Just tossing this out there.

Bill Clinton worth to the Dems in a presidential race is NOTHING a big fat zero cuz his only message is 'my wife is great' and 'vote for my wife'. Both of those messages ring hollow to lots of potential voters.

He could be yoda for the Dems. Hopefully he'll step into that role when Obama gets the nomination.

From a Lefty perspective, I can tell you that the consensus on Bill seems to be exactly what you're saying - that he's going to say or do anything to help his wife, but when the whole thing is said and done, he's still a valuable force for any D candidate.

Agreed. But... if he suddenly said 'After talking with so and so I have decided he is a much better candidate than my wife' that person would win the Dem nomination. Bill would die, but that shows how much power he could have.

Oh, it would make them an instant favorite. Too bad it will never happen though.

Agreed. But... if he suddenly said 'After talking with so and so I have decided he is a much better candidate than my wife' that person would win the Dem nomination. Bill would die, but that shows how much power he could have.
I don't agree. Bill is enormously well-liked, but he's not that influential by a longshot. He's viewed as being very conservative (he's with the Blue Dog caucus) and a little too tied to Hillary's interests. Just because he endorses someone doesn't mean he will sway that many people. Al Gore, on the other hand, would easily tip this election with a few choice words.

My thinking is that he really COULD have been that powerful Swam. If he was just an overseer, yoda type and MOST IMPORTANTLY a framer of the Democratic message/debate during the Dem nomination process and the general election, he would have had huge power and influence. Libs and moderates would be listening to him.

But instead he's fighiting for one candidate that has a ton of baggage.

My thinking is that he really COULD have been that powerful Swam. If he was just an overseer, yoda type and MOST IMPORTANTLY a framer of the Democratic message/debate during the Dem nomination process and the general election, he would have had huge power and influence. Libs and moderates would be listening to him.

But instead he's fighiting for one candidate that has a ton of baggage.
I don't think Hillary has any baggage. She doesn't have any problems with personal history or scandal herself. She's just not very good.

When word got out that Obama had Oprah, the first move by Hillary was to send her husband to South Carolina. Willy has a ton of pull with African Americans. Haven't any of you watched Primary Colors?

I really get the feeling that if Hillary starts to falter that deck of cards will fold quicker than ... a really quick folding deck of cards

People are really going after Obama for his lack of experience, but how does Hillary have any more than he does?

Obama has 8 years experience in state government, 4 in federal.

Clinton has 6 years experience in federal government, far more only if you count first lady (but arguably, her biggest accomplishment on that front was delaying advances in healthcare for over a decade - doh!)

Edwards has 6 years experience in federal government

You've got to get to the 2nd tier candidates to find vast experience.

Of course, experience is the enemy on the Republican side as well. I'm sure that the relative success of Huckabee and Romney has a lot to do with the fact that they've not been in the federal eye a lot, while the likes of McCain have. Giuliani is "special" in this regard... if not for 9/11, his legacy would be as a mediocre mayor.

Note that Romney wasn't "the main man" in Massachusetts the way a lot of governors normally are in their states. Massachusetts has a Democratic supermajority in their legislature, and can readily override any gubernatorial veto. That's one big reason you don't see him run on his record there.

re:Hills experience

You know how she use to say "I spent 8 years in the WH and consulted with my husband on issues...blah blah blah"

So Obama is like release those documents from the library. Then the brakes went on and Bill and Hill started saying its up to the 'head dude at the library' and everyone including Russert was like Bullshit.

So Hill has backed off her experience claim quite a bit.

Yeah, I think the top tier of both party fields is very light on Federal experience...IMHO, a good thing. Lots of youth and idealism coming from Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and Romney.

I get the feeling that Hillary and Julie are suffering at the moment because they're viewed as the "establishment" candidates, the kind of person the insiders want to win, and there's a strong anti-establishment groundswell right now.

I'll throw RG under the bus if you throw Hillary.

Consider her ass thrown. Ugh. Anyone working with James Carville can throw themselves under the bus for all I care.

RG seems like a good idea until you realize there's no "there" there. He's like a hot pastry made with turds - poke the surface and it mostly deflates, and whatever's left over is shit.

when you do your best to appear "the inevitable" and that gets challenged, shit can hit the fan quickly.

its why i got so pissy a little while back when people claimed barak was unelectable due to his skin color. i dont know why, but in elections, and especially in primaries, people like to vote for the person they think will win. like you get a cookie for guessing the winner.

as far as i could tell, the #1 reason people seemed to support hilary was because they thought she had already won.

meanwhile, the people who seem to have the biggest problem with obama's skin color seem to be the blacks. we'll see if that is just loyalty that they rightly feel towards bill clinton, or something more unseemly.

anyway, i think this is shaping up to be a an election that could be among the most important in US history. well, maybe. i dont believe that the president alone (though bush tried to change this) can affect the country on a massive extent, but there are serious issues at play on the international lvl that far exceed terrorism as far as threats to our long term well being go, and the next pres needs to lead us past partisan bickering and chronyism. shit actually needs to be addressed. the best unifying force imo is barak, which makes it a slam dunk cuz i like him for alot of other reasons too.

Not sure if it will be the "most important" election, but it could be the dirtiest/nastiest.

Do you guys ever look at the banner ads at the bottom of these threads?

There are a few McCain ones running right now that look like they are straight out of Orwell's 1984 or something. The fearmongering that is going on would be funny as hell if it weren't so effective.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2885/fearlx4.jpg

The fear mongering is effective. The Dems have been telling everyone Bush lied and Bush is listening to you phone calls and it was working there for a while. I don't think peeps believe it as much as they did though.

The fear mongering is effective. The Dems have been telling everyone Bush lied and Bush is listening to you phone calls and it was working there for a while. I don't think peeps believe it as much as they did though.

tenuous.

i've never heard of protecting civil liberties as fear mongering.

and i dont think its people not believing as much as not caring.

Not sure if it will be the "most important" election, but it could be the dirtiest/nastiest.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2885/fearlx4.jpg

it might be hard to call THIS election the most important, but its gonna be up there.

and i think that people who follow the financial markets would agree. nothing is gonna change china taking over as the #1 economy in the world (during all our life times) but its just a question of when? were not just talking bout recession in america, which looks very dire, but an exploding economy in asia.

and this is connected to the environment. which depending on your values and what you believe, could be even more important/ominous than the economy.

were not facing an impending war which always gets presidents extra notice, but this is definitly a crucial time in this countries history going forward.

The current election ALWAYS feels like the most important. I've been voting for longer than I care to admit and it always feels that way.

maybe, but the threat china poses to us economically, which is the most tangible threat this country has had since, what, 63?, is real. america desperately needs to get this economy if it wants to continue on as the only world superpower.

now, if being the only superpower doesnt matter to you, and you dont buy global warming as a threat, then i could concede this being just another election during tough economic times.

but if that stuff does matter, than i think this coming period is going to be a very important era in american history.

Odds On: Who will be chosen as the Democratic candidate for the 2008 US Presidential Election?

Hillary Clinton
1/6

Barack Obama
3/2

Al Gore
15/1

John Edwards
9/1

Dennis Kucinich
20/1

Joseph Biden
30/1

Chris Dodd
40/1

Mike Gravel
40/1

Bill Richardson
40/1

Field
50/1

Clinton puts Magic Johnson front and center
Posted: 06:26 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson suggests Barack Obama is a "rookie" in a new Hillary Clinton campaign ad launched in South Carolina Friday, one week before the southern state holds its Democratic primary.

"We won our first game on a last-second shot," the former Los Angeles Lakers point guard says in the ad. "I was so hyped. But the captain of my team said, 'Take it easy rookie, it's a long season, it's a long road to the championship.' He was right."

(According to NBA.com, that sage veteran mentioned in the ad who offers advice to a young Johnson is none other than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who happens to be publicly supporting Obama.)

"Whether it's winning championships or a president who can lead us back to greatness, I'll always want the most prepared and experienced person leading my team," Johnson also says. "That's why I'm asking you to join me in voting for Hillary Clinton for President.

The basketball great fails to point out the Lakers won the NBA championship his rookie season and he was named Finals MVP.

Johnson endorsed Clinton earlier in the year and campaigned at her side in the days leading up to the Iowa caucuses. He has also been campaigning with Bill Clinton in Nevada this week, and taking subtle digs at the Illinois senator.

"We need somebody who's not preaching hope," he said at one stop on Thursday. "We need somebody who understands that there's a problem, and they're preaching solutions."

well, uhhh, magic johnson could move the rock, but kareem had that sky hook, plus he leads the nba in all time scoring.

i think ill vote obama.

The rookie famously took over the experienced guy's position, when the experienced guy fumbled down the stretch.

I wonder what Obama did against Magic Johnson. Magic contributed to him last year.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=BEVERLY+HILLS&st=CA&last=johnson&first=earvin

I don't know about all this Magic, Oprah, etc stuff.

Ahh... I understand Magic's support now:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/clinton-signs-aids-funding-pledge/

Inpector Mxy to the rescue.

Ahh... I understand Magic's support now:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/clinton-signs-aids-funding-pledge/
Obama shoulda signed it. You vote for the candidate that fits your interests. Not signing it comes across as not on board to Magic I guess.

Hillary knows that she doesn't actually have to live up to pledge $50 billion for AIDS by 2013. Suppose she doesn't follow such a pledge. Unless she fucks up big-time, if she wins now, she's the Democratic nominee in 2012, and probably will have been more pro-AIDS than the Republican candidate.

BO has about a 10pt lead in SC averaging out all the polls.

If she pulls this one out, it could be over.

as mxy pointed out, hil's position is deceptively weak. she won the pop vote in nevada, but she actually lost ground in delegates. and she won 9 delegates in NH, just like BO.

correct me if im wrong, but it looks like BO is beating Hil, by delegates, 67 to 22. if he wins SC, as projected, he would be up 112 to 22 headed into super tuesday (FL and MI both lost all there delegates).

BO really needs to let people know about this.

also, if this becomes ultra close, a word that we're gonna start hearing alot is "superdelegate". watch out.

