document, a security deposit document, and a cover paging listing the total amount in a blank.
I understand what you are saying about verbal quotes, but in my experience the discount is always listed on the contract when you finally get it in writing.
quote:
If Sen. Obama is undone by all of this... well, ummm... he did choose this pastor. He chose a church with a racial-nationalist agenda.
And I bet that’s because, as a biracial man raised by whites, Obama felt the need to boost his “black” credentials to make himself more electable.
And that, my friends, is called irony.
quote:Why beat about the bush!
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
whoever wrote that blog is a bonefide idiot pure and simple.
quote:Go me!
that the more you looked like Jesus, the higher up you were in the social strata.
quote:I'm confused. I thought the trinity was the view that God and Jesus were more particularly one. Though you have a point that God the Father could certainly be black or asian.
In most mainstream Christianity, we don't officially assign a gender to Creator/God anymore.
quote:I'll laugh if she calls him a flip flopper for not rejecting him before but doing it now that it's politically expedient.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well Obama has issued a rebuke to the Rev. Wright. I wonder if Hillary's response will be, "But he did not denounce him!"
This election for the Democrats is really starting to stagnate, it just feels stale to me now. I really hope Obama manages to break out of this funk, and run into the nomination and just keep going.
quote:Are you saying black people have no say in determining whose president?
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
I'm happy for Wright. He wasn't given the pulpit to make sure that Obama becomes President. He is there to do a job. If Obama has to distance himself, so be it, but I do admit to being amused by the fact that Obama's big tent, unifying One America campaign doesn't have room for Samantha Power and Jeremiah Wright. We aren't one country. There is an America who believes that Reagan punted on AIDS, and then there is the America who believes in no such thing. Both parts are America, and are essentially American, and Wright speaks for one part, and the white people who actually elect the President speak for the other.
quote:What he's saying -- at least in the speech I heard at the press gallery -- was that he believes the U.S. government is capable of having done it.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
And yet that's a categorically different claim than the one being made by Wright. "The government ignored the problem until a large bloc of voters got upset" is not what he is saying.
quote:This argument is not reasonable. Everyone is part of some minority in America - Republicans are a minority, Catholics are a minority, overweight people are a minority, blonde-haired people are a minority, rich people are a minority, southerners are a minority, and so on and so forth. People from all these minorities come together and vote on who will govern us. It does not follow from this that Republicans serve at the pleasure of Democrats, or Catholics serve at the pleasure of non-Catholics, or the overweight serve at the pleasure of the underweight, or that blondes serve at the pleasure of brunettes, or that the rich serve at the pleasure of the poor, or that southerners serve at the pleasure of people from everywhere else. Instead, people serve at the collective pleasure of the people who support them - and almost without exception that typically extends across more than one single demographic category.
No. I am saying that we live in a majority ruled democracy, and black people are around 13 percent of the population. White people make the laws. White people execute the laws. White people interpret the laws. And black people serve at the pleasure of white people.
quote:Jesus (Son, Redeemer) is God Incarnate. Being incarnate, Jesus had physical characteristics, looks, race, gender and so forth. God (Father/Mother Creator) is not (according to most Christian traditions) incarnate therefore does not have those traits. Nor does God Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:I'm confused. I thought the trinity was the view that God and Jesus were more particularly one. Though you have a point that God the Father could certainly be black or asian.
In most mainstream Christianity, we don't officially assign a gender to Creator/God anymore.
It all seems pretty sad. If Wright must know he's hurting Obama, he's probably getting back at him for calling him a senile uncle and kicking him off the campaign.
quote:Was Wright ever a part of Obama's campaign? (Honest question--I didn't think he was, but I could very easily be wrong)
Originally posted by pooka:
If Wright must know he's hurting Obama, he's probably getting back at him for calling him a senile uncle and kicking him off the campaign.
quote:
II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY
The Father revealed by the Son
238 Many religions invoke God as "Father". The deity is often considered the "father of gods and of men". In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, "his first-born son".60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is "the Father of the poor", of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61
239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.
240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64
quote:Thanks Dag and kate, for your patience with my speculations, and for the link.
In late 2007, Wright was appointed to Barack Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee, a group of over 170 national black religious leaders who supported Obama's bid for the Democratic nomination;[25] however, it was announced in March 2008 that Wright was no longer serving as a member of this group.[26]
quote:That's even more nonsensical. The U.S. government is capable of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that we should rhetorically address those things as if they happened.
What he's saying -- at least in the speech I heard at the press gallery -- was that he believes the U.S. government is capable of having done it.
quote:Obama's a bright guy, and does a good job of surrounding himself with very, very capable people. Given that, I can't imagine that this could be attributable to a bad understanding of economics.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I heard a snippet that sounded like Obama said that raising the capital gains tax to 28% wouldn't affect most Americans because their stocks are mostly in IRAs and 401ks, so are not subject to capital gains. Has anyone seen this quote anywhere?
Assuming he said that, I'd like to ask the same question about this statement: cynical political manipulation or bad understanding of economics?
quote:That's certainly true. Such a move would have very real indirect effects on people.
One can - and should - debate whether that effect is worth the benefits of his proposal, but not that the effect will be significant to anyone with stock.
quote:Wow. You take a story in which McCain says that Bush should be blamed for the early course of the war before the banner and for exaggerating "the prospects for success in Iraq in contradiction to the facts on the ground" and turn that into "the President ain't responsible for nothin'."
Speaking of same ol' same ol', McCain is already repeating the Dubya mantra that the President ain't responsible for nothin'. Which makes the prospect of his presidency sound real excitin'.
quote:http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/mccain-backs-of.html
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Do you have a source?
If he did, at least he is being honest about it.
quote:First link I came to. He backtracked. I didn't think that Republicans were supposed to admit such things (not that they are news to some of us).
“And I just want to promise you this: My friends, I will have an energy policy, that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East,” McCain said. “That will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
quote:Editorial in the NYTimes by Gail Collins. All I have to say to the thing is, Amen.
All this actually tells us something about the Democratic candidates, which has nothing to do with fuel prices. Obama believes voters want a sensible, less-divisive political dialogue, that the whole process can become more honorable if the right candidate leads the way. Hillary really doesn’t buy that. She has principles, but she doesn’t believe in principled stands. She thinks that if she can get elected, she can do great things. And to get there, she’s prepared to do whatever. That certainly includes endorsing any number of meaningless-to-ridiculous ideas. (See: her bill to make it illegal to desecrate an American flag.)
On Tuesday, root for the Democrat whose vision of the political process comes closest to matching your own. And I do not want you to be swayed by the fact that Hillary and Barack are finally having a policy debate, and it’s about the dumbest idea in the campaign.
quote:Just curious but, in what way has the US gov dragged their feet on AIDS treatment? First off, it's not the government's job to cure disease. Yeah they direct research funds, but there are plenty of diseases angling for a piece of the R&D pie, and there's never too much money to pass around. HIV/AIDS has gone from a death sentence to a chronic (albeit expensive) treatable disease in the last 20 years. Maybe that's part of why there hasn't been as much attention paid to it lately, or as South Park said, it was "the disease of the 90's."
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
No, he's not.
He is a divider, at a time when we need exactly the opposite. But at least I can see where he got his ideas.
The US government has experimented on African-Americans before. The Tuskegee experiments where blacks were unknowingly allowed to live with syphillis so researchers could test different treatments -- without consent -- didn't end until 1972 and then only because it came out in the press.
And the US government has shamefully dragged its feet on AIDS treatment.
Rev. Wright can be an egotistical rabble rouser. And I don't think he's right about the origin of HIV. And I think he's going to continue to be Obama's biggest liability, not because of their previous association but because he seems determined to use his newfound publicity to blow his friend's chances at the White House.
But I can see where he came from.
quote:Well, that explains McCain.
Scientists have done studies showing that old people have trouble filtering what they say.
quote:"just fyi, this is a one-way discussion as far as you are concerned — go 'bout your business"
Don't bother trying to discuss with me my opinion, because I probably won't respond.
quote:I think Wright is a duly complicated man, and that many of the people who are baffled by his behavior are baffled because they projected upon Wright a vision that was never adequate to the true man.
Irami, so you think Wright was deceiving all the people who are now baffled by his behaviour?
quote:I think Wright cares more about his own opinions than he does about Obama's campaign. And so do I. The irony of the Obama campaign and the media treating Wright like an uppity Negro who doesn't know his place is outstanding. You think Wright is a firebrand. If Obama himself told me to keep my mouth closed because my beliefs intimidate voting whites, I'd give him the finger and keep speaking the truth.
Do you think that he intends the damage he is doing? Why?
quote:So basically just extraordinarily selfish and egotistical then?
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I think Wright is a duly complicated man, and that many of the people who are baffled by his behavior are baffled because they projected upon Wright a vision that was never adequate to the true man.
Irami, so you think Wright was deceiving all the people who are now baffled by his behaviour?
quote:I think Wright cares more about his own opinions than he does about Obama's campaign. And so do I. The irony of the Obama campaign and the media treating Wright like an uppity Negro who doesn't know his place is outstanding. You think Wright is a firebrand. If Obama himself told me to keep my mouth closed because my beliefs intimidate voting whites, I'd give him the finger and keep speaking the truth.
Do you think that he intends the damage he is doing? Why?
quote:Just me or does the media of then seem more responsible?
Originally posted by aspectre:
Lyrhawn, ya really need to watch this and this, which is MUCH kinder to Reagan than he deserves.
Your statements concerning Dubya's effect upon US medical aid to Africa are misleading toward so close to opposite of the truth that they might as well been written by CarlRove.
And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
quote:I'm almost afraid to ask, but how did he (or the preachers amongst whom he may or may not have been an extraordinary exception) help spread AIDS, exactly?
And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
quote:His job is self-aggrandizement? He thinks that the lives of the poor would be better with John McCain as president? Or that the war he decries would be ended sooner? That social justice has a better chance if Obama is defeated?
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I think that he's taking the massive reach offered by his newfound media attention to do his job. And his job is not to get Obama elected president.
quote:I'm guessing through their moral repression and stigmatization of immorality, as the critics see it?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm almost afraid to ask, but how did he (or the preachers amongst whom he may or may not have been an extraordinary exception) help spread AIDS, exactly?
And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
quote:That's not what I've read.
Originally posted by aspectre:
Your statements concerning Dubya's effect upon US medical aid to Africa are misleading toward so close to opposite of the truth that they might as well been written by CarlRove.
quote:Wright's own defense against the YouTube clips were that that they were from sermons from several years ago. The three most famous quotes were (again, according to Wright) from sermons that were 15, 8 and 7 years ago, respectively. I don't think his rhetoric has suddenly changed. Perhaps he's become more vocal or less restrained, but it seems that he's at least occasionally used this rhetoric over the course of his twenty-year relationship with Obama.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
But that hasn't been his message until fairly recently.
quote:That really does deserve to be blasted all over the airwaves...
SIX days ahead of the North Carolina primary comes a story of real sleaze—not Jeremiah Wright-style buffoonery, but Nixon-style illegality designed to dupe and disenfranchise voters—that should surprise precisely nobody who has been following and covering this campaign. A group called Women's Voices Women's Vote (WVWV), which claims to have been "created to activate unmarried Americans in their government and in our democracy" has been placing robocalls to voters across North Carolina that seem designed to fool them into thinking they have not yet registered to vote. Many of the voters who received those calls are black. Voters in 11 states have complained about similarly deceptive calls and mailings that have been traced back to WVWV this primary season.
Guess which Democratic candidate WVWV's founder and president, Page Gardner, has donated $6,700 to (hint: it's not Barack Obama). Guess whose election campaign Joe Goode, WVWV's executive director, worked for (hint: it was in 1992, and it was a winning campaign). Guess whose chief of staff sits on WVWV's board of directors (hint: it was the president who served between two Bushes). And guess whose campaign manager was a member of WVWV's leadership team (hint: it's Hillary Clinton).
quote:So it's making its way with mainstream NC media - be nice if this filtered up to national mainstream media.
RALEIGH - The N.C. NAACP sent a complaint Saturday to the state Justice Department requesting an aggressive investigation into recent automated calls it suspects were meant to confuse voters and suppress the black vote.
A group identified as Women's Voices Women Vote has said it was behind the calls made to voters in North Carolina that provided misinformation about voter registration.