I don't know if that plays out like that. I mean peeps aren't getting a lot of mo out of a win. I don't think having more delegates is going to get more mo either. Just my opinion based on my recollection of previous elections. I hope I'm wrong and you are right.

i think viability is kind of n important issue. hilary has been playing the "inevitability" card. electability always comes up. obama needs to let people know that this is going as well as he could have hoped. it will be interesting to see how the media covers this.

I don't know if that plays out like that. I mean peeps aren't getting a lot of mo out of a win. I don't think having more delegates is going to get more mo either. Just my opinion based on my recollection of previous elections. I hope I'm wrong and you are right.
No one's had a really big >10% win on the Democratic side, unless you count Clinton's victory in a meaninglesss Michigan primary. Hell, Obama hasn't lost in any of the three states where electable pledged delegates are on the line.

Obama's best chance for a big win is in South Carolina. It will be interesting to see what role Edwards plays. I heard a rumor that the Nevada results suggest that Edwards voters were more likely to have Hillary as their second choice than Obama, so Edwards may be helping rather than acting as a spoiler for Obama. Hmmm...

Clinton's probably going to win big in Florida, but everyone knows that's nearly as fucked as Michigan's primary so it's unclear what the "bounce" will be.

Super Tuesday is unlikely to be decisive.

arent cali and NY both clinton strongholds? if she wins those two, she would be sitting awfully pretty.

Obama was polling within the single digits of Clinton in California as of less than a week ago, FWIW.

keep in mind that the pistons franchise has had a stark dichotemy in results under democratic and republican presidents.

in short, its not gonna be pretty for the pistons if a dem wins.

coincidence? or does billy squirm when he's not getting those upper class tax breaks and stops supporting the team? food for though.

Note that they only win when a Bush is in office, not just any Republican.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html

Nice link Mxy. I wouldn't mind seeing Obama and Hillary punch each other enough to turn everyone on to Edwards. It probably won't happen though.

On words alone, Edwards wins. He says what a lot of people want to hear.

The problem I have with him is that his record as a conservative Democratic North Carolina Senator doesn't match his current words. It's not just Iraq, but all sorts of little things. In the SC debate, he just groused about a free trade agreement with Peru that Obama was involved with. But, he voted for cloture on a free trade agreement with -- are you ready for it -- Peru when he was a Senator. First he was for dumping nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain when it wasn't his state, now he's not.

Edwards... patriot act, war, Yucca mtn, etc etc...then he accuses those who voted the same way he voted are corrupt and tools of large rich interest.

Edwards... patriot act, war, Yucca mtn, etc etc...then he accuses those who voted the same way he voted are corrupt and tools of large rich interest.

Yup, and I don't remeber him scaling the populist mountain quite so high 4 years ago.

John Edwards isnt a legit candidate if he cant beat that frankenstein fuck Kerry.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Bloomfield+Hills++&st=MI&last=dumars

little shocked that they publish everyone's address like that. glad to know the dumars back barrack, though.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=Bloomfield+Hills++&st=MI&last=dumars


Um, any idea why I gave $247 to a liberal PAC in 2004 at my wife's employer?

You were trying to get in her pants?

The employer's pants?

No, John Kerry's pants.

Wait, I think I know, my wife bought some tickets to one of those move-on concerts on-line with my credit card.

mxy, that a possibility?

I want to point something out to the Democrats here, or perhaps even everyone.

During the next presidential term, there is a possibility that three of the Democratic supreme court justices with either pass away or retire. If a republican president is in, then we may be seeing a terribly one-sided Supreme Court. In such a difficult and stressful time, I think the government needs all the checks and balances possible. If Republican justices are appointed, we will no doubt see the outcome of Roe v. Wade overturned among many other. Another thing, as you all know, these justices are in. For. Life.

Therefore, if you are a democrat and are considering an anti-Hillary stance (meaning if she is nominated, then you will go Republican just because you hate Hillary), I beg that you rethink your stance.

Wait, I think I know, my wife bought some tickets to one of those move-on concerts on-line with my credit card.

mxy, that a possibility?
That'd do it, sure.

Just remember that unless you take some specific steps to avoid it, significant political donations are tracked, reported, and publicly available. Newsmeat is one of many sites you can use to quickly dig into that stuff at a federal level.

I want to point something out to the Democrats here, or perhaps even everyone.

During the next presidential term, there is a possibility that three of the Democratic supreme court justices with either pass away or retire. If a republican president is in, then we may be seeing a terribly one-sided Supreme Court. In such a difficult and stressful time, I think the government needs all the checks and balances possible. If Republican justices are appointed, we will no doubt see the outcome of Roe v. Wade overturned among many other. Another thing, as you all know, these justices are in. For. Life.

Therefore, if you are a democrat and are considering an anti-Hillary stance (meaning if she is nominated, then you will go Republican just because you hate Hillary), I beg that you rethink your stance.

I don't think abortion should be legal, but is it so bad if the babies were born?

With already-born babies, there's two choices -- keep 'em, or give 'em away.

1) Keep 'em: Ok, that means they have to feed 'em, raise 'em, etc. Can they afford that? Are they competent enough to do that, especially if they made the poor choices that got 'em there in the first place? Note that "they" is often a singular figure. The moms bear that burden disproportionately, simply because possession is 9/10th of the law and the father isn't always known.

2) Give 'em away: Unfortunately, adoption isn't a color blind or gender blind process. And, the prices and overall hassle factor keep going up for adoptions where the parties don't know each other. And, if you want a total clean break, that screws the child who wants to know their medical history. Fortunately(?), they'll likely be able to find you genetically 30-50 years from now as adults.

Is a child fucked up by their fucked up single mom or foster care system worth putting into this world? Is that a decision that our Supreme Court should be making at a federal level?

I don't think abortion should be legal, but is it so bad if the babies were born?

What Mxy said. I am against abortion myself, but if what I described happens, we'll be seeing quite a few momentous decisions like that, and I'm not sure we are ready for that since there is so much other shit going on in the world right now.

NGWtm8bcoPU

e-ray...what don't you like about Obama?

And in a thinly veiled blast at the Clinton campaign, without naming the rival candidate, Kennedy said: “With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion. … We will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.” Kennedy has been critical of the Clinton campaign for injecting racial issues into the campaign.
And in a slap at another Clinton campaign talking point, Kennedy said: “I know that he’s ready to be president on Day One.”
The fact that Kennedy leaped into the race at all is a blow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which had enrolled a number of friends to lobby Kennedy to stay neutral in the race. Even Bill Clinton had personally pleaded with Kennedy, but to no avail.
Kennedy was turned off by Clinton campaign tactics, which he said he believed unfairly injected racial into the campaign, and relied on factual distortions to attack Obama.
Obama and Kennedy also were joined on stage at the American University event by two other Kennedys backing Obama. His son Patrick, who is a Rhode Island congressman also announced his endorsement Monday. And his niece Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, threw her support behind Obama in a Sunday newspaper editorial.
Robin Costello, a spokeswoman for Patrick Kennedy, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that the senator and congressman probably will campaign around the country for Obama, although no concrete plans are set yet.
Together, the three make a formidable front of the nation’s most famous political family. But the Kennedys are not fully united around Obama. Another of Sen. Kennedy’s nieces, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, issued a statement Sunday in support of Clinton. Kennedy Townsend is the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy.
Leading up to the news that Ted Kennedy would endorse Obama, the Clintons and campaign staffers had worked for weeks trying to encourage Kennedy to at least stay neutral in the primary battle that is pitting Obama’s message of change against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s message of experience.
The New York Times and The Politico report that Bill Clinton had personally appealed to Kennedy to refrain from making any endorsements before the end of the primary season, and the Clinton campaign enrolled a number of friends to lobby Kennedy on behalf of the campaign.

BO inspires me. I love the way the guy speaks.

And lets face it, the Prez makes the final call on things, but its the staff that is put together that makes the presidnc a success. I trust BO to make those final calls. I won't agree with all of them, but thats the way it goes. He won't be a douche bag in office like our last couple 3 prezs have been.

Oh and fuck CNN. BO gets a huge endorsement from the K's and CNN go directly to Hillary.

e-ray...what don't you like about Obama?

There isn't much, he is who I am supporting. My last post(s) may have appeared to be pro-Hillary, but they were just anti-anti-Hillary, meaning don't refuse to vote for her merely out of spite. I just watched the whole Kennedy/BO presentation, and it was pretty special.

Yeah I am flipping between MSNBC and CNN, CNN cut out pretty directly to Hillary. Bah.

Oh, ok. He's first candidate to come along in a while to inpired peeps, imo.

Fox carried the entire thing live.

Another of Sen. Kennedy’s nieces, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, issued a statement Sunday in support of Clinton. Kennedy Townsend is the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy.
What's funny is that this Kennedy actually endorsed Hillary last year, and they're dusting off the endorsement and acting like it's new. It turns out that she is the relatively unsuccessful Kennedy of the bunch, the first Kennedy to ever lose in a general election, the only Democrat to lose a gubernatorial race in Maryland in decades, etc.

As much as everyone wants 'change' some don't want too much change. What I mean by that is what I think would really help BO is to have a familiar face like Sam Nunn, or Breau(?) or John Kerry behind him when he gives his speeches, etc.

John Edwards is out. Super Tuesday just got a lot more interesting.

Looks like we've got our Final Four.

I wouldn't discount Huckabee -just- yet. He can win a few Super Tuesday states (Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma) and potentially play kingmaker.

John Edwards is out. Super Tuesday just got a lot more interesting.

I hope he endorses Obama today. Their ideals seem a little more parallel than Hillary's are.

im a little shocked. he seemed to do all right in SC. i wonder what his expectations were? he must be out of cash.

Well, his thought must be that if he's 3rd in SC, a state he carried before, how is he going to catch up in other states?

I imagine his thought is, if he doesn't get out now not only will he not be the nominee but he might hurt Barak's chances.