The calls told voters to expect a "voter registration packet" in the mail, though the calls were made after April 11 -- the registration deadline in North Carolina.
quote:
But that's not the point here -- and frankly, I don't really care who has been ahead or behind in polls. What's notable -- and disturbing -- is that Hillary Clinton feels the need to lie in very obvious fashion, as if everyone is just too stupid to look up the easily verifiable facts. I'm going to capitalize this and boldface it for emphasis: SHE HAS BEEN EITHER AHEAD OR AT THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POLL* DONE IN INDIANA, YET IS CLAIMING WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT "WE CAME FROM SO FAR BEHIND IN INDIANA."
This is not normal human behavior -- not by a long shot. It's actually rather scary, and it gets to a deeper issue -- the issue of trust. Why does Clinton feel the need to lie in the face of verifiable facts? She did it with NAFTA, she did it with Bosnia and now she's doing it with polling numbers. I just don't get this - and I say that not as a "Hillary hater" but as an honest declaration of frustration. Her behavior tells me she's either so arrogant that she's fine with insulting the public's intelligence with such in-your-face lying, or she's a pathological liar that has gotten so used to lying that she doesn't even know she's doing it anymore.
quote:
But for all the paid and unpaid talent associated with the group, which focuses on registering unmarried women to vote, it's landed in legal hot water in North Carolina for robo-calling voters after the primary registration date and for not identifying the group in the call.
Voters and watchdog groups complained about the calls, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered them to stop on Wednesday. Some saw a turnout-suppression conspiracy because the group's allies include so many Clinton supporters, especially Podesta and Williams.
quote:Heh, why do I feel that if this was Obama, it'd be all over the place? Yet because it's Clinton and we expect sleaze from Clinton, they're just shrugging their shoulders and going 'eh'.
Although the calls have stopped, the group is chasing down postal trucks to withdraw the mailers from circulation. Inside the organization, there is plenty of finger-pointing about who's to blame -- but by the end of the week, even some of the bloggers who had raised the specter of a Clinton conspiracy seemed to accept that shoddy management, despite all that talent, was the more likely culprit.
quote:You guys give Rove too much credit.
She isn't arguing on the merits, she's arguing on fear mongering. Obama was right, this IS right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
quote:::shrug:: Didn't start with him, won't end with him, but he's been the guy most famous for promoting that kind of politics recently. You don't have to write the playbook to use the playbook. Though Rove has been very good at adapting old fear mongering tactics for a new generation.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You guys give Rove too much credit.
She isn't arguing on the merits, she's arguing on fear mongering. Obama was right, this IS right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
quote:I don't grant your premise.
Didn't start with him, won't end with him, but he's been the guy most famous for promoting that kind of politics recently.
quote:And I disagree, unless you're talking about a specific subset of the general population.
I didn't say he was the only one. I just said he was the most famous
quote:
Economists Release Letter Opposing Clinton Gas Tax Plan
By Jonathan Weisman
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she'll have no truck with economists telling her where to put her gas-tax holiday.
Well, now she's got a truckload of them.
More than 230 economists -- Democrats, Republicans, advisers to past presidents and four Nobel laureates -- signed a letter today opposing proposals by Clinton and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain to suspend the 18-cent federal gas tax for the summer driving season.
"First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers," they wrote. "Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation. Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed."
Signatories include four Nobel laureates: Joseph Stiglitz (a Clinton White House adviser), James Heckman, Daniel Kahneman and Roger Myerson. Also signing were: President-elect of the American Economic Association Angus Deaton; former AEA presidents Charles Schultze, Alice Rivlin and Peter Diamond; former Reagan administration economist Clyde Prestowitz and former Clinton economic adviser Jeffrey Frankel. Indeed, former president Bill Clinton's administration is well-represented on the list, with the signatures of Jeffrey Liebman of Harvard University, Rebecca Blank of the University of Michigan and J. Bradford DeLong of the University of California, Berkeley.
Others are household names within the smaller household of the economics profession: John Shoven and Lawrence Goulder from Stanford, Alan Auerbach from Berkeley, David Cutler from Harvard, James Galbraith from the University of Texas and Frank Levy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
quote:Members of OPEC are cracking up with laughter.
Clinton: OPEC 'can no longer be a cartel'
Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.
"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.
quote:Looks like heavy turnout in both NC and IN... I've seen reports "calling it" for Obama in NC, but others countering that...
Originally posted by Strider:
today's a big day. I almost forgot.
Any exit polls yet?
quote:Also, "Hardcore" republican precincts are heavily voting in the Democratic primary in Indiana...
Indiana State Police swept Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's Terre Haute campaign headquarters on Wabash Avenue this afternoon following an alleged call to a WTHI Channel 10 reporter claiming to have placed a bomb there and at six other Indiana locations.
Campaign workers were allowed back inside to continue their voter calling once police determined it was safe.
quote:Which would kinda make him the most famous for it, yes? Deserved or undeserved, when that topic comes up so does his name. That makes him famous for it, or possibly infamous.
Didn't start with him, won't end with him, but he's been the guy most famous for promoting that kind of politics recently.
I don't grant your premise.
He's the one that's been most successfully turned into a bogeyman about it, but ...
quote:Only if one considers bogeymanness the only kind of fame.
Which would kinda make him the most famous for it, yes?
quote:But you asked (and seemed to say that you thought the answer yes) whether "he's the one that's been most successfully turned into a bogeyman about it" means that "[he is] the most famous for it." (emphasis added)
I didn't characterize any sort of fame at all
quote:I didn't say Rove wasn't famous for it. I didn't say he was less famous for it than moveon.org. If that's your only point, then we don't disagree.
And Rove is mentioned more than MoveOn in another large portion of the electorate. Still not sure how this makes him less famous.
quote:That's pretty good.
Security and opportunity, prosperity and compassion are not liberal values or conservative values, they are American values.
quote:I would be too, but look at CNN's map. He could pull it off. Lake hasn't reported at all yet, and if it's results are anything like Indianapolis's he'll do it. There are only three other counties that aren't all in: two neighboring Lake, which are 70% in and which it's mostly very close, and Bloomington which is more Obama territory. He's got a shot.
I;d be amazed if he won Indiana. But I expect him to close the gap a bit more.
quote:Lake county is 28% percent reporting, with 28,000 votes for Obama and only 10,000 for Clinton. That's 75% Obama, 25% Clinton. If those numbers even close to hold, he'll win Indiana. He's only 20,000 votes down right now.
I don't think Indiana is going to go to Obama, but I think he's done much better in both races than any of the polls suggested. A loss of 2% or less in Indiana is hardly a cause for shame.
quote:What an amazing comeback Obama's had tonight in Indiana(yeah, not quite fair calling it comeback when it mostly has to do with the order the vote tally came in). A huge victory in North Carolina, and a super close race in Indiana, this is really fantastic for Obama. And if Lake county can continue the kind of percentages Obama is currently getting it could very well put him over the edge there too. A double win would be huge.
Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:Lake county is 28% percent reporting, with 28,000 votes for Obama and only 10,000 for Clinton. That's 75% Obama, 25% Clinton. If those numbers even close to hold, he'll win Indiana. He's only 20,000 votes down right now.
I don't think Indiana is going to go to Obama, but I think he's done much better in both races than any of the polls suggested. A loss of 2% or less in Indiana is hardly a cause for shame.
Come on Indiana!!
quote:The statement wasn't "he's famous for it." It was "he's most famous for it." MoveOn's fame for it is directly relevant to that.
Ah. My impression was that you were responding to "he's famous for it" with "no, he isn't, and besides MoveOn does it too."
quote:I really like this idea. I'd love to see this happen.
Originally posted by ElJay:
I read a proposal (here? elsewhere? dunno.) to split the states into 5 groups and the primary season into 5 timeframes, and then rotate which states have their primary within each timeframe each election. I think something like that would be a good idea. . . let us take turns.
quote:I don't know if that estimate is a straight percentage allocation or if they broke it down properly by district. But if they seat the MI and FL delegates that way Obama still has a lead of over 100 pledged delegates. Clinton would still need some ridiculously-high wins in the remaining few states to overcome that lead.
If the Florida results were to stand, Clinton would receive a net delegate gain of 38 pledged delegates. If the Michigan results were to stand and the “uncommitted” delegates awarded to Obama, Clinton would receive a net delegate gain of 18 pledged delegates.
quote:I think we were discussing that like 20 pages ago in this thread. I also suggested that there be a representative from each state to be an early voting state, so that multiple interests are represented in the early voting media attention bonanza, and that those states also rotate so no one state ever gets a monopoly on being first in line. It'd very much be about taking turns, and about Senate members not kowtowing to one or two states in their votes because someday they might want to win that early voting state. If they have to worry about EVERY state, they'll just vote the way they should anyway and hope it works out, which is how it SHOULD be.
Originally posted by xnera:
quote:I really like this idea. I'd love to see this happen.
Originally posted by ElJay:
I read a proposal (here? elsewhere? dunno.) to split the states into 5 groups and the primary season into 5 timeframes, and then rotate which states have their primary within each timeframe each election. I think something like that would be a good idea. . . let us take turns.
quote:One of a couple different things:
Originally posted by Katarain:
What would you have asked?
quote:I didn't comment on the complexity.
So what if it's a complicated question?
quote:No, it's not. It's pointing out a flaw in the candidates policy proposal and asking them to explain it. But to ask them to explain away the flaw you first have to make a convincing argument that it is a flaw.
It's more games. It isn't asking questions - it's taking the chance to stand on a soapbox and pretend it is a question.
In other words, it is severely disrespectful to the candidate.
quote:It's misleading to call it a question. It's rude to use Q&A time to make a mini-speech.
Dag is there something wrong with pointing out flaws you see in a candidate's policy and asking the candidate to explain their reasoning for maintaining that policy despite the flaws?
quote:I agree. That doesn't mean that we should encourage extending the sound-bite mentality of the media to public Q&As.
A candidate who has really thought the issues through and has a strong grasp on the policy ought to be able to give a coherent and worthwhile answer anyway.
quote:Is that the standard we want to use?
They seem ... downright civil compared to some other questions we've heard this season
quote:This is a perfectly fine argument about why the plan is a bad one. It presents a series of premises - detailing why the harm caused is great and the benefit is minimal - from which one can logically conclude that we should not take a gas tax vacation.
The national gas tax is about 18 cents a gallon. Just today I saw gas prices rise 25 cents from where they were yesterday on the corner gas station where I live. The international nature of commodities and other forces drive up the price of oil. There is already an existing deficit that exists both in our national budget and in the millions of dollars that are sorely needed to fix roads, especially here in Michigan.
The gas tax vacation will rob millions of dollars, thousands of road work jobs from a fund to pay for basic infrastructure in a time when infrastructure is at a breaking point. If we don't pay for it by robbing millions of infrastructure dollars from the national highway fund, how will we pay for it?
The plan will have no discernible benefit other than to allow some Americans to drive a little further on vacation this summer. It isn't the poor that'll mainly benefit, they mostly drive older sedans, not the huge hulking SUV gas guzzlers that would be the main beneficiaries.
quote:I just read the questions again. The only attribution of beliefs to McCain that I saw were in the first question: "...how can you justify robbing millions of dollars... just so some Americans can drive a little further on vacation this summer?" This was perhaps a little unfair. Otherwise, no. (Note that I assuredly don't know what McCain's beliefs are, though I could probably make some educated guesses, so I don't know whether this was a misattribution or not.)
Originally posted by katharina:
Mike, do you see how the questions attribute beliefs to McCain that he assuredly does not hold?
quote:A fair point. Ideally not.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Is that the standard we want to use?
They seem ... downright civil compared to some other questions we've heard this season
quote:1 is great, though I think the mention of the recent 25 cent hike in prices due to market fluctuation is worth a lot. 2 is not really the same question as the original, and is, what's the correct sports analogy? throwing a softball. 3 is fine, but again I think the mention of renewables and record oil company profits is worth the extra 10 seconds to mention.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
How about:
1. Senator McCain, the gas tax suggestion for this summer has been widely criticized for giving Americans too little money back per family while depriving states of money for road jobs. Why do you believe lifting the gas tax is worth it?
2. How does your health plan improve the coverage for a minimum wage worker in a small company?
3. Are you in favor of maintaining the tax breaks that oil companies currently receive? If so, why?
quote:Wow, mischaracterization much? It was prefacing the question with pertinent facts. I just thought of it off the top of my head, it's a first draft so to speak, and I'm betting I would have softened it quite a bit if I were to actually ask it. But your little "scare quotes" don't make the question less valid. He has stated that he wants to give Americans a break this summer so they can drive a bit more and a bit further. Nothing in the prefacing material is factually incorrect, though if pressed, "infrastructure is at the breaking point," is I guess opinion, but I'd call it fact too really. A close look at the state of American infrastructure I think shows that it IS at the breaking point.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
So you didn't want to actually ask questions, just give a little speech with a "question" on the end.
quote:I disagree, entirely. It IS asking a very serious question. John McCain has presented a piece of policy: cutting the gas tax, and he has stated his reasons why and the benefits that might come from it. Presenting a refutation to his policy suggestion and asking him to defend his position is NOT playing games, and it isn't disrespectful. Let me ask this: If no one ever asks candidates questions that seriously force them to defend their policies, then how are we ever going to weed out the bad ones and decide who the best person is for the job? Campaigning for the presidency is a job interview with the entire electorate, and as his potential employer I have a serious question for him that I'd like him to not sidestep, so I frame it for him.