Its not 3rd in Florida, its 3rd everywhere that prolly sent him home.

I imagine his thought is, if he doesn't get out now not only will he not be the nominee but he might hurt Barak's chances.

I would think he supports Obama, but we don't know. He said he isn't pledging support to either at this time. What's interesting is that %40 of Edwards voters said they would vote for Hillary, while %25 said they'd vote for Obama. Obama had some nice words regarding the issue that may change that:


...Obama, too, praised Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth. At a rally in Denver, he said the couple has "always believed deeply that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose," Obama said. "So while his campaign may have ended, this cause lives on for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America."

In debates, Clinton accused the two of them of teaming up against her quite often.

I would think he supports Obama, but we don't know. He said he isn't pledging support to either at this time. What's interesting is that %40 of Edwards voters said they would vote for Hillary, while %25 said they'd vote for Obama. Obama had some nice words regarding the issue that may change that:



In debates, Clinton accused the two of them of teaming up against her quite often.

But that was prolly prior to SC. Like last nights Florida vote...the voters that voted absentee way back when voted Hillary, but last nights vote was basically an even split between Hill and BO.

Hillarys national lead has taken a big hit.

I just think you are supporting Edwards if you want to change the way government allies with special interests. Like him or not, Edwards has fought the special interest groups all his life. It seems like the next best thing on that issue is Obama, not Clinton. There could be other reasons you'd change to Clinton too, but Obama seems like he would be the natural alternative to Edwards.

I agree on all of that. I was just replying to the poll numbers you posted. I was wondering if those numbers were back when Hill had a huge lead or just in the last week.

They didn't say. Of course it was prior to Florida, I'm not sure how much prior.

CNN.com had this to say about who may pick up his voters:

Some political pundits predict Edwards' supporters are more likely to lean in Obama's direction.
"The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama will pick up maybe 60 percent of them, and in some places, that makes a huge difference," former presidential adviser David Gergen said.
Time magazine journalist Joe Klein said, "I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama."
Klein contends that Clinton "represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s."
Edwards had campaigned on the message that he was standing up for the little guy, the people who are not traditionally given a voice in Washington, and that he would do more to fight special interests.
Also, an Edwards aide said money was not a issue with dropping out.

I think he saw that Hillary was gaining momentum (Obama was winning the black vote but getting %25 of white vote) and perhaps he wanted change in the white house more than he wanted to be there himself. He gave up his chance at the white house to better the chances that his dream comes alive through another canidate (obama). That's just my 2 cents.

BTW...He is suspending his campaign. He can continue to get the public funds. I think if you are in on X date you get X amount.

Not that he needs the money but a good move financially.

His constituents appear to favor Hillary, with the prevailing theory being that he's "familiar" to people. His ideology is more along the lines of Obama, though. I'm real curious on where this one goes, as is the world.

I know Edwards is liked on this board but I just thought his message of "Everything in the world that is bad is Big Bad Bussinesses fault" was straight out of the 60s.

I just don't see someone getting elected Prez on that message.

He's proven twice now that such a message to the exclusion of a lot of other things doesn't resonate with enough people to win. There's a whole lot of other things going on besides "poverty" and "big business is bad". It doesn't help that his deeds when he was Senator never really matched his words, so it seemed like an entire leg of his campaign started out with apologies.

he endorses no one yet. he's keeping his delegates and suspending his campaign rather than fully dropping out i think.

I hope he endorses no one, because if the other person wins, he'll have to flip flop again for the sake of the party.

I suspect an Edwards endorsement happens after tonight's California debate and before Super Tuesday.

http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Michael_Jordan.php

I always thought MJ was a Republican.

I suspect an Edwards endorsement happens after tonight's California debate and before Super Tuesday.

we will see. if he wants to be vp, staying quiet on this subject doubles his chances... an endorsement may not swing an election, but it could put him out of consideration if the wrong candidate wins.

No way Edwards is VP under Obama, unless you want Republicans to label them as the "Youth And Inexperience" ticket. I dunno who Obama would choose as a running mate, except that it's probably not Edwards or Hillary. And I doubt that Edwards is VP under Hillary, since Edwards doesn't bring anything to her that Bill doesn't. I suspect she goes for a Clinton-era cohort shoring up a weak area, like Wes Clark or Bill Richardson. If Edwards was jockeying for a cabinet slot, he should've waited until after Super Tuesday, where he might've scored enough delegates to keep either from winning without him.

Hillary Clinton's college roommate and her son are backing Obama. You might know her son -- he's wearing the ugly color:

http://www.bballone.com/granth/pistons/images/pistons8.jpg

edwards is a very popular candidate from a typical red state that he might deliver blue.

plus i've thought for months obama promised him something in exchange for being an attack dog.

cheney was the probably the most powerful vp of all time, but typically they are near irrelevent. i dont think edwards would be crossed off obama or hilary's shortlist right now.

I'm worried that the VP choice for Obama might be critical.

I have a sinking feeling that some KKK/redneck nutjob(s) are going to make some assassination attempts on the guy, especially if he is successful/popular.

Wes Clark did convert to Dem didnt he?

Honestly I dont think Barrack can win against a republican. I just dont think the people who do actually vote would vote for him. Unless MTV finally for once got a youth movement at the voting booth, dont see it.

I have a sinking feeling that some KKK/redneck nutjob(s) are going to make some assassination attempts on the guy, especially if he is successful/popular.

I have the same fear. There are those idiots out there....

I think there were prolly more idiots out there wanting to off Bush then there will be BO, jmho.

re:VP I heard Jim Webb's name for VP. I think thats his name, the guy from Virginia who wouldn't shake Bush's hand.

I'm worried that the VP choice for Obama might be critical.

I have a sinking feeling that some KKK/redneck nutjob(s) are going to make some assassination attempts on the guy, especially if he is successful/popular.

you absolutely have to feel that way..

just make sure hes in one of those glass things ala the pope when he goes to the south.....and westland michigan.

anyways, out here in berkeley,(CA) all you see is obama support, stickers and posters in the restaurants, tshirts on every corner..i love it. kinda makes you forget hilary is running...forreal.

Some on the Republican side feel Hillary is more conservative than McCain and if McCain gets the nod for the Reps (which now seems inevitable) vow to support Hillary.

This was the strangest season ever.

It's true, Hillary is definitely leaning more toward the right side of the Democratic party. She's no Lieberman, but she's as close as you can get and still be able to call yourself a Democrat.

Kareem and a bunch of non-ballers endorsed Obama:

jjXyqcx-mYY

I didn't do the Utube thing but is Maria Shriver Swartzy in it? She just endorsed BO. Arnold endorsed JM and Maria BO. Good for BO.

No, Shriver endorsed at the last minute. That was an unexpected bonus for the campaign (as was the video that I posted, which was made indepdent of Team Obama). Here's another independent pro-Obama production:

AIiMa2Fe-ZQ

wait hahahahaha wtf did i just watch? meh, who cares. tits.

Something to think about:

0OFOy29nNIo

Finally.... BO is making headway into HillBilly's strong sector, Democratic women.

He cut the 30pt lead down to 9pts. YES NINE POINTS!

Fantastisuperflaglicious move by BO.

alot of analysts are saying bill backfired. i tend to agree. i mean he's obviously a huge weapon, but he got carried away.

i think it will also dawn on people that you only have 1 ceo, not 2. never 2.

another thing about who concervatives want... tahoe is a prime example: obama is palatable. however, who do republicans want to see win a nomination? its split, theyd rather obama be prez then hil, but hilary would energize the republican base far greater than anyone they have running.

i dont know how anyone could call hilary more electable than obama. doesnt make sense to me at all.

Female logic.

I'll say why imo anyway.

Because BO brings the liberal agenda. HillBilly brings her fucking finger to wind like Bill did.

Also...Hillbilly tosses out all of the slurs. I don't hear those from BO

Am I the only one who thinks Obama sounds like The Rock?

GhMYf-nKE6Y

PN0lNqmjhqc



Guess I am.

I'll say why imo anyway.

Because BO brings the liberal agenda. HillBilly brings her fucking finger to wind like Bill did.

Also...Hillbilly tosses out all of the slurs. I don't hear those from BO
Speaking from a conservative POV though - wouldn't you want someone in office who was unapologetically liberal, rather than someone who didn't even know what opinion to have until the polls told them?

Thats what I'm saying. I'd much rather have BO who brings the liberal agenda in its true form than someone holding their finger to the wind.

Or did I misread your question.


Oh I see... i read diddy's question wrong. I agree with Diddy...thought I disagreed with him or what his question was implying.

My bad.

I don't mind arguing the merits of the liberal agenda vs the conervative agenda, its all the shit that gets mixed up with it that confuses things.

Is Obama going negative with this mailer, or pointing out the truth?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-02-06_obama_mailer_clintons_4.jpg

obviously negative. but there are 2 types of negative, and imo this is the acceptable kind. there is nothing wrong with attacking opponents on substantive issues.

and i think scandal would be appropriate too, but that gets messy.

Total votes cast in Dems prim/cauc

Clinton 48.73% 7,429,731
BO 48.38% 7,376,390

I think this counts the state where Hillbilly went back on her word (no surprise there) and campaigned anyway. Florida

And Hillbilly finally admits today that she loaned her campaign 5 million and some of her higher staffers are not being paid anymore.

Her national lead is gone. The trend points to BO here folks.

Hillbilly alone has as many votes as JM, MR and Huck combined.

Total votes cast in Dems prim/cauc

Clinton 48.73% 7,429,731
BO 48.38% 7,376,390

I think this counts the state where Hillbilly went back on her word (no surprise there) and campaigned anyway. Florida

What about Michigan?

Yes, Michigan votes counted. I couldn't remember all the Dtails on that. I know they set it too soon but couldn't remember if they had agreed NOT to campaign and then she did anyway.

I hate Hillbilly, but I don't want to lie about her. IMO, she does enough shady stuff that someone that doesn't like her, can point to those things without making anything up about her. :)

Plus, I think I fucked up...those 15 million vs 7.5 for Republicans...just ST votes. I thought that was low.