Originally posted by katharina:
It's more games. It isn't asking questions - it's taking the chance to stand on a soapbox and pretend it is a question.
In other words, it is severely disrespectful to the candidate.
quote:It's a proposal, it's not a law, and the President himself has not taken a position on the matter. I didn't choose the word "rob" specifically to be insulting. It's a word often used, like when people talk about robbing the social security trust fund to pay for various things. You can change it to "borrow" or "take," whichever is preferable. I'm not married to the word. And by the way, he HAS stated that he thinks the plan is a good idea to give some Americans some relief so they can drive more and further during the summer. He has summer vacations in mind with this proposal. Maybe not all he has on his mind, but it's one of the reasons, so I'm not out of bounds with that.
Originally posted by: Dagonee:
It's especially rude when one is using premises in the question with which one knows the listener does not agree. We can be pretty darn sure that McCain does not view a law passed by Congress and approved by the President as "robbery." We can also be sure that McCain doesn't think that his proposal (which I'm on record as opposing) isn't "just so some Americans can drive a little further on vacation this summer."
quote:Bull. They assume nothing at all about his beliefs. I don't know what he believes, all I know is that he supports a plan that does certain things, and I'm asking him to defend those things given a set of circumstances. At no point do I say "Senator McCain, isn't it true that all you want to do is give huge giveaways to oil companies because you LOOOOOVE them?" I mean come on. We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions?
Originally posted by katharina:
Mike, do you see how the questions attribute beliefs to McCain that he assuredly does not hold?
The question isn't whether or not he holds those views. The questions assumes that he does and then demands he account for them. They are "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions, coming after co-opting Q&A time to give a speech.
quote:I could point by point you on every "assumed" fact in the question, but I don't really see the point. If all it really takes to remove your objection to the question entirely is to add the words "In my opinion..." before the question, then consider it done. As it happens I think everything in that question is factually true, and not really conjecture on my part, but if that's what your quibbling over them go ahead and add those words in.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I think I've captured Lyrhawn's position here (I'm fuzzy about the italicized bit):
quote:This is a perfectly fine argument about why the plan is a bad one. It presents a series of premises - detailing why the harm caused is great and the benefit is minimal - from which one can logically conclude that we should not take a gas tax vacation.
The national gas tax is about 18 cents a gallon. Just today I saw gas prices rise 25 cents from where they were yesterday on the corner gas station where I live. The international nature of commodities and other forces drive up the price of oil. There is already an existing deficit that exists both in our national budget and in the millions of dollars that are sorely needed to fix roads, especially here in Michigan.
The gas tax vacation will rob millions of dollars, thousands of road work jobs from a fund to pay for basic infrastructure in a time when infrastructure is at a breaking point. If we don't pay for it by robbing millions of infrastructure dollars from the national highway fund, how will we pay for it?
The plan will have no discernible benefit other than to allow some Americans to drive a little further on vacation this summer. It isn't the poor that'll mainly benefit, they mostly drive older sedans, not the huge hulking SUV gas guzzlers that would be the main beneficiaries.
If one wanted to argue with this conclusion (which I don't), one could do so by disagreeing about the size of the bad consequences, the size of the good consequences, whether those consequences are indeed good or bad, and whether those consequences would even occur. Yet all of those items are assumed in the question.
There's some history here. I spent a good deal of effort getting the College Republicans to stop asking stump questions like this when I was in college (the two elections with Bush I as the Republican candidate for President).
quote:Now I don't even really know what your objection is. You start off complaining about asking a question with prefaced material, and now you say that you don't have a problem with it? Please clarify.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Those are great.
Except for the time issue and appropriateness for the format (which varies from event to event), I have no problem with "In my opinion, <argument as I paraphrased it />. Can you answer these objections?"
In that case, it's a speech with a question. But it's a fairly phrased question. It's still clear that the intent is to make a point more than to elicit information from the candidate. But if the format allows for lengthy questions, I have no objection.
quote:To answer your confusion, what I meant was that the price is going to go up regardless of his tax cut, in fact, cutting the tax will likely cause Americans to drive more, which increaes demand, reduces supply, and spikes the price even more, resulting in less money for roads but more money for oil producers and sellers. I didn't want to go into a full blown discussion on economics in the question. I probably could have just shortened that to "the law of supply of demand."
The international nature of commodities and other forces drive up the price of oil.
quote:And were it to go into effect, it would be a law.
It's a proposal, it's not a law
quote:Wow, mischaracterization much?
We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions?
quote:No, that's not all. There's a substantive difference between asking a question that assumes your position and presenting your position and asking a question based on that.
I could point by point you on every "assumed" fact in the question, but I don't really see the point. If all it really takes to remove your objection to the question entirely is to add the words "In my opinion..." before the question, then consider it done.
quote:I don't think so, no.
Wow, mischaracterization much?
quote:I agree.
There's a substantive difference between asking a question that assumes your position and presenting your position and asking a question based on that.
quote:You've been here long enough to know better than that.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Cripes.
I never expected so much criticism.
quote:In Lyrhawn's defense, it didn't exactly start out as constructive criticism, and he has every right to feel put out about that.
Originally posted by maui babe:
quote:You've been here long enough to know better than that.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Cripes.
I never expected so much criticism.
)
quote:That, I think, is a good question. It's very, very specific, and requires very little background to fully understand it, and really boils down to a yes or no answer.
Sen. McCain, do you believe that oil companies, each of which has had record profits every year for the past five years, should continue to receive massive tax breaks?
quote:To clarify, because it seems necessary, no one has advocated the position that "We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions."
quote:I don't think so, no.
quote:Wow, mischaracterization much?
We're not allowed to ask candidates to defend their positions?
quote:McCain has answered this questions specifically and repeatedly.
McCain dodged the question by ragging on the guy for his little speechification and then moved on to the next question without providing much of an answer to whether he thought waterboarding was appropriate or not.
quote:Actually, it doesn't. If one answers that question with a simple "yes," then one has left out very salient pieces of the issue:
quote:That, I think, is a good question. It's very, very specific, and requires very little background to fully understand it, and really boils down to a yes or no answer.
Sen. McCain, do you believe that oil companies, each of which has had record profits every year for the past five years, should continue to receive massive tax breaks?
Okay, apparently it came from the horse's mouth, though it is being spun a bit.quote:
Clinton vowed no surrender, telling supporters in West Virginia their voices deserved to be heard when the state holds its primary next Tuesday.
"This is a little bit like deja vu all over again," she said of the media critics, adding in a statement of intent for the general election: "I'm running to be president of all 50 states."
quote:Which is perfectly fine, assuming you're no longer asserting that I oppose "ask[ing] candidates to defend their positions."
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you on this one.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this. My bar is pretty constant. Just because I didn't fully articulate it in the response to something I consider well beyond it doesn't mean it's "sliding."
Clearly you do, though you seem to have a sliding bar on what is and isn't acceptable.
quote:I know that she does, and that that makes it officially okay to do so, but it still rubs me the wrong way whenever I hear somebody do it. To me it implies a degree of familiarity that doesn't actually exist. When I hear people refer to her as "Hillary", I feel exactly the same way as I do when I hear people refer to Card as "Orson", or when people who aren't actually on a first name basis with him refer to him as "Scott".
Originally posted by katharina:
Hillary uses "Hillary" in her campaign materials. I think referring to her as the same is fine.
quote:and then later said:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
So you didn't want to actually ask questions, just give a little speech with a "question" on the end.
quote:Clearly you don't have a problem with a question preceded by a little prefacing, you have a problem with the content. I guess it isn't so much a sliding bar as it is your curt response that doesn't fully represent your actual problem with what I said. Like some of our previous arguments, this probably would have been much shorter and to the point if you had gotten right to your point immediately.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
In that case, it's a speech with a question. But it's a fairly phrased question. It's still clear that the intent is to make a point more than to elicit information from the candidate. But if the format allows for lengthy questions, I have no objection.
quote:Any question that the candidate doesn't actually want to answer is ineffective. If they don't want to answer, they'll move on. I don't know if I would have read that verbatim or not, like I said I just came up with those off the top of my head, and in rereading them a couple times, the question I most likely would have asked, the first would, probably would've been two sentences shorter. And I could've read it in maybe 20 seconds. If 20 seconds is overlong and convoluted, then I think we just disagree on how long a good question needs to be.
Originally posted by pooka:
I don't think Lyrhawn's question was out of bounds other than being ineffective. But I think in a real life situation he wouldn't have read all that verbatim. But I'm just a regular person.
If there were an assumption wrapped in the question, hopefully the candidate latches on to that with something like "that's an excellent question. Let me address the part where you said blah blah". I mean, unless the point of the question is to be so long winded that the candidate loses track of what you're saying and only answers the obvious part. If that's your intent, its an evil question.
quote:I have a problem with the content and with the manner of prefacing. I expanded on those later in the discussion.
Clearly you don't have a problem with a question preceded by a little prefacing, you have a problem with the content.
quote:That's only half my problem with it. The other half is taking all the premises upon which you base your opposing conclusion and presenting them as "givens." Very few - maybe none - of those are givens to McCain, and I think you know that.
You don't like assigning positions to someone that they don't hold and then asking them to defend that made up position. I don't like that either.
quote:Yeah, because THAT style of commenting on posts has gotten you such quick results in the past.
I also had a problem with the way you characterized your questions. It was clear from the questions that what you wanted to do was lecture McCain about why his position is wrong. That's the part I chose to comment on initially. I added the rest later.
quote:Get specific. What specifically have I presented as a given that you think isn't true? What have I said that assumes a position McCain doesn't hold?
That's only half my problem with it. The other half is taking all the premises upon which you base your opposing conclusion and presenting them as "givens." Very few - maybe none - of those are givens to McCain, and I think you know that.
In addition, by using the "given" construct, you implied very strongly that McCain does accept those as givens. That's where the assignment of positions comes in.
quote:[/QUOTE]Judging from "the situation on the ground" here in Oregon, I think Obama will do quite well in the primary on the 20th, and afterward his lead will be even more unbeatable. He's going to be in town in a few hours, and already campus is clogged up.
Originally posted by pooka:
I'm interested by this "declare victory May 20th " tack that Obama is evidently taking. I don't know if it's just a leak or what, but it's going to make Clinton hoppin' mad.
quote:Nope. Michigan Dems have already settled on a plan, subject to approval, that nets Clinton a whopping eight delegates. I imagine Florida's plan will be somewhat similar. The two states won't even come close to the necessary number of delegates she would need. They'll split the remaining delegates probably, which will leave Obama with a commanding lead going into June when the Supers will finish this thing off.
Originally posted by pooka:
He didn't actually plan to declare victory, just celebrate having the majority of pledged delegates. Clinton will bring up Florida and Michigan again at that point. I wonder if it will go anywhere.
quote:It'll be an ugly fall, and double depressing because McCain is so pathetic.
Originally posted by Threads:
A preview of attack ads to come...
quote:Whatever.
Yeah, because THAT style of commenting on posts has gotten you such quick results in the past.
quote:I didn't attempt to engage you. I simply commented when I thought the echo chamber here was getting too loud.
Rest assured, I'll think twice before engaging you in one of these discussions again.
quote:First, I didn't say I wouldn't engage you. I said my initial post wasn't an attempt to do so.
I never said you did, though you have a funny way of not engaging someone. I engaged you because you took a snarky, curt potshot at me and were mischaracterizing my statements.
quote:No, I didn't.
I engaged you because you took a snarky, curt potshot at me and were mischaracterizing my statements.
quote:SNL made that joke tonight.
But I think it's likelier she's campaigning for 2012 at this point.
quote:I'm sure you don't see it that way, but that's how I see it. You clearly misinterpreted what I was saying, and I think you were implying that I was intentionally trying to paint McCain in a bad light. You assume a great deal about my intentions.
No, I didn't.
quote:Um, I know where this one goes.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
You assume a great deal about my intentions.
quote:At one time at least, this was not the case. I think MM is wrong. It seems to have been the convention of late to say "former President" when announcing a former President. But I distinctly remember reading that there had been a shift at one point away from referring to a former President with their previous non-presidential title. At that point, I want to say over a century ago, the convention became the retention of the title of President when addressing the person, and "former President," when referring to them.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Oddly enough, Senators do retain their title after they are out of office. Presidents do not.
At least according to Miss Manners.
quote:You mean you weren't? I guess that helps- though it really sounded like you were. But I certainly have run into similar problems expressing myself clearly before, particularly in writing on the internet.
I think you were implying that I was intentionally trying to paint McCain in a bad light.
quote:Yeah, I've been scratching my head at that one too. I don't imagine that Clinton actually thinks this; whatever her faults, she isn't stupid. When she makes this argument I have to think that she's assuming stupidity on the part of her audience.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I don't understand how losing a primary contest in a state translates into losing that same state in the general. People, especially in the Clinton campaign seem to be treating it like this is the case.
quote:As far as I can tell, in the current koine, doing otherwise means that you are an elitist.
When she makes this argument I have to think that she's assuming stupidity on the part of her audience.
quote:What are you smoking. Whatever it is send me some.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Is anyone worried that Obama can't compete in West Virgina? Obama lost Pennsylvania, Indiana(by a smidge), and Ohio to H. Clinton. Isn't anyone worried that he is going to have a hard time winning those states in the general? I know that national polling has him even with McCain, but I think I'm safe in assuming that national polling overrepresents huge states like California, New York, Florida. Granted, I've been saying that McCain is going to win nearly every state by a handful of points. Mostly because of people like pooka. Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain. Which is fine, but if that's the case, the Democrats should stop spending all of their time and energy courting your-- and your ilks-- Presidential vote.
I do hope that once Obama loses, we can start talking about new models of democracy, with a weakened executive branch because I think this quest to win the Presidency, and the strong executive tradition, frustrates many chances to even talk about a progressive political agenda. I guess my answer to the Democratic party is for them to give up on the Presidency and use the podium to focus on taking chances with other issues.
quote:I've been wondering the same thing. I think an Obama victory depends largely on a united and energized democratic base. Every day that the race continues makes this less and less likely. If McCain paints Obama as a "typical liberal," and himself as the moderates choice, then he can win by bringing in former Clinton supporters.
Is anyone worried that Obama can't compete in West Virgina? Obama lost Pennsylvania, Indiana(by a smidge), and Ohio to H. Clinton. Isn't anyone worried that he is going to have a hard time winning those states in the general?
quote:McCain doesn't even need a lot of them. He just needs to win regular Republicans and good slice Clinton supporters over 65.
Every day that the race continues makes this less and less likely. If McCain paints Obama as a "typical liberal," and himself as the moderates choice, then he can win by bringing in former Clinton supporters.
quote:Not unless a cheaper process that gets one's message out to 300 million + Americans can be devised, or else the country becomes far smaller and the sheer amount of ground that has to be covered is significantly shrunk.
Originally posted by scholarette:
Does it upset anyone else the amount of money spent on presidential campaigns? I can think of much more productive uses for hundreds of millions of dollars (and yet I still donated $20 to my candidate).
quote:No problem. I'm with McCain because of issues like abortion and our responsibility for the situation that we've created in Iraq. I'm not with him on everything, but those are the two biggies, and Obama couldn't be further from my view on either of those. But Obama may likely win, and I can live with him as a president much more happily than Clinton, because I think she is a carpetbagger on every conceivable level. Some people on the right think Obama isn't sincere, but I think it's just possible his wife thinks and says her own thoughts and not always his.
Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain.
quote:What did his wife do?
Originally posted by pooka:
Clinton's only chance at this point is to engage Obama in counter attacks, but he's going to let it blow by. The only think he has to not do is marginalize West Virginia completely, and I'm sure he'll concede victory graciously and immediately as soon as the exit polls are released.
quote:No problem. I'm with McCain because of issues like abortion and our responsibility for the situation that we've created in Iraq. I'm not with him on everything, but those are the two biggies, and Obama couldn't be further from my view on either of those. But Obama may likely win, and I can live with him as a president much more happily than Clinton, because I think she is a carpetbagger on every conceivable level. Some people on the right think Obama isn't sincere, but I think it's just possible his wife thinks and says her own thoughts and not always his.
Don't get defensive pooka, it's not a jab, it's just the state of affairs that you've already said that as much as you like Obama, you are voting for McCain.
quote:Your not making sense.
Originally posted by pooka:
I'm just answering your question about why some people on the right could think Obama isn't sincere. Sure that article takes every bitter thing she ever said and spins it in the worst light possible. No one is going to bother listing things she has said that are unflattering in order to flatter her.
So I guess you're the sort who would not want to be told about lettuce in your teeth?
quote:
I'm looking for a hard-headed woman, one who will make me do my best
and when I find my hard-headed woman, I know the rest of my life will be blessed.
quote:It should probably be noted that Edwards' presence didn't do a whole lot for Kerry in the South.
Originally posted by Sterling:
I think Edwards would probably make a better VP choice for Obama than Clinton if he wanted to go with a former opponent. He'd probably help with the southern vote, and he hasn't nearly the visceral dislike that some people feel for Hillary Clinton.
quote:Inconsistencies like this show it's important to learn the rules to follow for your area. I'm glad Oregon has a vote-by-mail ballot so we can take enough time to look it over and make sure all is correct... It's a closed primary here, but the rules are well-publicized.
West Virginia Secretary of State Disenfranchising Thousands of Obama Voters? said:
I got a call today from Mark Levine, the election protection attorney for Donna Edwards and one in whom I have a good amount of trust, and he told me about a brewing problem in West Virginia which will probably end up disenfranchising thousands of Obama voters. Here's the nub of the issue. West Virginia has an open primary, which means you can vote even if you are an independent. However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are automatically given a normal ballot in a primary. If you are an independent, you are pointed to a touch screen device which does not list a Presidential choice.
If you are an independent, you have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican ballot so you can vote in the Presidential primary, but you have to request it. And unless you know to request it, you will end up with no vote in the Presidential primary. The Secretary of State has decided not to inform people of this fact, which will leave potentially thousands of voters in West Virginia who came to vote for Obama without a choice.
Independents, in other words, are being disenfranchised. There's a full press release on the flip....
quote:When networks call a race that early, they're doing it based on the exit polling rather than the actual reported results. Since exit polling is notoriously unreliable in anything resembling a close election, the networks only ever do this when the exit polling is so strongly skewed to one side that most of the respondents would have had to be outright liars for the other candidate to win.
Originally posted by Sterling:
CNN is projecting a winner (Clinton) in W. Virginia with 3% of precincts reporting...
Does a projection based on 3% of precincts even qualify as news?...
quote:AG as in Attorney General?
Originally posted by pooka:
I notice how people say Edwards would be a good AG but never that Clinton would be a good AG. I really don't think they are similar posts. I swear I've asked this before, and been told know, but Gore can't, right? It was probably covered in pages 11-19 of this thread.
quote:Um, except Clinton got the Independent Vote 51% to 38%
Originally posted by Nato:
I don't expect something like this could have turned the WV election, but it's still souring to hear... and this article seems to suggest that Obama would be more hurt by this than Clinton, but I don't know if that would really be the case.
quote:Inconsistencies like this show it's important to learn the rules to follow for your area. I'm glad Oregon has a vote-by-mail ballot so we can take enough time to look it over and make sure all is correct... It's a closed primary here, but the rules are well-publicized.
West Virginia Secretary of State Disenfranchising Thousands of Obama Voters? said:
I got a call today from Mark Levine, the election protection attorney for Donna Edwards and one in whom I have a good amount of trust, and he told me about a brewing problem in West Virginia which will probably end up disenfranchising thousands of Obama voters. Here's the nub of the issue. West Virginia has an open primary, which means you can vote even if you are an independent. However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are automatically given a normal ballot in a primary. If you are an independent, you are pointed to a touch screen device which does not list a Presidential choice.
If you are an independent, you have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican ballot so you can vote in the Presidential primary, but you have to request it. And unless you know to request it, you will end up with no vote in the Presidential primary. The Secretary of State has decided not to inform people of this fact, which will leave potentially thousands of voters in West Virginia who came to vote for Obama without a choice.
Independents, in other words, are being disenfranchised. There's a full press release on the flip....
quote:He was only nominated by the Democratic party for VP, he didn't actually win. So he'd be stepping up from senator to attorney general.
It has always seemed to me that it would be a step backward for him politically, in that no one would suggest a former vice president become AG.
quote:
NEW YORK (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama has won the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a leading abortion rights advocacy organization that has supported rival Hillary Rodham Clinton throughout her political career.
The organization announced the endorsement of its political action committee on Wednesday.
***
Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said he was surprised by the group's decision to back Obama.
***
They said the board decided to back Obama over Clinton because he is overwhelmingly favored to win the nomination and to heal what the organization viewed as a growing rift between black voters and white female activists that the protracted Clinton-Obama contest may have caused.
quote:Also the AG has to represent the administration and, informally, the president himself. It's why it's traditionally given to someone with very close ties to the president, over many years. Like Gonzales with all his history in Texas with Bush. Or of course RFK and JFK.
Originally posted by pooka:
It's nothing special to this administration. It's the nature of being in a place where laws are weighed and measured.
I was looking over the list of AGs earlier today and remembering Janet Reno's tenure. Those were the days.
quote:As I understand it, that's not actually the AG's job. That's the job of White House counsel.
Also the AG has to represent the administration and, informally, the president himself.
quote:But it is his job to represent many of the legal positions of the administration, including defending the constitutionality of executive-branch actions. The normal ethical standards for presenting legal positions to tribunals apply.
As I understand it, that's not actually the AG's job. That's the job of White House counsel.
The AG's primary responsibility is theoretically to the American public.
quote:Yes. But the AG (or his delegatee within DoJ) also at times represents both the administration and the President. And it happens far more often than taking legal actions against the President or members of the administration.
But the Justice department also can be called on to take legal actions against the President, yes?
quote:Isn't that more often the Solicitor General's job? My understanding of the primary role of the AG is to basically be the people's lawyer of sorts, to prosecute on behalf of the American people (or local states and their people) and to give legal advice to the President. I thought it was the SG's job to argue on behalf of the Administration at the Supreme Court.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But it is his job to represent many of the legal positions of the administration, including defending the constitutionality of executive-branch actions. The normal ethical standards for presenting legal positions to tribunals apply.
As I understand it, that's not actually the AG's job. That's the job of White House counsel.
The AG's primary responsibility is theoretically to the American public.
This is a common practice by the justice department. For example, it defends the constitutionality of government actions when citizens bring Section 1983 suits, which can arise in employment, law enforcement, and many other situations. There are many cases where such actions are found to be unconstitutional but the defense of such actions is deemed ethical.
quote:I clarified more directly later with repeated use of "or his delegatee." The Solicitor General represents the government before the Supreme Court. There are thousands of other lawyers who also represent the government in court. Very little litigation goes to the Supreme Court.
Isn't that more often the Solicitor General's job?
quote:Giving legal advice is "representation." The term is not limited to actual litigation. The AG also doesn't personally prosecute cases. Assistant US Attorneys, US Attorneys, and DoJ lawyers do that. One can say the AG prosecutes cases on behalf of the American people - which is a form of representing the administration - even though it is actually done by his subordinates. The SG isn't very different.
My understanding of the primary role of the AG is to basically be the people's lawyer of sorts, to prosecute on behalf of the American people (or local states and their people) and to give legal advice to the President.
quote:Lyrhawn,
Edwards is about to endorse Obama in Grand Rapids here in Michigan.
Obama was actually just down the street from where I volunteer at earlier in the day, but we didn't get a chance to go see him.
quote:True. But I can't help but think this administration has made more than its share of decisions that might cause someone to come up to an ex-AG somewhere down the line and say "you said that was legal? What were you thinking?!"
Originally posted by pooka:
It's nothing special to this administration. It's the nature of being in a place where laws are weighed and measured.
I was looking over the list of AGs earlier today and remembering Janet Reno's tenure. Those were the days.
quote:I'd rather not, if I can help it.
I mean, look at Cheney.
quote:I was thinking about that earlier today. Either Edwards or Obama must have planned that, in order to kill Clinton's media coverage from the WV win. Makes me wonder if he has Gore in his back pocket for when she wins Kentucky, but I don't know. He'll win Oregon that day by a large margin too, so it'll be a wash.