MY BAD! SORRY GUYZ!....JEEZ! TAKE IT EASY ON ME!

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/2144/dt2hw3.jpg

lol

And Hillbilly finally admits today that she loaned her campaign 5 million and some of her higher staffers are not being paid anymore.
There were rumors of her campaign having money troubles last month, which appear to have been confirmed. This explains her desire for debates on Fox News -- free advertising.

Obama's raised over $4 million in the past 24 hours. I'm real curious about Hillary's numbers here.

BO out raised Hillbilly 3 to 1 in January.

I don't know whats going to happen no one does, but if you're in BO camp, you gotta like the trends going forward.

Better yet and thanks.

I want someone on the Dem side that I can vote for if McCain shows himself to be the douche nozzle that I think he is.

mccain was dead in the water. hilary aids were discussing withdrawing from all races until supertuesday after iowa.

it looks better and better for BO, but hilary is still dangerous. knowing the clintons, they wont go down without a fight.

They have the Dem establishment behind them and I think just under half of the Dem voters.

Hillary was pleading with her people to raise $3 million in 3 days.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

I'll read all this shit later.. but the original post may need an adjustment (how's that for political BS?)
"Bill Clinton worth to the Dems in a presidential race is NOTHING a big fat zero cuz his only message is 'my wife is great' and 'vote for my wife'. Both of those messages ring hollow to lots of potential voters".

Let's start with the economy during the Dems time in office (includes a miriad of factors) vs GOP... If you actually think that folks hurting aren't considering the Clintonn era... you need to rethink the "WAR is the only policy" solution... Bush has sucked at every level...
I personsally believed that an experienced voice will help Hilary make a smooth transition (don't be a fem hater)... or we could continue the same destrsuctive path... duh!!!

Obama.. Obama... YO Mama... vote for his guy and regret your heritage later.
Just think long and hard about who you want repin' your family.

As a white guy, I have no regrets at all supporting Obama. My support has nada to do with race or gender, a lot to do with "who makes sense". Let's consider Hillary's experience with healthcare, since that's supposedly one of her strong points:

* She was responsible for Hillarycare in the early 1990s, which was an attempt at universal healthcare coverage that fell down in TOTAL flames, trying to do a backroom deal with the insurance companies she was taking money from that she -still- doesn't want to talk about. The Clinton library refuses to "declassify" 15-year old papers on this stuff. She couldn't plat nice with others even in her own party, and that was back when she had "only" 20 years of experience by her reckoning.

* She claims credit for creating SCHIP, giving coverage to some low-income kids, while being a First Lady. But SCHIP was Ted Kennedy's plan, based off a Massachusetts plan, to fix her mistake. Hillary's big contribution was fighting her husband Bill, who kept wanting to kill it to give red meat to Republicans. Yeah, she has experience, but she also brings with her the guy who wanted to kill it as more "experience". Uh... yeah. At least she's fighting for SCHIP for under-18 now, but that's widely supported, hardly a leadership stance.

* With all her much-vaunted healthcare experience, she proposes a coverage plan that's stolen from the less-experienced John Edwards, many months after he did so. That plan has a big problem of mandates enforced by garnishing of wages that clearly don't make it through Congress, at least not without Democrats losing their seats. Funny, her husband shoving a wedge through an unsolid Congress, and lost Congress to Republicans in 1994 as a result. You'd think someone with "experience" would have figured out to avoid that.

There's other good and bad things, but the above are the biggies. She talks a good talk in a debate, and just loves to wonk out in public when given a chance. But, her experience hasn't led us to past behavior and proposed actions that inspire great confidence in her judgement.

^good stuff. I loved that line by Obama in the last debate about how she's experienced, but it's more important to be right.

I'll read all this shit later.. but the original post may need an adjustment (how's that for political BS?)
"Bill Clinton worth to the Dems in a presidential race is NOTHING a big fat zero cuz his only message is 'my wife is great' and 'vote for my wife'. Both of those messages ring hollow to lots of potential voters".

Let's start with the economy during the Dems time in office (includes a miriad of factors) vs GOP... If you actually think that folks hurting aren't considering the Clintonn era... you need to rethink the "WAR is the only policy" solution... Bush has sucked at every level...
I personsally believed that an experienced voice will help Hilary make a smooth transition (don't be a fem hater)... or we could continue the same destrsuctive path... duh!!!

Another White female who loves Hillbilly. Thats ok with me.

Hillbilly proposes more debates, BO says no. Great move by BO.

If her campaign is having money troubles, why give her free air time? (For that matter, if her campaign is having money troubles, what makes you think she'll manage our nation's economy any better?) Note there have been 18 debates already, so it's not like Obama is ducking anything.

And because of those reason, exactly, I said what I said.

If Bill starts on him, about debates, BO prolly already has a line made up for him. When you've had 18, its seems like enough to me.

Also, asking for debates is normally someone who doesn't consider themselves the front runner. On the other hand, she knows she only slightly loses to BO in debates and loses big to him on the stump.

She can't hold a candle to him on the stump.

i think hilary is an excellent debater, better than barrak. probably what i was most impressed with of her. barrak would have virtually nothing to gain.

i think hilary is an excellent debater, better than barrak. probably what i was most impressed with of her. barrak would have virtually nothing to gain.

there is a fine line between debating and arguing. I'm think she's had a couple of good blow outs with Bill. She doesn't give in, thats for sure.

i think hilary is an excellent debater, better than barrak. probably what i was most impressed with of her. barrak would have virtually nothing to gain.
Hillary is more fluid in debates. But Obama is tying his hands behind his back trying to be nice and thoughtful, trying not look like a black man beating up a white woman. Obama gets asked similar challenging questions by newspapers as they consider who to endorse, and comes across a whole lot better.

i think hilary is an excellent debater, better than barrak. probably what i was most impressed with of her. barrak would have virtually nothing to gain.

I think she sucks at debating. The only reason her crap works is the public is too uninformed to realize her contradictions. That's the same reason we have Bush in the whitehouse now. I'm not exactly a political expert, but I've read tons of shit about Hillary saying one thing and doing the complete opposite throughout her time in office. Then she makes up shit that isn't true about Barack while she's at it.

On the one hand I think the superdelagates suck ass. On the other hand you see how people can blindly follow an idiot like Bush to war and not see the tree standing in the forest.

I think she sucks at debating. The only reason her crap works is the public is too uninformed to realize her contradictions.

Precisely. She is an expert sidestepper and nothing more. Will always skirt the issue.

skirt, lol

whats good about debates for hilary is that its hard to get so deep into an issue that she can affectively be called out.

besides, the qualities that make you good at debating probably make you bad at being a president. what was striking about hilary in the debates was her conviction in her answers. she seemed so certain she gave the best answer that it seemed that she did.

meanwhile, barrak would always give a more thouhtful, less concise answer. usually i preferred his, but just based off tone and body language, it seemed like he wasnt sure his answer was best.

well guess what? no one really knows, either. look at bill clinton, he was always fumbling around for the best answer when he was prez, looking to refine every issue to make it its most effective. (not to be confused with flip flopping. there is a difference between trying to be right and trying to tell everyone what they want to hear).

no one has as much conviction as george bush. he's been damn sure that his policies were the way to go. and thats exactly why he has been a terrible president (he also sucked at debates too. but that wasnt over certainty, it was because he is stupid).

pretty much all issues (not just the ones debated) are too complex to be sure your right on. in my book, ceartainty = dogma. hilary goes about with this 'of course my ideas are right' demeaner, and i think it wins her politial points.

anyway, this all a rant at this point.

im usually not huge on sappy stuff like this, but pretty cool:

http://my.barackobama.com/YesWeCanvideo

I think you're underestimating the "woman" factor in debates. Unlike many large countries, we're not prone to killing our babies if they happen to be born girls. Thus, a majority of the country, and especially a majority of the female friendlier Democratic party, are women. They control more finances and live longer and have for awhile. But, it's supposedly a "man's world" (as some will remind you of ad nauseum).

The dynamic of arguing with a woman in front of women gets complicated. Remember, if Hillary genuinely cries after an attack, she wins. If Obama cries after an attack, he loses. Not that he's particularly prone to, but he can't bitchslap her ideas in an aggressive way. Here's the headline from the New York State chapter of NOW, from when Edwards and Obama tag-teamed on Clinton from a few weeks ago:

"Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President"
http://www.nownys.com/pr_2008/pr_011108.html

That's kinda extreme, but it reflects a sentiment very well. Check out the exit polls. If you factor out people who say that gender is a factor in their voting, Obama would be clearly ahead instead of just marginally ahead (having tied or won every day that they competed for pledged delegates). 20-25% of all voters say they care about gender, and break 2:1 for Hillary.

thats a good point.

mxy, whats the deal with the michigan primary? this has to be all just nonsense, right? i mean, a do-over? changing it so that the already held primary counts? ive only heard about this stuff from familly members, but i know its in the papers. this cant be real, right? it seems like it is 100% pie in the sky, for a number of reasons, but i just want to be sure.

SEATTLE—A distasteful comment about Chelsea Clinton by an MSNBC anchor could imperil Hillary Rodham Clinton's participation in future presidential debates on the network, a Clinton spokesman said. In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to Democratic Party superdelegates on her mother's behalf. Wolfson called the comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.
"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.
MSNBC said Shuster, who apologized on the air for his comment, has been temporarily suspended from appearing on all NBC news broadcasts except to offer his apology.
"NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks," MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said, adding the network was hopeful the debate would take place as planned.
Clinton and Barack Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4. The Clinton campaign has pushed hard for as many debates as possible with Obama, but Wolfson said the Feb. 26 debate could be jeopardized.
Wolfson pointed to what he called a pattern of tasteless comments by MSNBC anchors about the Clinton campaign. Weeks ago, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible by her husband's philandering.
Shuster told The Associated Press he has tried to reach Clinton to apologize.

David Shuster is nearly impossible to watch.

He looks like he is in pain every time he speaks.