Originally posted by scholarette:
I think that Obama has actually secured a lot of these endorsements long before they are announced. His timing of them is just too perfect (like Richardson after Wright). And the press keeps claiming that there are rumours that Obama has a bunch of superdelegates and is going to have a superdelegate bomb one day. I think it is better to have them trickle personally- each one gets indivdual news time whereas announcing 30 at once would get news for a day or 2.
quote:The fact that this is the second time he's done this to a woman while he's on the trail is astounding. Everything else aside, just how does he figure this will help him win over women who are frustrated, angry and disappointed that Hillary isn't (probably) going to get the nomination?
Sen. Barack Obama did what you have to do if you say something to a person that many people find offensive, especially if you're running for president: He phoned Peggy Agar, the reporter he referred to as "sweetie" to apologize for calling her that and blowing her off after she asked a question following a Sterling, Michigan campaign appearance yesterday.
WXYZ-TV, the Detroit station Agar works for, has a recording of the voicemail to Agar's phone up with a story about the apology on its site. In the senator says:
"Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.
"Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."
The WXYZ story reports that Obama has indeed called people "sweetie" before, and on at least one occasion, caused a min-tempest.
In a posting on the New York Times Political Blog titled "Obama: Hold On, Sweetie," reporter Jim Rutenberg pointed out this wasn't the first time Obama used the word: "Back in Pennsylvania in early April, Senator Barack Obama took some heat for calling a female factory worker 'sweetie,' in Allentown."
Obama clearly needs to go on a "sweetie" diet, tightening up on his use of that diminutive.
It just seems dismissive, belittling and, yes, chauvinist, even if he doesn't mean it to be, if he uses it with anyone other than his wife, his daughters or little children, especially when he so addresses women he encounters along the campaign trail.
quote:I know this is from several days ago, but Janet Napolitano is the governor of Arizona. Nevada's governor is a Republican named Jim Gibbons.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Even less likely but on the list of names floating around? Janet Nepalitano, the Democratic governor of I think Nevada. She likes to spend, like Obama wants to, but she's also got a reputation as someone who keeps her budgets in check and slashes wasteful spending.
quote:How do you establish the coverage as sexist?
Originally posted by sndrake:
Second, when I think about reactions of some of the women supporting Hillary, I tend to think of my mother. She's not happy with what she sees as rampant sexism (even misognynist) coverage of Hillary at MSNBC, especially with Chris Matthews. And she's a woman who has been called "sweetie" and other terms by men she worked for (and twenty years younger) when she was in the working world. She resented that treatment and she'll relate to those experiences when she hears this story about Obama.
quote:----
The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).
quote:I don't agree that this can be said with any confidence, but that's pretty much irrelevant. President Bush's personal decency is not being discussed.
I think the President is a good man and retains a personal decency.
quote:No, but being the President should.
Originally posted by pooka:
Does being a presidential candidate have some special stature?
quote:
Obama leaves a voicemail for a Detroit TV reporter he called "sweetie":
Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.
Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next.
quote:Taking out Saddam was a good thing. Occupying Iraq was a dumb thing.
Originally posted by pooka:
I'm just puzzled that if he knows taking out S. Hussein strengthened Iran, he thinks our withdrawal from Iraq will help.
quote:That's what they said about Korea. And VietNam. Continuing a mistake won't make it better. If they collapse, they'll do so on their own, and they'll rebuild on their own.
Originally posted by pooka:
But just because occupying Iraq in the way we did was a dumb thing (and I'll grant that- I'm not a fan of Hans Bremer) is withdrawal the solution to that? I think our occupation of Iraq made them dependent on us, and when we pull out, they are more likely to collapse.
quote:I don't agree at all. First of all, it's just hypocritical. His secretaries of defense and state, his policy advisors, and even Dick Cheney have said that we should talk to Iran. There have been talks with Iran in regards to how they are dealing with Iraq. And there is an international effort to diplomatically speak with Iran to discuss their nuclear policy. Besides, Bush already has a seven year legacy of talking with N. Korea on the same subject.
Originally posted by pooka:
So you're confident that Iran doesn't consider the very existence of Israel a hate crime against Islam? I think this is a case where Godwin's law does not apply because we are discussing people who really do want to kill Jews.
I mean, maybe you feel like it's our fault they feel this way. If it is our fault, it's not restricted to what has happened in this administration, but our support of Israel over the decades.
But that's just how I see it. Most secular Jews I know are very resistant to seeing the War on Terror as involving Israel's safety. Obama feels it's made Israel less safe, and I think there is an argument for that. I'm just puzzled that if he knows taking out S. Hussein strengthened Iran, he thinks our withdrawal from Iraq will help. I guess he has a plan where he talks to Iran and tells them not to take advantage of Iraq's weakness, not to exploit the Shiite majority there. Then there's the whole oil thing.
It's a complex situation. Maybe there are possibilities. But calling Bush's remarks Bullshit is just returning blow for blow.
quote:Every candidate gets hammered for what independent groups supporting them do. Are you seriously suggesting liberal candidates have never been hit for MoveOn's antics? Trying to pretend there is some vast skewing to make McCain look bad and the Democrats good is just dishonest. Right now the mainstream media attention, the kind of sources of news that most regular people pay attention to, is squarely on the Democrats, for better or for worse, I'm not ready to make a value judgement on what the attention has done, though I lean towards negative, we'll see.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Lyrhawn - Quayle was hammered when he used a card given to him with an incorrect spelling on it. McCain in mentioned in many many articles to equate him with Obama plus McCain gets hammered for what independent groups do. You do have a good point that cameras are pointed elsewhere for McCain, they are all focusing on Obama/Clinton.
Do you really think all countries should be dealt with exactly the same? North Korea and Iran are two very different cultures with a much different history in negotiations, not that will matter because Bush Bashing is the most popular liberal sport.
quote:I mean that's just fantasy. We've been getting promises even less lofty than that for five years and we're no closer. How he intends to achieve that by pursuing the same policies currently in place is beyond me. I think it's a great, honorable goal. But I think suggesting this will happen makes him look more like Bush, which isn't a good idea politically. Some decent possibilities:
So, what I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President.
*
By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role
*
The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven.
quote:Now okay, if he really has substantial savings from a complete overhaul of the weapons procurement system in the Pentagon, which is long overdue, then he might be able to eke out an increase in our ground forces. Republicans are all calling for a huge increase in all four branches of the military, with big increases in ship building, a big chunk of the air fleet replaced, and now tens of thousands more troops? You don't pay for that with a procurement overhaul. The defense budget is at a proposed $600 billion for next year. Out of a $3 trillion dollar budget, that's 20% of our budget, and doesn't include money for Iraq and Afghanistan. How much higher would that percentage climb under fiscally conservative McCain?
The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us. Long overdue reforms to the way we acquire weapons programs, including fixed price contracts, have created sufficient savings to pay for a larger military. A substantial increase in veterans educational benefits and improvements in their health care has aided recruitment and retention. The strain on the National Guard and reserve forces has been relieved
quote:An interesting idea. League of Democracies? I suppose this would basically be Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, NZ and whoever else of the major world democracies I left out (maybe India). Taking this to a group of stable democracies and removing it from the UN isn't an idea I necessarily oppose, I'm just curious as to the structure of such a body. I hope he releases more details about it soon.
After efforts to pressure the Government in Sudan over Darfur failed again in the U.N. Security Council, the United States, acting in concert with a newly formed League of Democracies, applied stiff diplomatic and economic pressure that caused the government of Sudan to agree to a multinational peacekeeping force, with NATO countries providing logistical and air support, to stop the genocide that had made a mockery of the world's repeated declaration that we would "never again" tolerant such inhumanity
quote:Hah! That's trillions of dollars in tax cuts over just a few years. The AMT alone will cost him a couple trillion dollars over the next few years. Big spending increases and big tax cuts? Disconnect.
The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future. A reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners; the low rate on capital gains; allowing business to deduct in a single year investments in equipment and technology, while eliminating tax loopholes and ending corporate welfare, have spurred innovation and productivity, and encouraged companies to keep their operations and jobs in the United States. The Alternate Minimum Tax is being phased out, with relief provided first to middle income families. Doubling the size of the child exemption has put more disposable income in the hands of taxpayers, further stimulating growth.
quote:This is a fantastic idea. Really fantastic. I think this is a key component of something that has been missing from our democratic process in the last seven years. We need more answers and more access, not less. A tiny part of me wants to vote for him just to see what that would look like.
I will hold weekly press conferences. I will regularly brief the American people on the progress our policies have made and the setbacks we have encountered. When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them. I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons
quote:Then who was he talking about? Obama? Democrats? If not, then he was talking about what, no one? Come on.
Originally posted by pooka:
Bush didn't even name Obama in his speech. You folks are all het up about nothing.
quote:--Enigmatic
White House officials denied Obama was a target of Bush's remarks. But privately, White House aides indicated the criticism was aimed at various Democrats, including Obama and former President Jimmy Carter.
quote:Which is the general problem I have with what President Bush says and does in his administration, he takes such broad strokes with those viewpoints he speaks of that he is then able to make comparisons where the intentions are clear. For instance, yesterday he talked about Nazi Germany and the moment when their tanks rolled across Polish boundaries, and I think it's clear that by painting such a broad viewpoint, Bush is then able to paint all Democrats as soft on terrorism and appeasers like those from WWII who allowed Hitler to succeed for a while. It's intellectually dishonest at best and it's something I have come to expect from the Bush Administration.
He's talking about viewpoints, not personalities.
quote:Probably. If so, it was a stupid thing to say. Ron Paul wants to have ties with everyone. Cuba, Israel, Iran, China, and little green men from outer space, if they ever show up.
Originally posted by pooka:
So you think he meant to invoke Ron Paul in his speech to Israel?
speech text
quote:Do I think he is specifically referring to Obama alone here? No. Do I think he is referring to a wide swath of Democrats in general of whom Obama is included in? Yes I do.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
quote:Is this about Ron Paul? I don't know, maybe. Paul to the best of my knowledge though hasn't proposed cutting all ties, but merely pulling military support from Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
quote:Sometimes, something really ugly leaks out from the generally charming Huckabee. The first time that struck me was when he did some not-so-innocent attacks on Mitt Romney's religion in an interview.
During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.
“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”
quote:You're wrong. He wants to cut all aid, military and civilian, from Israel and from all countries. He isn't singling Israel out for anything, and he isn't differentiating between civilian and military aid.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Is this about Ron Paul? I don't know, maybe. Paul to the best of my knowledge though hasn't proposed cutting all ties, but merely pulling military support from Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong.
quote:I really would like to think that this is the accurate account of the NRA audience members.
There were only a few murmurs in the crowd after the remark.
quote:Yeah you're right. Well I didn't think that he was singling out Israel, but I sort of leaned towards thinking that he was only only talking about military aid, I didn't realize he wanted to cut ALL civilian aid as well.
Originally posted by Lisa:
I know. But you specified military aid, and it seemed that you were specifying Israel.
quote:Link to tape of Huckabee. To me, it looked like the AP's assessment was accurate. The joke went over like a sack of rocks. Huckabee kept smiling, though, trying to do the "charming" thing which I used to admire but now am repulsed by. There is nothing genuine about the guy. I'm glad he's out of the campaign.
Originally posted by sndrake:
I'll be interested to see if there's a tape of Huckabee's "joke." The Associated Press gives a different account of the audience reaction:
quote:I really would like to think that this is the accurate account of the NRA audience members.
There were only a few murmurs in the crowd after the remark.
quote:The problem is, I never actually agreed with this narrative. Sure, McCain got hammered in South Carolina with some innuendo and dirty tricks. But his campaigning has proved time and time again that he himself is not above the same smear tactics he claimed to be a victim of in 2000. He simply didn't have enough conservative support to beat Bush in 2000, and that's still his problem today. While I personally think his willingness to compromise in the name of actually getting things done is admirable, he's pissed off way too many Republicans over the years. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to regain their trust while retaining his appeal to more moderate voters.
Originally posted by Sterling:
You know, in a way I can sort of sympathize with McCain. He's 72 years old, and I think he's very much thinking, "I played hard and straight last time, and I got creamed by a well-oiled smear campaign. Well, this is my last chance to make it to the White House, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to get there this time, even if it includes cozying up with some people I don't find entirely agreeable to get the backing of their supporters." I can understand that.
...I hope he loses, but I understand.
quote:I did something I haven't done this campaign season - posted to a campaign (OK, it's a PAC site now). It hasn't been let through yet, but here's what I wrote about the "apology":
During my speech at the NRA a loud noise backstage, that sounded like a chair falling, distracted the crowd and interrupted my speech. I made an off hand remark that was in no way intended to offend or disparage Sen. Obama.I apologize that my comments were offensive, that was never my intention.
quote:
I'm someone who used to view Governor Huckabee as a basically decent guy who had a political perspective I disagreed with. He's managed to change my mind on that.