I like MSNBC's team otherwise, especially Olbermann.

So which way is better the Dems way of splitting delegates according to % or winner takes all, more like the Reps do...mostly they do it that way?

Giving all the control to these super dels doesn't work for me. Plus, their convention is right when campaigning gets hot and heavy. There could be law suits flying about Michigan and Florida...prolly by Hillbilly.

The way the Dems do it, seems more fair, but it could create a friggin mess too.

I know this has been discussed before, but not sure there was much agreement.

fox news so fwiw

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/08/democrats-warn-of-coming-train-wreck-as-gop-moves-closer-to-a-nominee/

dean is a baffoon, and so is anyone else who thinks that fla / mi delegates, by any means, should count in this primary.

unless you can convince the gop to have a do over also, or you can find a way to let vote the dems who voted in the GOP primary without also allowing all republicans too, it wont work.

fucking democratic party. to call it a crisis in leadership is an understatement. and if this thing gets too toxic, it will be an argument about shit, because you know the republican machine will be churning by mid summer.

I'd like it to happen just so I can hear Bill talk about how unlawful ANYTHING BAD that happens to Hillary will be.

I can hear him already. Self-righteous Bill.

You know we ask peeps to vote and they vote and then it gets screwed up. Then we wonder why peeps don't vote??? <-- I'm talking about the last 2 generals too.

Clinton does have higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3.

Why does Obama do better against McCain than Clinton? Obama does do a little better than Clinton with independents and Republicans.

But the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.

Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.

Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).

But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent).

Obama argues that he can reach across party lines. And he does do a little better than Clinton with Independents and Republicans, at least in these polls.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/08/20008.matchups.schneider/index.html

interesting stuff. bolded for those still worried whitey wont vote for BO

quick little anecdote, on the preview of entertainment tonight, they did a quick hit on hilary on obama. hilary's story was about how she has to overcome unfair smear campaigns from the other candidates, BO's was about how his trying cocain will come back to haunt him. lol.

ET's audience is older women.

So Texas is coming up and you can vote for either party...??? is that right?

So if McCain can get this thing sewed up by then (which is doesn't look like he will but follow along) the Reps could be free to vote the Dem primary and vote for BO.

We could pay back the indi/dems that voted for McCain, denying MR of a win in Florida.

The really funny thing is that the media is still pushing the narrative of "Obama in the race means black voters vs. white voters," even when the evidence repeatedly shows that it's far more about male voters (strongly Obama) vs. female voters (leaning Clinton).

dean is a baffoon, and so is anyone else who thinks that fla / mi delegates, by any means, should count in this primary.
This happened before. Delaware tried to break into the Iowa/NH mess in 1996, and had all their delegates stripped from them, just like Florida and Michigan did. Delaware had a caucus afterwards, and the delegates were seated. There's precedent for do-overs. The national party/DNC has been offering all along to help pay for another race. But, that's been rejected by Florida and Michigan idiots.

The DNC needs Obama and Clinton to campaign in Florida and Michigan. Beyond selecting "the" nominee, running these races helps build up the infrastructure to help make wins possible in November, helps build other candidates in downstream races, etc. Right now, we've really seen only Republican campaigning. If nothing is done, in a few months you'll see Republicans running ads about how Democrats wasted state money on primaries and can't even count their votes. They'd be right, too.

But, any do-over favors Obama. There'd be no Republican race on the same day, no John Edwards to contend with, and Obama will do better where he gets time to campaign. Because of Michigan is gerrymandering, even if he lost the popular vote, he'd be likely to win on delegates. And having the Florida race NOT be on the same day as a property tax issue on the ballot will get a more representative demographic voting. If it's a true caucus and not a primary, Obama hasn't lost a caucus yet.

Hillary would rather win the nomination than help Obama, and would be quite happy to screw the party in the process. And she has some powerful local enablers. In Michigan, Granholm is looking to deliver Michigan to Hillary, much like Engler tried to deliver Michigan to Bush in 2000. Engler failed, and I bet if Hillary is the nominee, Michigan will be a red state just to stick it to Granholm. Also, whoever wins Michigan will need some way to draw Detroit voters -- I doubt Kwame will be well-positioned to do so with his sex texting mess.

John Edwards could make things interesting, too.


unless you can convince the gop to have a do over also, or you can find a way to let vote the dems who voted in the GOP primary without also allowing all republicans too, it wont work.
States have Democratic and Republican races on different days all the time. That's not the big issue. It's very likely that a do-over would allow anyone to vote, though. There'd be few good mechanisms to prevent folks who voted in the Republican primary from re-voting in the Democratic race, especially one that was cobbled up after the fact.

BO gave a great speech in VA tonight and when CNN was done covering it, they started covering the republican race that is over.

WTF CNN?

good post.

maybe im working under some false assumptions here, though.

im thinking many people who would have voted in the democratic primary voted in the republican primary, just so that their vote would count for something.

im also thinking those people who likelier be pro-barrak, since hilary's people would atleast have been able to vote for their candidate (albeit meaninglessly).

so how do you have another primary-or caucus- without either unfairly scewing the public or allowing everyone in the state to vote (many of who will have voted for both parties).

maybe this is a big deal over nothing, but this all strikes me as rather un-democratic.but the notion that the dems need to build in these two states is cogent. if i would guess, in a close general election both these states would go red. but only if its close.

ps: the engler/bush granholm/clinton similarity is uncanny. ive been thinking that too. if granholm has any brains / interest in her future, she will tread carefully with how she handles this situation. unlike bush, i dont think barrak would be the type to spurn a state just cuz it went against him, but the last thing granholm needs is to get onboard with a sinking ship. imo, if the GOP finds a nominee for michigan governor with an iq over 80 and who is not the leader of a cult, granholm is done.

If BO can win Texas and what is it, Ohio or Penn, it won't matter what Hill does.

im thinking many people who would have voted in the democratic primary voted in the republican primary, just so that their vote would count for something.
Like I said, they'd probably have to allow everyone to vote, regardless of whether they voted in the primary before. That's not a big deal. Some states allow you to vote in both. It's usually not that big a deal.


maybe this is a big deal over nothing, but this all strikes me as rather un-democratic.but the notion that the dems need to build in these two states is cogent. if i would guess, in a close general election both these states would go red. but only if its close.
Florida has aged sufficiently so as to be a red state, especially with old fart McCain running. Kerry lost by 5% in 2004. They have Republican majorities in the state house, senate, governor, etc. The Democratic strategy for winning assumes they can win Ohio and western states in addition to their traditional states, and assumes Florida goes red. It's worth putting up a fight, but if it comes to Florida alone, Democrats lose.

Michigan is a different story. We only voted Democratic by 3% in 2004. Unlike most of the country, there were Democratic gains at the federal level in 2006. All the political machine was devoted to defending Granholm against a billionaire, and Democrats ran with shitty candidates in competitive districts. We're gerrymandered badly, so we have a lot of old coots in federal office who win only by putting their name and party affilation on the ballot. They haven't had to really fight for votes in many years, and don't help in state races very much. Granholm led a tax hike in an especially shitty economy, so she'll be unpopular. If sex texting causes Kwame to get ousted, there's no one to spur the black vote in Detroit. Can you smell "red state"?


if granholm has any brains / interest in her future, she will tread carefully with how she handles this situation. unlike bush, i dont think barrak would be the type to spurn a state just cuz it went against him, but the last thing granholm needs is to get onboard with a sinking ship. imo, if the GOP finds a nominee for michigan governor with an iq over 80 and who is not the leader of a cult, granholm is done.
She's term-limited. She's done in 2010 in any event. Her aligning with Hillary is about having a job beyond 2010. Lots of Republicans are eyeing governor in 2010 -- Dick DeVos, Mike Cox, Mike Bishop, Mike Rogers, Terri Lynn Land, Pete Hoekstra, and maybe more. We have, as far as I can figure, no one in the pipe who could beat any of these Republicans.

Tahoe you're not allowed to ever defend Bush ever again with the vendetta you got on hillary. every post damn near is a setup to bitch about her, down her, or pray that she fails.

Tahoe you're not allowed to ever defend Bush ever again with the vendetta you got on hillary. every post damn near is a setup to bitch about her, down her, or pray that she fails.
My objections to Hillary are pretty simple.

She's bought
She's wrong on Iraq
She's wrong on healthcare
She's bad with economic discipline
She's wrong on openness in government
She's horrible as a symbolic example for women
She will turn Michigan into a red state if she goes on

There's a lot of things she's right on, but it's not enough for me to want to support her during the primary.

you can throw divicive in there.

what i like best about obama that he is a unifying force.

Like I said a week or so ago Gutz, I hate that bitch. She doesn't sneeze without it being contrived.

what that has to do with Bush, I'm not sure.

Hillary fired her campaign manager.

^Hired Bill?

I don't know. Sounds like after not being paid, she might have quit.



Patti Solis Doyle has quit her job as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager, but said Sunday she will remain a senior adviser.

hilary has lost 18 of the last 26 states. she has donated 5 million of her own dollars to her campaign. she has staff working for free, which is now starting to jump ship. she is getting killed in funding.

even though its still close, it doesnt feel that way. got to wonder when the droppout talk starts to seriously begin. after next tuesday, 258 delegates from now, there will be a 2 week break. rumor has it that hilary has been working the post break states hard, but also conceding the prebreak states to obama.

sounds like spin to me. i think if she hasnt gotten any traction after next tuesday, the worm will turn and the "its time to end this" movement will begin.

Lil help here...BO is expected wo win most, if not all of the Potomac races, but what state is it that goes with Texas? Pennsylvania or Ohio? thx

Obama has to win one of the next big 3 or come within 5 points to win the nomination. He can't afford double digit losses in the big states. I'm rooting hard for him.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

anyone want to break down the differences in policy on immigration? beyond drivers license i dont really know. latino vote could be huge.

Any attempt by Hillary to get the Michigan election to count will result in her own words being used against her:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859.html


As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

Here's another gem by Hillary that will be replayed if she tries to force the Michigan election:

http://www.yobserver.com/opinions/10013631.html

He (President Pervez Musharraf) could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election," she told Blitzer, "then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

anyone want to break down the differences in policy on immigration? beyond drivers license i dont really know. latino vote could be huge.
There's not much difference. Obama's stance on licensing has as much to do with identity management as immigration, BTW. He'd like to fix REAL ID (an area that Hillary has less of a good record on).

The Latino vote was already huge. The problem with Hillary's campaign is that she's running out of Latinos.

BTW, Clinton won in Clinton, Maine. Obama won most everywhere else in Maine, and won another Grammy on the side.

Hil also claims that she has raised $10m since Tuesday.

Hil also claims that she has raised $10m since Tuesday.
Obama stopped having a penis length contest with Hillary when it became clear that he was comfortably ahead. He's now measuring things in terms of "number of contributors" and "number of new contributors" -- penis girth and "it's not the meat, it's the motion" types of measurements.

I'm sure in the wake of Super Tuesday she'd get some boost no matter what. But I'm also sure that news like this is not good for her long-term campaign financing prospect, especially those institutional corporate lobbyist dollars:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-campaign_monfeb11,0,954602.story


But even more troublesome was the campaign's money crunch. Over the last seven years, Clinton had raised $175 million for her re-election and her presidential campaign. But Solis Doyle didn't tell Clinton that there was next to no cash on hand until after the New Hampshire primary.

"We were lying about money," the source said. "The cash on hand was nothing."

I'm on record as saying since 2006 that it seemed like a waste to spend money like she had:

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=152970&highlight=hillary+million#post152970
http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=148166&highlight=hillary+million#post148166

In her 2006 re-election, she raised $39 million -- the most of any Democrat in any race in 2006. She was running against a sacrificial unknown Republican candidate who was falling apart with scandals. She spent nearly half of that on ads. She spent fuck-tons on consultants, luxury items, etc. All that shit is starting to come home to roost. I'm expecting someone to directly tie it to her competence in managing the economy once we get to a close race.

She needs to take campaign financing advice from Huckabee. :)

My objections to Hillary are pretty simple.

She's bought-who isn't?
She's wrong on Iraq-there's a right move at this juncture?
She's wrong on healthcare-right idea, probably needs a better method to achieving her idea of universal healthcare.
She's bad with economic discipline-I don't think she'll be as bad as you'd might think on this. But thats opinion. Her senate term i'm guessing says otherwise.
She's wrong on openness in government-I agree, though i dont hold much value to it, i agree.
She's horrible as a symbolic example for women-thats personal and not even a useful statement. Type of thing i think that has no place in deciding who you vote on imo. Its personal likings and disliking that helped bush become president with a touch of florida scamming on the side.
She will turn Michigan into a red state if she goes on-I can't agree with that prediction

There's a lot of things she's right on, but it's not enough for me to want to support her during the primary.-thats fair, and honestly I dont think she does anything amazing. Just was calling out Tahoe on the irony of him personally hating hillary and shielding bush when people personally go after him

You might be right Gutz. I thought I've pretty much not responded to the personal attacks of Bush on this board. I do defend his policies if I think they're the right ones. There's a difference to me.

Just seeing Hillary makes me cringe. She can't deliver a speech for shit, shes contrived, I think she's a piece of shit of a human being. Much like peeps feel about Bush.

Feel free to correct me if I crack on peeps for bashing Bush, as long as it isn't on policy. BTW...Saying Bush is liar, is in the policy realm of things for me. Its generally about the war and knowns with some unknowns that we can all discuss. But if you hate the SOB, keep hatin. Cuz I don't expect to start liking HillBilly any time soon.

hilary has lost 18 of the last 26 states. she has donated 5 million of her own dollars to her campaign. she has staff working for free, which is now starting to jump ship. she is getting killed in funding.

even though its still close, it doesnt feel that way. got to wonder when the droppout talk starts to seriously begin. after next tuesday, 258 delegates from now, there will be a 2 week break. rumor has it that hilary has been working the post break states hard, but also conceding the prebreak states to obama.

sounds like spin to me. i think if she hasnt gotten any traction after next tuesday, the worm will turn and the "its time to end this" movement will begin.

It's only close because of the superdelegates. Obama has %52 of the pledged delegates so far, and she held a distinct advantage in those prior to super Tuesday. Remember they have the option to change, and that becomes more realistic as Obama keeps taking states.

I was trying to create silly ASCII art in several seconds as much as anything, so forgive me for not elucidating. :)

1) She's more a corporate tool than either Obama or Edwards. That reflects in the financing by the lobbyists and her overall positions and record. I don't think Obama is my ideal of perfection here, but he refuses money from the lobbyists and pushed for strong ethics reform in a way Hillary hasn't.

2) A right move doesn't involve stirring up more shit in the region, which she's done with her Kyl-Liebermann Iran vote. She doesn't say "get out of Iraq in 16 months" the way Obama does. The fact that she was wrong to begin with doesn't warm my heart at all.

3) Every Democrat wants universal healthcare. They differ on the path to get there. She fucked up so badly that everyone has to take baby steps in that direction, and proposes badly-divisive crap as a baby step. Right heart, wrong direction.

4) Have you seen her campaign recenty? She raised over a hundred million and pissed it away after the first couple states. She really can't run as the economy queen anymore. If you can't keep your house in order, what makes you think you can run the country?

5) Transparency in government is BIG for me. People don't trust government to be anything but fuckups because half the data is buried, and the other half is severely spun. It's hard to know how to feel or what to do when you don't know what the facts are. She wants hidden earmarks, he wants "who asked for what" out in the open. She doesn't want to disclose her tax returns unless she gets the nomination... real winning move, there.

6) Symbols matter. If the long-term messages to today's daughters is "stick with that powerful man that publicly humiliated you, and you too can sleep your way to the top", that's bad for future generations. I think being another Clinton, especially in close proximity to another Bush, sets a bad example to the world. They're unlikely to see America as any sort of meritocracy with landed families at the top. Our image abroad matters.

7) Michigan went 5% for Gore in 2000, 3% for Kerry in 2004, and has shown that they've liked McCain in the past. Hillary got 55% versus "none of the above" for Democrats? Republicans will run an ad morphing Granholm's face into Hillary's, tap into the anti-Granholm sentiment that comes from paying more in taxes. Note just how few young Democratic leaders have emerged. The Republican state party chair is more Internet-savvy than the Democratic doofus. I smell "red state".

Mxy I have a question. I posted that I'd prolly vote for RG a year ago...maybe just months ago, then i switched to Romney. But no matter who anyone brings up YOU START HATING ON THEM! THEY ALL SUCK, WE KNOW THAT. THEY ARE POLITICIANS! We are just trying to pick the one with the least blemishes. :)

So my question is, who are you going to support this year?

6) Symbols matter. If the long-term messages to today's daughters is "stick with that powerful man that publicly humiliated you, and you too can sleep your way to the top", that's bad for future generations. I think being another Clinton, especially in close proximity to another Bush, sets a bad example to the world. They're unlikely to see America as any sort of meritocracy with landed families at the top. Our image abroad matters.
Never have I disagreed with Mxy more than now. I'm ashamed to say so, but I do on this statement. If anything close to that becomes a that type of symbol, then this country is dumber than it was in 2000.

I'm worried about our image in one area only. POLICY...Not moral decency. Bush is a morally decent guy who happens to be piece of dog shit in policy. I couldnt give half a fuck what britain thinks about the family connection aspect while they still lick royal figurehead ass. Nor could i care what any of these backwards places think there. I only care about our policy with them period. If you dont think much of her policy, nothing wrong with that. But i'm firmly against the moral ticket, its becoming dumber everytime it comes into play.

Otherwise big time thanks for the better explanation of why you're against her in the primary. Definitely made some good points.

You might be right Gutz. I thought I've pretty much not responded to the personal attacks of Bush on this board. I do defend his policies if I think they're the right ones. There's a difference to me.

Just seeing Hillary makes me cringe. She can't deliver a speech for shit, shes contrived, I think she's a piece of shit of a human being. Much like peeps feel about Bush.

Feel free to correct me if I crack on peeps for bashing Bush, as long as it isn't on policy. BTW...Saying Bush is liar, is in the policy realm of things for me. Its generally about the war and knowns with some unknowns that we can all discuss. But if you hate the SOB, keep hatin. Cuz I don't expect to start liking HillBilly any time soon.
But you accuse people of hating on bush no? thats personal, you say our hating on his policy is personal bias. you're cherry picking. If anything I'll take my cringing over the thought of all the people dead in Iraq at his sloppy hands, over your reasoning of "piece of shit human being".

I don't think I've said your opposing the war(as an example) is because of hatred of Bush.

I do think the war does not get objective coverage by the media and that sways opinion.

Things are getting better in Iraq but no one seems to be saying it. I see it as a Democratic political tactic to win the WH. They are invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq. It helps them politically. The Reps would prolly do the same thing. I don't see the Bush connection though.

I don't think I've said your opposing the war(as an example) is because of hatred of Bush.

I do think the war does not get objective coverage by the media and that sways opinion.

Things are getting better in Iraq but no one seems to be saying it. I see it as a Democratic political tactic to win the WH. They are invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq. It helps them politically. The Reps would prolly do the same thing. I don't see the Bush connection though.
Then you just dont see it then. of course why would you?

Also i dont care about the media coverage, or whatever shit in between. At the end of the day thousands of people are dead at his sloppy hands in a country that hand next to nothing to do with 9/11. IMO people have a right to hate him on that alone. Anything that doesnt refer to that(i.e. media coverage) is a spin.

Either way this thread is about the Democratic primary, you dont see the irony of your Hillary bashing, your prerogative.