His "apology" shows him to be utterly clueless about certain ugly realities of our society - or purposely weaselly.
I'm in my early 50s. During my life, I've had one president assasinated (Kennedy), two presidents the targets of failed attempts (Ford and Reagan). Robert Kennedy was killed while running as a candidate for President. George Wallace was permanently disabled by an would-be assassin's bullet while engaging in his own run for a presidential candidacy.
Barack Obama was given secret service protection early in his candidacy due to concerns over his safety.
As someone who has witnessed the role of violence in politics over my lifetime, I don't see a "joke" about pointing a gun at a candidate as something to laugh about.
Huckabee is clueless as to who he needs to apologize to.
Most importantly, he has no clue *why* he should apologize.
quote:Well put. I have no clue how he's managing his PR (or, for that matter, who he hires to organize his PR), but they could use some getting fired forever. Some have come away from this thinking that Huckabee's a fay fay skeezier than he probably actually is. That's how badly he's managing this.
Huckabee is clueless as to who he needs to apologize to.
Most importantly, he has no clue *why* he should apologize.
quote:You never ran for U.S. President, did you?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
i watched the tape, I've made worse cracks.
quote:Here's what I have in full of the situation so far: It is unprecedented. I am not certain that it's as bad as it looks, but this is pretty new for a person in my lifetime. It's practically soothsayer levels of doomsaying for the GOP. And — by all accounts — they act like they know it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
It's Obama and McCain now, and I think Obama has a lot more going for him than some people think. Still a long race though.
quote:Then First Read reported on the other reactions
National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) issued what can only be called a declaration of surrender. Here is Cole's statement, which I found simply amazing: “We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short. ...
This whole statement is an admission by Cole that he does not now how House Republicans can win in November as a group, so each member better protect himself or herself. To his credit, Cole has been warning his members that they need to run as outsiders this fall, but beyond that general admonition, the Oklahoma Republican can't show them a path to victory. It's an extraordinary statement by the head of a national campaign committee, but it is not one that's going to inspire any warm feelings from his GOP colleagues.
quote:Basically, according to dailykos, quote (I think?): this is an admission by Cole that he does not now how House Republicans can win in November as a group, so each member better protect himself or herself. To his credit, Cole has been warning his members that they need to run as outsiders this fall, but beyond that general admonition, the Oklahoma Republican can't show them a path to victory. It's an extraordinary statement by the head of a national campaign committee, but it is not one that's going to inspire any warm feelings from his GOP colleagues.
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Lots of very glum faces among House GOP members this morning as they emerged from their weekly closed-door session. The political situation is not good, and they aren't even trying to deny it.
Rep. Tom Davis stomped on the concrete floor of the Capitol basement when asked by reporters about Republican fortunes at the moment.
"This is the floor," he said, by way of explanation. "We're below the floor."
Inside the meeting, Davis had just presented his colleagues with what he said was a 20-page memo outlining his prescription for a way out of this mess. He did not offer details to the press, yet did not spare the party and the president scathing criticism in his public comments.
"The president swallows the microphone every time he opens his mouth," Davis said. ...
House GOP leaders huddle at 11 a.m. today. That will be watched closely for any possibility of a coup or insurrection against leadership in the wake of this third consecutive loss of a GOP seat.
quote:
IN MISSISSIPPI this week, the Republicans lost a congressional seat they held since 1994. This followed the loss of a congressional seat in Louisiana that they held since 1974. They lost both special elections after trying to cut and paste Barack Obama over the Democratic candidate.
In a northern Mississippi district, Democrat Travis Childers won despite an attack ad that said, "When Obama's pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9-11, Childers said nothing. When Obama ridiculed rural folks for clinging to guns and religion, Childers said nothing. He took Obama over conservative values."
In Louisiana, Baton Rouge-area Democrat Don Cazayoux won despite ads saying a vote for him was a vote for the "radical liberal agenda" of Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and asking, "Is Obama right for Louisiana?"
quote:
Last weekend, I traveled to Mississippi's first congressional district, a bastion of Republican power that has been home to William Faulkner, Elvis Presley, and the scene of massive riots on the night James Meredith attempted to integrate the University of Mississippi. With the district in the midst of a hotly contested special election campaign, I probed the impact of a million-dollar Republican strategy to attack the insurgent Democratic candidate, Travis Childers, by linking him to Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
After following Childers on the campaign trail, then attending a rally of his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, it became apparent to me that the GOP's strategy would fail miserably. On Tuesday, the Republicans' worst nightmare came true: Childers defeated Davis by a stunning 8 point margin.
Mississippi's First encompasses a working-class region reeling from the country's economic downturn. Voters there from both parties told me they were more concerned with bread and butter issues like gas and food prices than with whether Obama's supporters fundraised online for Childers, the issue exploited by the national GOP. Childers was the perfect candidate in this environment, running as a pro-life, pro-gun economic populist who opposed free trade and promised to take on big oil. I followed the candidate around a Piggly Wiggly supermarket, watching as he pointed shoppers to the whopping prices of milk and eggs, then indignantly blamed the White House for the price spike.
quote:There's more about how the western republican committees are admitting hopelessness over the new 'westy dem' trend that's turning the west Democratic as inexorably as the south turned Republican, but I can't yet find it.
May 16 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush is ``absolutely radioactive'' and Republicans will suffer widespread election losses in November unless they distance themselves from him, said Representative Tom Davis, a former leader of the party's House campaign committee.
``They've got to get some separation from the president,'' Davis, of Virginia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to be aired today. Bush is the face of the party and congressional Republicans are ``seen as just in lockstep with him on everything,'' Davis said.
Republicans would lose 20 to 25 House seats if the election were held today, Davis said. If Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is seen by voters as ``Bush III'' he will lose by 20 percentage points, said Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002.
quote:Look, I have no idea whether or not you are actually a 15 year old or if this is an elaborate ploy to act like one and play the hi-larious smurf game, but I am going to tell you that either way, step out and lurk more.
Originally posted by T:man:
ok what be wrong with communists?
quote:Screw you too.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Look, I have no idea whether or not you are actually a 15 year old or if this is an elaborate ploy to act like one and play the hi-larious smurf game, but I am going to tell you that either way, step out and lurk more.
Originally posted by T:man:
ok what be wrong with communists?
quote:Well, true, it certainly wasn't the smear campaign alone. But I think the "do whatever it takes to win" motto has a lot to do with his efforts to court the "conservative base" as well.
Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
The problem is, I never actually agreed with this narrative. Sure, McCain got hammered in South Carolina with some innuendo and dirty tricks. But his campaigning has proved time and time again that he himself is not above the same smear tactics he claimed to be a victim of in 2000. He simply didn't have enough conservative support to beat Bush in 2000, and that's still his problem today. While I personally think his willingness to compromise in the name of actually getting things done is admirable, he's pissed off way too many Republicans over the years. It'll be interesting to see how he tries to regain their trust while retaining his appeal to more moderate voters.
quote:If it stays that way I don't have any issue with this going till June. I wish she'd gone into that mode earlier, but oh well.
Has anyone really been watching CNN or the main news channels in the last few days? Obama and McCain are front and center...Clinton is in the background. I think he's already in General mode, and Clinton is being phased out as unimportant. And to her credit, she has cut out the attacks, instead she's releasing positive policy oriented ads and she's defending Obama on television.
quote:DNFTT.
Originally posted by T:man:
i just like history gosh dang
quote:Pot, meet Kettle.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:DNFTT.
Originally posted by T:man:
i just like history gosh dang
quote:
(AP) Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan and a one-time opponent of civil rights legislation, endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday.
Obama is vying to be the nation's first black president.
Byrd's support comes almost a week after the Illinois senator's 41-point loss to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the longtime lawmaker's home state of West Virginia.
Byrd said he had no intention of getting involved while his state was in the midst of a primary. "But the stakes this November could not be higher," he said in a written statement.
Byrd said Obama has the qualities to end the Iraq war, which he has strongly opposed.
"I believe that Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history," Byrd said.
Byrd has repeatedly apologized for his time in the Ku Klux Klan, which he joined as a young man in the 1940s to fight communism. He also opposed integrating the military, and filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Byrd is the longest-serving senator in history. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line for the presidency after the vice president and House speaker.
quote:Well, that's always the case. The difference between this and most threads is that because this one concerns a developing story that a large number of people here care about, there are fairly frequent injections of new, on-topic information from a variety of posters. This generally helps to keep the thread flying straight, but even if it veers dramatically off-course, a development of any magnitude in the larger story is sure to move the thread back to its original trajectory.
Originally posted by Nato:
It only takes one post to get this thread back on track and then you can just ignore whatever nonsense was going on before it...
quote:And you have different posters around the forum coming in to be more active in the thread around the time of their state's primary.. (e.g. My state's is tomorrow)
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Well, that's always the case. The difference between this and most threads is that because this one concerns a developing story that a large number of people here care about, there are fairly frequent injections of new, on-topic information from a variety of posters. This generally helps to keep the thread flying straight, but even if it veers dramatically off-course, a development of any magnitude in the larger story is sure to move the thread back to its original trajectory.
Originally posted by Nato:
It only takes one post to get this thread back on track and then you can just ignore whatever nonsense was going on before it...
quote:Oh, that's interesting; that factor hadn't occurred to me.
Originally posted by Nato:
[QUOTE]And you have different posters around the forum coming in to be more active in the thread around the time of their state's primary.. (e.g. My state's is tomorrow)
quote:McCain for the collapse of American power.
Originally posted by pooka:
There was a time Obama was getting kicked by Stephen Colbert in the Facebook presidency. It's basically meaningless.
I guess I better go and make sure I'm not still an Obama supporter on Facebook.
P.S. I have no idea how to go about that. I did leave the 1,000,000 strong for Obama group. I'm glad he got the nomination, and I think he may well win, but my vote is for McCain.
quote:It's only weird depending on your preconceptions.
You know what's weird, is on Pollster.com, Clinton still does better v. McCain than Obama, though Obama is now 7 pt.s ahead in a national democratic poll.
quote:Hillary Camp: Obama's "Plan" To Declare Victory Is Insult To Her "17 Million Supporters"
Originally posted by steven:
One was wondering how long it would take for common sense to overcome ego.
quote:Katharina wins the page, if not the thread.
It is turning into hilarity
quote:Given the current state of our country, perhaps that's exactly what he doesn't need. The gray heads haven't exactly brought us to a utopia, have they?
Originally posted by steven:
A young man in that job needs gray heads around him.
quote:I agree. Is it really impossible for a nominee to have both? If it is, expertise is not the one that should suffer!
One of my biggest complaints about the current administration is that it has favored loyalty and ideology over expertise and experience in its appointments.
quote:Believe me, this was a huge complaint about Clinton, except without the ideology.
One of my biggest complaints about the current administration is that it has favored loyalty and ideology over expertise and experience in its appointments.
quote:She has a large swath of the middle of the country that projects all of their virtues and fears on the Clintons. People look at her and see their best and worst possible selves. I don't think this was her election to lose. I do think that McCain will win the general in a walk, mostly because Bush set the bar so low for Republicans in '04 that McCain seems like a rightish compromise between Bush and Obama. You can't run negative on McCain. Thinking people won't buy it, and the unthinking people are already voting for him. McCain just has to get the message across, "I'm like Bush, but better. There aren't going to be any surprises. I'm too old to rock your world. But I'll be better. The dollar will be a bit stronger. And we won't be as dependent upon oil." McCain doesn't need to be a revolutionary. This isn't Kennedy against Nixon. Nixon was a known slime ball way before Watergate, and McCain's is a war hero with reasonably spotty record that he doesn't hide behind. As white guys go, McCain isn't ruthless or a baffoon. After 8 years of the current administration, that's enough for 53 percent of the voters and the Presidency.