It's only close because of the superdelegates. Obama has %52 of the pledged delegates so far, and she held a distinct advantage in those prior to super Tuesday. Remember they have the option to change, and that becomes more realistic as Obama keeps taking states.
Here's a non-Democratic partisan political blog's take on the delegate counts:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Superdelegates are like promise rings. They're not worth counting. No way does the person with the most pledged delegates lose, or the whole party loses and most everyone knows it. If the pledged delegates favored Hillary and superdelegates tilt to Obama because he has a better shot of winning swing states, McCain picks a woman VP and wins. If pledged delegates favor Obama, but they tilt it to Hillary the insider, the black vote and young vote stays home.

I thought this opinion piece was an interesting view of the situation with the superdelegates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=5f1e2f4f19f60cd8&ei=5087%0A

I do think the war does not get objective coverage by the media and that sways opinion.

Things are getting better in Iraq but no one seems to be saying it. I see it as a Democratic political tactic to win the WH. They are invested in the narrative of defeat in Iraq. It helps them politically. The Reps would prolly do the same thing. I don't see the Bush connection though.

They do gain from how bad the war has gone. Just like the republicans will gain in Michigan because Jenny has done nothing to fix the economy there. If you don't make things better, of course the other party benifits from that.

Things are getting better in Iraq, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to everyone and screwed up the war to begin with. The reason things are getting better is because they were SO bad. Just because progress is being made you can't ignore how low the bar has been set after his failures.

I'm no military expert. I don't know the best way to get out. I do know we never should have been there (if you can't admit America was totally suckered into Iraq you are a blind fool). I know every American supports the troops, regardless of their thoughts on the war itself. I think Obama has the right to point out he never approved of the war, because it shows that he wasn't a sucker like much of America was.

Never have I disagreed with Mxy more than now. I'm ashamed to say so, but I do on this statement. If anything close to that becomes a that type of symbol, then this country is dumber than it was in 2000.
It's not just about this country. It's about the world. You have hunks of the the Middle East seeing "Bush, son of Bush" as their persecutors. This family feud shit is powerful stuff, that negatively impacts performance today and down the road. Perceiving the U.S. as a bunch of landed families takes us closer to a tribe in their minds, gets us back to tribal bullshit, and rallies the troops. If you want to send a symbol of "same old same ol'" to the world and have any policy changes get marginalized, elect another Clinton. Is it fair or logical? Nope. But it's real, and has real impact today.

As far as women goes, imagine telling your daughter they can maybe grow up to be President one day if they work really hard and set their mind to it. And then they point to Hillary, who got rich writing a book about her husband's blowjob. It takes an extra-special "something" to get past the nepotism and the disrespect for Hillary to ascend to greatness here, and I don't think she has that at all.

As far as women goes, imagine telling your daughter they can maybe grow up to be President one day if they work really hard and set their mind to it. And then they point to Hillary, who got rich writing a book about her husband's blowjob. It takes an extra-special "something" to get past the nepotism and the disrespect for Hillary to ascend to greatness here, and I don't think she has that at all.

I'd heard that there had been a bit of a stir because the book had actually been ghost written. I never looked it up at the time. Was that true?

Mxy I have a question. I posted that I'd prolly vote for RG a year ago...maybe just months ago, then i switched to Romney. But no matter who anyone brings up YOU START HATING ON THEM! THEY ALL SUCK, WE KNOW THAT. THEY ARE POLITICIANS! We are just trying to pick the one with the least blemishes. :)

So my question is, who are you going to support this year?
Obama. There's some shit I don't like about Obama as well, but on the whole, I think he's terrific. Obama wasn't my first choice for President, mostly because I didn't think he could win today, but I had him down for VP. Bill Richardson, who I thought had pretty much a perfect background and was pretty likable, turned out to be more of a gaffe machine than I (or most people) ever suspected.

I was actually wondering if a guy like Richardson might be his VP if he won.

Obama

If it was between McCain and Obama today, I vote Obama too.

From the obituary of a retired politician in Virginia:
http://www.legacy.com/dailyprogress/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonID=103181529


His friends, who nearly included everyone who met him, are asked, in lieu of expenditures on flowers and the like, to make a healthy and significant contribution to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama or, if they insist, the charity of their choice.

rleUPHX8yfM

Apparently the rumors are circulating that when Hillary Clinton dumped a few million of her own money into the campaign, it was because they had run out of money. She felt like her campaign manager wasn't straight with her about the money problems that were going on, and that's why the campaign manager was fired.

Whether it's true or not, it sounds feasible, which is going to make people look differently at Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I would say her campaign is in some trouble...not serious enough to make her lose her ass, but definitely serious enough to keep her from spending critical advertising dollars.

Has it been confirmed that her campaign mgr was fired?

I read and posted "quit" fwiw.

I heard fired on the news last night.

Here are the latest polls from the AP on Obama VS McCain and Clinton VS McCain:

WASHINGTON—Democrat Barack Obama has a narrow lead over John McCain in a potential presidential matchup, while Hillary Rodham Clinton is about even with the Republican front-runner, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated Monday. The survey is the first look at voter sentiment since last week's Super Tuesday presidential contests around the country and Mitt Romney's departure from the GOP race. Obama and Clinton are battling in a Democratic campaign that may take weeks or even months to resolve, while McCain, an Arizona senator, is the likely Republican nominee.
Obama, an Illinois senator, led McCain in the poll by 48 percent to 42 percent when people were asked which one they would prefer if the presidential race were held now. Clinton, a senator from New York, got 46 percent to McCain's 45 percent in their matchup.

i have a hard time believing that dems have ouvoted rep ~19-12 (last time i checked) and yet the general election would be a dead heat. maybe, but i think that these are inexact polls.

Here's Hillary's way to appeal to young people:

IA8Wy51Ionk

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5127/screenshot162md8.jpg

Obama

If it was between McCain and Obama today, I vote Obama too.
And in November it'll probably be McCain.

I think at the end of the day Obama can't beat a republican.

We'll see hot it goes. I'm disappointed that niether of them think we should be able to get a lil rough with enemies that want to kill innocent Americans.

lol, obama would kill mccain today, november, 5 years ago, or 10 years from now.

and it will be far more than by the 7 or 8 pts they are saying right now.

someone should ask gutz why hes so afraid of a black man legitimately getting voted into office.

Ok, Gutz, why you so afraid of a black man legitimately getting into office? :)

We'll see hot it goes. I'm disappointed that niether of them think we should be able to get a lil rough with enemies that want to kill innocent Americans.
If you endorse picking out countries w/o getting your facts str8, then you shouldnt vote. because thats the responsibility of a guy who holds office. To find the best answer with military action as a last resort. You have every right to get personal, the President does not, you've been watching too many Air Force One movie marathons.


Ok, Gutz, why you so afraid of a black man legitimately getting into office?
Not even a legit question. In fact its idiotic, even for you. I dont give a fuck if he's black. And of all things it would be the last thing i'd make a factor in my voting. If he gets the nomination, he gets my vote by default(you only get two real choices and I'd vote green before i'd vote for another republican after the way they bent over for Bush's insane policies even when it became apparent that he was a loon). The reality is that when people still factor their own personal feelings and false morals into their voting, Its too easy to beat Obama. Mark my words, the Dems arent really cut throat in the primaries. But in the real election, I expect ridiculous shit that means nothing to come out and for it to work. I've seen nothing to show me otherwise.

But back to the primaries. I dont feel he has enough experience. He seems too green to me. Again not so much that I wouldnt vote for him, but I wonder if he can handle the hardcore politics that'll he'll need to get this country atleast turned in a proper direction.


EDIT: That question was just too damn stupid for me to think it came from you, sure enough a quick peak on the igg off/on button shows that you asked it for an idiot. A midget crybaby idiot no less. b-pussy is obsessed after all this time? WTF? Get a life guy.

But back to the primaries. I dont feel he has enough experience. He seems too green to me. Again not so much that I wouldnt vote for him, but I wonder if he can handle the hardcore politics that'll he'll need to get this country atleast turned in a proper direction.
I think the lack of experience aspect is a little bit overblown. He has as much elected experience as 5 of our last 10 presidents. I think it's the fact that he looks younger than 46 that draws that. JFK had the same amount of elected experience as Nixon and was about the same age. But Nixon painted him as less experienced largely because he looked younger.

Here's a biggie to me... Obama would be the first president since Truman who had elected experience at both a state AND federal level. There's some huge divides between the federal and state governments, and having someone at the top who's lived on both sides of the fence beforehand could be the best thing we have had in a long time.

Obama isn't a Massachusetts politician who'll wilt when faced with tough questions under a presidential spotlight, unlike Kerry, Kennedy, Dukakis, and Tsongas. He comes from Chicago south-side politics, and it'll be a lot easier for him to play some hardball should he get past Hillary. The manner in which he put a muzzle on Hillary's biggest asset says volumes.

If we could have a black Supreme Court judge 40 years ago, I think we could swing a black President of Obama's caliber today. Remember, the first blacks in Congress and the Supreme Court predated the first women by a fair bit. I would actually worry more about the viability of a female president than not (and not just 'cause we're talking Hillary the divider).

If you endorse picking out countries w/o getting your facts str8, then you shouldnt vote. because thats the responsibility of a guy who holds office. To find the best answer with military action as a last resort. You have every right to get personal, the President does not, you've been watching too many Air Force One movie marathons.


Not even a legit question. In fact its idiotic, even for you. I dont give a fuck if he's black. And of all things it would be the last thing i'd make a factor in my voting. If he gets the nomination, he gets my vote by default(you only get two real choices and I'd vote green before i'd vote for another republican after the way they bent over for Bush's insane policies even when it became apparent that he was a loon). The reality is that when people still factor their own personal feelings and false morals into their voting, Its too easy to beat Obama. Mark my words, the Dems arent really cut throat in the primaries. But in the real election, I expect ridiculous shit that means nothing to come out and for it to work. I've seen nothing to show me otherwise.

But back to the primaries. I dont feel he has enough experience. He seems too green to me. Again not so much that I wouldnt vote for him, but I wonder if he can handle the hardcore politics that'll he'll need to get this country atleast turned in a proper direction.




perfectly reasonable. i mean, all obama has is massive support, huge momentum, and a blank check for his campaign. mccain did bind himself to the most unpopular war in 40 years and really isnt supported by the conservative base, but other than that, yea, he might beable to stay within 10 pts of obama in the general election.