This election was hers to lose. I know that sounds unfair in a way but seriously, she had the money, she had the machinery, she had everything going for her.
code:It seems to be after yesterday's primaries and if you read the footnotes, the only way Clinton is leading the popular vote is if you count Michigan and Florida's votes for her, and don't count Michigan's uncommitted votes at all. So she gets 300,000 votes from Michigan and Obama gets none.State Date Obama Clinton Spread
Popular Vote Total 16,650,139 49.0% 16,208,594 47.7% Obama +441,545 +1.3%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 16,984,223 49.1% 16,432,456 47.5% Obama +551,767 +1.6%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 17,226,353 48.2% 17,079,580 47.8% Obama +146,773 +0.4%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,560,437 48.3% 17,303,442 47.6% Obama +256,995 +0.7%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 17,226,353 47.5% 17,407,889 48.0% Clinton +181,536 +0.50%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,560,437 47.5% 17,631,751 47.7% Clinton +71,314 +0.20%
quote:I can run plenty of negatives on McCain, he calls the Vietnamese gooks in public thats enough for me to think he shouldn't be 100 feet from the White House.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:She has a large swath of the middle of the country that projects all of their virtues and fears on the Clintons. People look at her and see their best and worst possible selves. I don't think this was her election to lose. I do think that McCain will win the general in a walk, mostly because Bush set the bar so low for Republicans in '04 that McCain seems like a rightish compromise between Bush and Obama. You can't run negative on McCain. Thinking people won't buy it, and the unthinking people are already voting for him. McCain just has to get the message across, "I'm like Bush, but better. There aren't going to be any surprises. I'm too old to rock your world. But I'll be better. The dollar will be a bit stronger. And we won't be as dependent upon oil." McCain doesn't need to be a revolutionary. This isn't Kennedy against Nixon. Nixon was a known slime ball way before Watergate, and McCain's is a war hero with reasonably spotty record that he doesn't hide behind. As white guys go, McCain isn't ruthless or a baffoon. After 8 years of the current administration, that's enough for 53 percent of the voters and the Presidency.
This election was hers to lose. I know that sounds unfair in a way but seriously, she had the money, she had the machinery, she had everything going for her.
As far as VPs go, I do have a weakness for Blanche Lincoln, but her name doesn't come up as much as it should. She is right of me, but so is most of America, and I've a hard time holding it against her.
quote:Now that's bull. "The people who imprisoned him" just happen to be the current government of Vietnam.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
No he doesn't, Blayne. For the first part, he was never talking about the Vietnamese people as a whole, but rather the specific people who imprisioned and tortured him for years. For the second, he's conceded that he will not be doing than any more.
quote:I'd like a black person to become President, but come on, Stevenson in '52 and '56, McGovern in '72, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and let's not forget Kerry losing to Bush in '04, and the simple fact that Obama got killed, killed in Kentucky. Democrats lose, often and sometimes by a landslide. The last time I checked, America is more than just the West Coast, college towns and black people. For me, being an American means what I want and don't want doesn't matter at a federal level.
I know you really, really don't want a black person to become President, but, even so, I think you should rethink the way you see McCain and the current political environment.
quote:Yes, I also give special dispensation for such a background but I also think the President of the our country, whose job it is to be our chief diplomat and liaison to the world, must be held to a higher standard on such matters. I don't want someone who thinks its OK to publicly call any North Korean a "gook", representing my country as our leader -- no matter why he uses that word.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
In my book, you get a special dispensation with respect to racial slurs after being a POW for five years and tortured. It's not optimal, but if that's the worst of his baggage after the torture, then I'm okay with it.
quote:Then would you consider it acceptable for someone to use the term "nigger" to describe a black man who had raped and beaten them. Or is that not sufficiently horrific either. Where do you draw the line.
Originally posted by fugu13:
No, it is not like that. Being held in abject captivity and tortured is not like being robbed. It is a horrific experience.
quote:Like I said, all fine excuses for anyone unless they are asking to become our next President. If someone suffered a serious injury to their foot and managed through hard work to rehabilitate themselves until they were able to run with only a slight limp, I'd consider it inspiring to see that person run. But I wouldn't select them to represent my country on the Olympic team unless they could actually run faster than all other Americans.
Not to mention, he was part of an organization (the military) where using such terms to refer to the enemy was not just tolerated, but encouraged. His use of the term for those who held him captive is, if unfortunate, understandable and human.
quote:The fact that he has managed to keep from using the term publicly after he was widely criticized for it and while he his running for President provides little consolation. It is hardly evidence that he no longer harbors racist attitudes toward asians that could interfere with his ability to deal with China and North Korea.
and not something he does any more.
quote:No, I only demand that much logic out of someone who wants to be the leader of my country.
And I think you demand too much logic out of an emotional reaction to extreme and prolonged trauma.
quote:30+ years is more than "a while" in my book.
Originally posted by fugu13:
I would not consider it acceptable. I would understand, however, if someone who had been raped and beaten by a black man, at a time when it was socially acceptable to call a black man nigger, continued to call that black man nigger for a while.
quote:I'm not concerned about virtue, I'm concerned about diplomacy. Diplomacy is after all one of the Presidents primary responsibilities and I find it disturbing that a Presidential candidate would care so little about how his words are perceived by the world. His "gook" comment is only one example of what I consider his lack of diplomacy.
I also try not to expect a paragon of virtue out of the President, because that's a sure route to disappointment
quote:Also disturbing but in a different way. He doesn't publicly insult people by calling them "b--". I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
For instance, Obama has a history of referring to women with demeaning diminutives (a history much more recent than McCain's), but I'm willing to contemplate him being President. [/qb]
quote:Please give some examples?
Originally posted by fugu13:
If we're talking about diplomacy, many of the world's most successfully diplomatic chief executives have been extremely rude people. I think you are not using well-chosen criteria, but are instead relying on a personal mythology about what it means to be an effective diplomat.
quote:Wait, Bush what? I missed this. When did it happen? What were the circumstances?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
quote:The G8 summit in Rostock. Here is a link to the video "Bush/Merckel". I was in Germany at the time and this made big news there. I think the look on Merckel's face alone should tell you how appropriate this was.
Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Wait, Bush what? I missed this. When did it happen? What were the circumstances?
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
quote:That's just horribly embarassing. Wow.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The G8 summit in Rostock. Here is a link to the video "Bush/Merckel".
quote:Do you mean me? We can discuss it more after the page turns, I guess, because I'm really not able to follow this page.
Originally posted by Noemon:
That's just horribly embarassing. Wow.
quote:I'm pretty sure he was referring to the Bush/Merckel incident at the G8 summit and it had nothing to do with you,
Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Do you mean me? We can discuss it more after the page turns, I guess, because I'm really not able to follow this page.
Originally posted by Noemon:
That's just horribly embarassing. Wow.
quote:I think you missed the fact that Rabbit was defining diplomacy, not foreign policy. (As well as gving the opinion that we need more diplomacy in our foreign policy, of course.)
Originally posted by fugu13:
I think you are very wrong about foreign policy. I think that, while compromise is extremely important, an unwillingness to proffer carrots and wield sticks would severely undermine our international effectiveness.
quote:
CROW AGENCY, Mont. (AP)—Democrat Barack Obama got a brand-new name as he courted native Americans in the West. The presidential candidate was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow nation, and given the name Awe Kooda Bilaxpak Kuuxshish that translates as "One who helps people throughout the land."
A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton said that, instead of focusing on superdelegates, Team Clinton's strategy will shift to tricking Obama into saying his new name backwards, sending him back to the 8th Dimension.
quote:Back in Ben Franklin's time they didn't do much in the way of diplomacy avoiding "entangling alliances" and all that.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Picking a few famous people . . .
Ben Franklin was extremely impolite to many people, and also one of our most effective ambassadors. Winston Churchill pulled together one of the most divided alliances in history.
Going down the list of Presidents ranked best at foreign policy by a large number of international relations scholars: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3913
FDR, Truman, and Nixon top the list. I'm not seeing any trend towards politeness. Indeed, I'm seeing no particular correlation.
I think you are very wrong about foreign policy. I think that, while compromise is extremely important, an unwillingness to proffer carrots and wield sticks would severely undermine our international effectiveness.
I think that there is a long history showing many regimes can only be dealt with by using that strategy consistently, and that many more regimes often respond better given an accurate assessment of where we draw lines and what we will do for those who do what is in our interests.
I think that there is broad agreement in all governments of the first world that the carrot and the stick are vital tools of foreign policy, even with each other (whaling treaties, anyone?).
I think the issues many countries have with our current President's foreign policy have almost nothing to do with whether or not he employes those practices, but are often with how he does not employ them very well (for lacks of carrots, see NK and Iraq. For lacks of sticks, see Russia).
quote:Includes commentary from Richard Cohen:
WASHINGTON—Presidential hopefuls John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced Monday their plans to form what many Beltway observers have already dubbed the "2008 Nightmare Ticket," a calculated move that political analysts say offers voters the worst of both worlds.
After nearly a year of verbal attacks and negative campaign ads, the nominees announced that, for the good of the country, they were willing to push their differences to the forefront and grant the American people the ticket they've been dreading all along.
quote:
"This nightmare ticket presents the American people with an unprecedented lack of opportunity in 2008," Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote Tuesday. "For just one vote, citizens will get four years of McCain's brilliant temper, the incredible inexperience of Barack Obama, and the powerful two-headed monster of Hillary and Bill Clinton."
"It will be very exciting to see what they're capable of destroying, " Cohen added.
quote:"Rude" can mean many different things from having poor table manners to hurling insults and profanity at other nations. Its one thing to be blunt and another thing to use racist slurs. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I've never heard of Ben Franklin calling the French "frogs". In fact from all records, Franklin's success as a diplomat in France was because he knew how to socialize and make friends with well connected people. Hardly the picture of rudeness.
Originally posted by fugu13:
[QB] I do not think they are very separable. However, many of the people mentioned were successful at both despite being rude people.
quote:You are still missing the point. The issue in diplomacy isn't about being friendly. Its about being able to find common ground, about being able to put yourself in your enemies shoes so you can seek mutually agreeable resolutions to conflicts.
Also, Bush is known for being a very (probably overly) friendly diplomat in person. But when we get into the realm where we are talking about the need to compromise, we are talking about foreign policy decisions.
quote:See, I can't figure out if I'm the "no one," because everyone except The Rabbit and Blayne seems willing to accept the apology, due to the frighteningly mitigating circumstances that comprise McCain's life and his subsequent good deeds. I just took it for granted that every US President who ever lived thought "I'm tired of dealing with these niggers," and I imagine that most of them said it aloud while in office. I think there is a substantive difference between McCain's slur and Bush joking about executing someone with the death penalty. Are you sure you aren't cooking up some conspiracy to make yourself feel better?
Also, I thought everyone hated Bush because he would never apologize for anything, but no one is willing to accept McCain's apology for "gook" gate.
quote:There are plenty of other things to degrade him over, like him being Bush 2.0
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Blayne, pooka made statments including the words "everyone" and "no one" for rhetorical effect. It only takes one person-- and it happens that me, Squicky, and fugu all happen to have forgiven him-- to show her claim is not the case.
I'd like for Obama to defeat McCain, but I'm not willing to unfairly degrade McCain in the process.
quote:I think you are mischaracterizing my response. I think the extraordinary circumstance clearly excuse McCain's behavior.
See, I can't figure out if I'm the "no one," because everyone except The Rabbit and Blayne seem willing to accept the apology, due to the frighteningly mitigating circumstances that comprise McCain's life.
quote:I think this is one of those times where the, "I'm sorry if people took offense" apology is warranted. She didn't say anything wrong. She was making a point and a point that was germane. The '92 convention went until June, and the '68 convention could have very easily gone all the way but for an assassination.
The comments came in a meeting Mrs Clinton was having with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper.
Responding to those who had called on her to withdraw from the Democratic Party's presidential race, Mrs Clinton said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
quote:I highly doubt that story of Colin Powell, considered maybe, turned it down due to the possibility of death threats? No General would run from a challenge if that were so, remeber he was a GENERAL int he US Army.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
It's just that everyone has been hyper-careful to avoid mentioning assassination, since that is the greatest fear for Sen. Obama. It is almost like trying to jinx him. He has had so many death threats, his Secret Service detail has been greatly enlarged. Colin Powell actually wanted to run back when he was asked a number of years ago, after he retired from the military, but his wife told him she would leave him if he ran, because she was sure he would be assassinated by some White Supremacist crazie.
Sen. Clinton may not have actually meant to wish Obama ill, but she did betray a lack of delicacy, of awareness of the things thoughtful people are supposed to be aware of without talking about it. Like she wasn't quite "clued in" enough.
Clinton would probably make a better president than Obama, because Obama is so naive and inexperienced and so extremely liberal. But Clinton is naive in her own way, too.
Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances. If I were Obama, I would not want Clinton to be my veep. It would be like Caeser having Cassius for his heir-apparent.
quote:Complete conspiracy theorist bullsh*t and crackpotery, give even the slightest shred of proof that this is the case.
Clinton's gaffe also evokes a very faint echo of something she would probably prefer not be re-awakened, and that is the legend of how many dozens of people in a position to hurt the Clintons over the years have turned up dead in mysterious circumstances.
quote:The '92 nomination was sewn up months before June. IIRC, Tsongas dropped out in March, and Brown would have needed 90%+ of the remaining delegates to snatch the nomination from Bill Clinton. Clinton's own senior staff had declared outright victory long before California voted.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
kmbboots,
quote:I think this is one of those times where the, "I'm sorry if people took offense" apology is warranted. She didn't say anything wrong. She was making a point and a point that was germane. The '92 convention went until June, and the '68 convention could have very easily gone all the way but for an assassination.
The comments came in a meeting Mrs Clinton was having with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper.
Responding to those who had called on her to withdraw from the Democratic Party's presidential race, Mrs Clinton said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
quote:So her mealy-mouthed "apology" about having Ted Kennedy's condition on her mind when she made her remarks to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader holds no water.
"Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June, also in California. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual. We will see how it unfolds as we go forward over the next three to four months."
-Hillary Clinton, TIME magazine, March 6, 2008
quote:Blayne, it was widely reported at the time that Alma Powell opposed her husband running for president, both because she feared assassination attempts and because she did not want to be first lady. When he gave his speech saying he wasn't going to run, he flat-out stated it was because he didn't have the passion for it that was necessary and that his family mattered more to him. There were claims later that she told him that she'd leave him if he ran, I don't think either of them have actually substantiated them, but he definitely considered it and she was definitely against the idea. That is a matter of public record.
I highly doubt that story of Colin Powell, considered maybe, turned it down due to the possibility of death threats? No General would run from a challenge if that were so, remeber he was a GENERAL int he US Army.
quote:I agree with your general response to Ron but please realize that "Left" and "Right" are relative terms. As such it doesn't make sense to call our usage of the terms "absurd."
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Next Obama isn't extremely Liberal he is to the right of the Conservative Party if we look at Canadian politics, your ideas of "Left" and "Right" are absurd. Liberal Does not connote bad it is simply a different system of ethics, Libertarianism as contrasted to Utilitarianism as an example.
quote:Two thoughts his list of things for which Clinton has been forgiven. First, despite his emotive appeal, I find every single thing on that list worse, most of them significantly worst, than her latest statement.
Originally posted by Sterling:
His list of the things for which Clinton has been "forgiven" was pretty damning. I don't necessarily share his level of outrage about what she said- in a large part because Obama, graciously, has let it slide- but I understand his outrage and think he's entitled to it.
quote:That is absolutely horrible. Who are these people? FOX news should censured for this.
Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius:
The always classy FOX news chimes in, to support Obama's assassination:
"...suggestion that somebody knock off O-O-Osama...umm, O-Obama. Well, both, if we could. HAHAHA"
quote:Part of why I feel that Olbermann is entitled to feel as he does, even though I don't, is that he was alive when JFK, King, Malcolm X, and RFK were assassinated, and I was not. He undoubtedly sees this in a different light than I (or you?) do. So to him, and perhaps others of his (and Clinton's) generation, this might well exceed the other items he mentioned.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sterling:
[qb] Second, there is something highly disingenuous in giving a long list of all the things we've supposedly "forgiven" her. If we've forgiven her why bring them up. "Forgiveness" is a particularly slimy excuse for lising all the reasons we should be pissed at her.
quote:Really? I've appreciated some of Olberman's other special comments, but this is patently absurd. And frankly, insulting.
...this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy is political assassination.
quote:Exactly the problem. He overstates his case to an astounding degree - in a way that trivializes a whole host of events - and simply to score points against Clinton. That's ugly.
Deepest? Most enduring? No, I think slavery and indian genocide probably win those awards.
quote:I tend to agree with this sentiment. I still think it would have been wise for Hillary to explicitly address this in her apology. Instead, her apology seems directed toward the Kennedy family rather than Obama. As it stands, it seems like she is either still clueless about the issue or that she did wish to make people think about the risks of nominating a black candidate.
A lot of that list resonated with me as well, but I have a hard time believing she'd publicly express a wish, however passive, for Obama's death. If she knew it would be interpreted that way, she wouldn't have said it, plain and simple.
quote:I don't know, I think Obama has made significant strides toward's that in his campaign. I think that is one reason he's winning.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Should be interesting if that happens.
I'm not entirely sure if the people ARE willing or able to understand them.
quote:To be correct, FOX news did not state this, someone being interviewed on Fox News stated this which is a huge difference. I'm going to assume there is no difference to you though
The always classy FOX news chimes in, to support Obama's assassination:
quote:And the FOX news guy who was interviewing her laughed and joked as though he shared the sentiment. At the very least, he showed no sign that he found the comment offensive or even inappropriate.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:To be correct, FOX news did not state this, someone being interviewed on Fox News stated this which is a huge difference. I'm going to assume there is no difference to you though
The always classy FOX news chimes in, to support Obama's assassination:
quote:He didn't laugh, he said why don't you talk about how you really feel which is a comment about her and not a comment about what he thought. If anything that was a slight comdenation of her words while moving onto what ever the next question was.
And the FOX news guy who was interviewing her laughed and joked as though he shared the sentiment. At the very least, he showed no sign that he found the comment offensive or even inappropriate.
quote:I listened to it again and I hear it differently. He gives a slight laugh and then says in a very joking tone "Why don't you talk about how you really feel". To it sounded like he shared the sentiment. His joking tone certainly didn't sound a bit like condemnation.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
He didn't laugh, he said why don't you talk about how you really feel which is a comment about her and not a comment about what he thought. If anything that was a slight comdenation of her words while moving onto what ever the next question was.
quote:I'm serious. I know first hand that the station was fined and the comment in question was in my opinion more innocuous than the one made on FOX news. As I remember the caller began a diatribe with the preface "If Bush was assassinated", which was interpreted by some as a threat.
Originally posted by steven:
"An Indy radio station I work with was fined because someone who called in to one of their talk shows made a comment that could have been interpreted as a threat against Pres. Bush."
Are you serious? How'd that work, exactly? I might grant you that pre-screening callers counts as some kind of basic creator of liability, but I'm not sure that something some caller randomly blurts out on the air without anyone's prior knowledge could be a fineable offense.
quote:Do you have links about this?
I'm serious. I know first hand that the station was fined and the comment in question was in my opinion more innocuous than the one made on FOX news. As I remember the caller began a diatribe with the preface "If Bush was assassinated", which was interpreted by some as a threat.
quote:I assumed South Dakota would go big for Obama because of Daschle's early and unwavering support. Half of Daschle's office became Obama staff when Daschle was voted out and Obama voted in in '04.
I'm going to stick my foot out and predict that both Montana and South Dakota will go for Obama with a wide margin.
quote:Well we Montanan's (or at least a plurality of us), did vote for Bill in '92.
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
Montana, well, I just don't think those folks like Clintons.
quote:The link just takes me back to hatrack.
Originally posted by pooka:
This Weekly Standard article seems to be making the case that Condoleeza Rice is too soft on the axis of evil. It was interesting to read, at any rate.
quote:Yeah, I read about that one today and really, really don't agree with the arguement Clinton's lawyer is making there. I also think her campaign's "Every vote counts and the will of the voters is all that matters" is pretty ridiculous when set beside her repeated claims that certain states don't really count, caucuses don't really count, and trying to get superdelegates to go her way regardless of the actual votes.
Meanwhile, Clinton is making her case to the rules committee that Florida and Michigan should be seated in full, and that Obama shouldn't get ANY delegates from Michigan.
quote:
In a startling manuever aimed at clinching the Democratic Presidential nomination, sources indicate that Hillary Clinton and General Zod are talking seriously about an alliance.
quote:Now if they play that over and over on tv...
Originally posted by Alcon:
Dunno if this has been posted yet or not. It's a video compilation of statements McCain has made on tape where he contradicts himself, blatantly, obviously and repeatedly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
quote:Obama's resignation reminded me of his apology for his "bitter" comments; it missed the point. He seems to be resigning from the church not because he disagrees with the doctrines and sermons, but because he feels its a distraction and because he feels the news is mistreating congregants. To me it seems politically expedient, but nothing more; I didn't see any genuine disapproval, for the sermons or the congregants who added their amens.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Obama Resigns from Trinity Church
Has this already been posted? If so, I missed it.
There are no advance tickets, but they asked you to rsvp if you were coming or not and said it was first come first serve, but it's at a pretty big venue.
quote:*Specific* examples of Senator Clinton's "baggage" have been rare in this primary contest.
Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton’s post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife’s campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton’s medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say “no.” Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.
quote:Since you posted this, the mainstream media seems to have picked up the story. When I was in the caffeteria at work yesterday afternoon the commentators at FOX News were talking about little else.
Originally posted by sndrake:
Vanity Fair published a piece by Todd Purdum over the weekend that is getting surprisingly little coverage.
quote:Secretary of Housing and Scorched-earth Campaigns?
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What cabinet position could she possibly be qualified for?
quote:Attorney General? I'm not saying that I think that she'd be a good AG, but she's qualified for it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What cabinet position could she possibly be qualified for?
quote:How he campaigns very much matters, even if he loses in November.
He ran a good campaign. Of course none of this matters if he loses in November.
quote:I remember a letter to the editor in Time Magazine three weeks ago where a woman claimed that though she was angry at Obama for not waiting his turn, she thought that the Democrats would and should support Obama, even if they were voting for Clinton.
I was talking to my grandmother about the race. She is of the opinion that it's Clinton's turn to run - Obama should have gotten out of the way and waited his turn. I get the feeling she thinks he "stole" the election merely by showing up. It's not a sentiment I share, but it makes me wonder how many of Clinton's supporters feel the same way.
quote:I wonder how those women would vote if Condoleeza Rice were the Republican Candidate in 2016.
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I think there are a lot of Democratic women voters who are afraid that there won't be another viable woman candidate in their lifetimes. Hillary Clinton is going to be too old in 2016. [quote]
In 2016, Hillary will be 69 -- 3 years younger than McCain is right now and the same age that Ronald Reagan was in the 1980 election.
[quote]I think Hillary Clinton losing may have become emblematic to them of their lifetimes of at the least perceived doors being closed on them because they were women.
I don't know how feasible this is, but if the Democratic party could give them hope that there will be a viable woman candidate for President in 2016, it would go a long way towards overcoming their...bitterness.
quote:Either Rice or the Republican party would have to change position on abortion for that to happen.
I wonder how those women would vote if Condoleeza Rice were the Republican Candidate in 2016.
quote:There's more - and many people here would be OK with her positions. But it won't fly with the Republican party as a position for a presidential candidate.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a candid interview with The Washington Times Friday expressed her position on abortion as “mildly pro-choice.”
Asked, “Are you pro-life? Are you pro-choice? What is your thought on abortion?”, Rice responded: “I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice.
quote:Looks like you were right Squick, women do lament the lack of candidates.
Hundreds of young supporters and volunteers were on hand to witness Hillary Clinton’s exit from the presidential race, but the crowd at her last campaign rally Saturday was dominated by the middle-aged white women who have been the most loyal element of her base.
As the crowd filed out into the 90-degree Washington afternoon, 63-year-old June Stevenson of Columbia, Maryland – who said she would be donating to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign that evening – added that the failure of Clinton’s presidential run felt personal: she and Clinton came from the same generation of women on the front lines of the feminist fights of the 1970s. “It will be another 10 years, 20 years, maybe more before we get another chance like this,” Stevenson said.
“There won’t be another chance like this one,” responded her friend Linda Cohen, pointing out that if a woman were elected president in the next decade or two, they were unlikely to be a Baby Boomer. “Our time has passed,” she said with a laugh.
quote:It most certainly was. I'll just echo kmmboots comment:
From the sound of things, she had a pretty classy exit.
quote:
I have never liked her better than I did today.
quote:Saying that hillary might possibly shenagle the democratic primary now is about as delusional as saying that Ron Paul was ever going to shenagle the republican primary ever. =)
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Not only the superdelegates can change their minds, but also the so-called pledged delegates, according to the rules of the Democratic Party, are not legally bound to vote the way the primaries went. Every single delegate could change his mind, even on the first ballot in the convention. There will be nothing to take for granted when the votes are taken in the Dem convention.
The Dems have shot themselves in the foot so many times during this primary campaign, they have no feet left. The convention should be convened with everyone in wheelchairs.
quote:Pardon me while I locate my violin. My generation will never elect a president.
“There won’t be another chance like this one,” responded her friend Linda Cohen, pointing out that if a woman were elected president in the next decade or two, they were unlikely to be a Baby Boomer.