Democrats defeat themselves far more often than Republicans. Usually, it's the candidate selection process that kills 'em.

I think the lack of experience aspect is a little bit overblown. He has as much elected experience as 5 of our last 10 presidents. I think it's the fact that he looks younger than 46 that draws that. JFK had the same amount of elected experience as Nixon and was about the same age. But Nixon painted him as less experienced largely because he looked younger.

Here's a biggie to me... Obama would be the first president since Truman who had elected experience at both a state AND federal level. There's some huge divides between the federal and state governments, and having someone at the top who's lived on both sides of the fence beforehand could be the best thing we have had in a long time.

Obama isn't a Massachusetts politician who'll wilt when faced with tough questions under a presidential spotlight, unlike Kerry, Kennedy, Dukakis, and Tsongas. He comes from Chicago south-side politics, and it'll be a lot easier for him to play some hardball should he get past Hillary. The manner in which he put a muzzle on Hillary's biggest asset says volumes.


As always I appreciate the depth of which you look at things Mxy, But I dont think even half the voters look with that type of depth in mind. Though I can't say he's proven to be a ready to go head up. There will be attacks on really silly bs with irresponsible connections being made. absolutely dumb shit Hillary would never do to him. And the real question becomes is america smart enough to overlook it. My belief? no. I do cite his lack of experience, but i also feel this country is dumb as shit and that he may not be able to sneak through its stupidity in a general election.


If we could have a black Supreme Court judge 40 years ago, I think we could swing a black President of Obama's caliber today. Remember, the first blacks in Congress and the Supreme Court predated the first women by a fair bit. I would actually worry more about the viability of a female president than not (and not just 'cause we're talking Hillary the divider).
Yea, i'm not talking about the racial element anymore on this. I've never been in agreement on whats considered generally right racially. Nor do i agree on this having as sweeping a historical implication as some do. At the end of the day the petty reasoning will prevail in america i personally think. I reserve the right to be wrong possibly though.


This user is on your Ignore List.

perfectly reasonable. i mean, all obama has is massive support, huge momentum, and a blank check for his campaign. mccain did bind himself to the most unpopular war in 40 years and really isnt supported by the conservative base, but other than that, yea, he might beable to stay within 10 pts of obama in the general election.

I agree %100. You can say the Dems aren't slinging mud at each other, but a big part of that is because they are friends. They are going to need each other (not as running mates) to fix Bush's mess. When the general election rolls around, you can bet Obama will point out what McCain has done wrong (which he does not with Clinton). I don't expect Obama to sling mud, but I do expect a heavy dose of reality and showing America what the republicans have done wrong. Obama doesn't shy away from a debate, he just likes to be professional about his attacks. He'll stick to the important stuff.

As Mxy said, the Dems beat themselves. Most people I talked to that voted for Bush did so because they disliked Kerry even more. They wanted a solution to Bush and in their eyes the Dems did not deliver one.

There is so much ammo to attack McCain it's not even funny. And there is almost no ammo to attack Obama with. When McCain slings mud at Obama, I expect America to cut through the BS and see it for what it is. I think they're tired of the games that Bush has played and I'm betting they won't stand for it this time. I'm not saying McCain has nothing to throw at Obama, but he better stick to the issues because I don't think he can play the skeletons in the closet game with Obama.

I expect America to cut through the BS and see it for what it is.
And what has america done voting wise to prove they are capable of that?

typical ways the GOP would attack obama:

1) being too liberal (pretty weak)
2) lack of experience (how's that going for hilary?)
3) drugs (that could look reaaaaaally bad for mccain. very dangerous. he would probably need a 3rd party to sling that mud, not that the GOP hasnt gotten away with it before-- george 'national guard' bush somehow attacking john kerry's military record comes to mind)

meanwhile, the best politician in the world would have a very hard time defending the iraq war. mccain is not that, and he has said he would keep america there for 100 years. that alone makes you near unelectable.

when you look how the dems are turning out in these primaries, how they did at the midterm elections, how unpopular the GOP current president is, how strong of a candidate barrak is, i think its pretty uninformed to suggest mccain will win.

typical ways the GOP would attack obama:

1) being too liberal (pretty weak)
2) lack of experience (how's that going for hilary?)
3) drugs (that could look reaaaaaally bad for mccain. very dangerous. he would probably need a 3rd party to sling that mud, not that the GOP hasnt gotten away with it before-- george 'national guard' bush somehow attacking john kerry's military record comes to mind)

meanwhile, the best politician in the world would have a very hard time defending the iraq war. mccain is not that, and he has said he would keep america there for 100 years. that alone makes you near unelectable.

when you look how the dems are turning out in these primaries, how they did at the midterm elections, how unpopular the GOP current president is, how strong of a candidate barrak is, i think its pretty uninformed to suggest mccain will win.

Responding to pt 1. If the Dems can get it boiled down to the liberal agenda vs the coservative agenda, I think they'll win. I think peeps will tie the war to conservatives and pulling out to libs. I don't think war is as unpopular as you guys think, but it definately doesn't help the Reps. I think the war tilts this things in you favor.

pt2. Judgement trumps experience. Do you want someone experienced with BAD judgement? OR someone that seems to have good judgement but hasn't had to make a ton of tough calls. And its not like Hillary has a ton of experience. Yea, she was in the WH for 8 years, but so was the White House chef.

Yea, she was in the WH for 8 years, but so was the White House chef.
So the chef is comparable in your mind? :inquisitive: :huh:

Gutz, don't take everything so serious. I'm just one vote and by the time I go to the polls, the race will be over anyway.

Who are you voting for? Hill?

Oh yea, answering you question...close. She won't release anything showing she did anything, so its her fault.

The only thing that concerns me today is the fact that Virginia is an open primary, and that means conservatives who would normally vote Republican (or just Republican spoilers who are bummed out about not having a real choice) can vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary. Virginia's conservatives are a whole different breed, and there's a ton of them.

Gutz, don't take everything so serious. I'm just one vote and by the time I go to the polls, the race will be over anyway.

Who are you voting for? Hill?

Oh yea, answering you question...close. She won't release anything showing she did anything, so its her fault.
i'm voting for anybody yet. all i know is that i wont vote republican.

BTW, the best proof that Dems shoot themselves in the foot is in the many polls that invariably say that Obama would win against McCain while Hillary wouldn't, but they prefer Hillary over Obama.

Just heard that some hispanic higher-ups are reeavaluating their support for Hill, cuz they say Hill is kind of blaming her campaign mgr(hispanic) for not hitting certain benchmarks in her campaign.

This Ybarra guy said that Texas will be within the margin of error. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hillbilly was way ahead.

not winning texas by a wide margin would be the final nail in the coffin for hillary. shes probably going to lose out, or come to it, today and next week. that would mean, including super tuesday, she had lost 25 of 33 primarys. thats alot of bleeding.

And what has america done voting wise to prove they are capable of that?

Well, they had reason to buy into the BS before. Kerry was painted as a flip flopper successfully. Obama will not be. Hillary could be painted as such though. Kerry also had quite a messy situation over not producing his silver star, etc. If Obama wins the dem side, I just don't see what the GOP is going to come up with to slander him that's going to stick. Maybe you have some examples?

BTW, the best proof that Dems shoot themselves in the foot is in the many polls that invariably say that Obama would win against McCain while Hillary wouldn't, but they prefer Hillary over Obama.
I hate pre-general polls holding value in a conversation like this. Mainly because polls are a big fat skewed up guess posing as a legit stat.

not winning texas by a wide margin would be the final nail in the coffin for hillary. shes probably going to lose out, or come to it, today and next week. that would mean, including super tuesday, she had lost 25 of 33 primarys. thats alot of bleeding.

Yeah, if Obama can win the Patomic ones, and keep close in Texas and Ohio...her campaign is pretty much in a free for all.

Well, they had reason to buy into the BS before. Kerry was painted as a flip flopper successfully. Obama will not be. Hillary could be painted as such though. Kerry also had quite a messy situation over not producing his silver star, etc. If Obama wins the dem side, I just don't see what the GOP is going to come up with to slander him that's going to stick. Maybe you have some examples?

Well, they had reason to buy into the BS before.
How so?

Kerry was painted as a flip flopper successfully.
whose fault was it that it was successful since Bush was just as much the flopper and got called out on it? People will be very selective in how they remember that election, but i know for me i never saw such a poorly run batch of mudslinging and childish bs than what i saw in the 2004 election. That shit didn't work because it was good, it worked because america is stupid.


Obama will not be.
Why exactly? Are you saying he is w/o fault? You saying lil garbage like this can't be twisted to scare the suckers of america?

Mr Obama’s past ties to the Syrian-born property developer, a well-known figure in Chicago politics for his financial largesse, have prompted new questions about the sound political judgement and clean ethics that he touts in his run for the White House.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/wuspols227.xml

Hillary could be painted as such though.
Sure could, Not saying she cant or wont. I do think the effect is larger if it hits obama. Hillary's been attacked on every level for the past decade from politics to media. I think the blunt of the blow doesnt hit her as hard if it gets to that.

Kerry also had quite a messy situation over not producing his silver star, etc.
Again a nothing story that somehow held value when Bush never even picked up a rifle possibly. Its not about how true your accusation is, its about how true you make it feel it seems.


If Obama wins the dem side, I just don't see what the GOP is going to come up with to slander him that's going to stick.
I personally think thats naive. In fact Kerry is a great example. Everything he was called out on, Bush was even worse at. Yet because the Bush camp cried louder, it got more attention. A true general election can't be twisted, unfortunately this is a popularity contest. and its not as hard as you think to attack someone in such a contest. Again I could be wrong, but I've seen nothing to suggest america has gotten that much smarter on politics after 9/11.

The one that stuck out for me was when Kerry said...on film btw..."I was for that one, before I was against it" or something like that. It wasnt the Republicans words, it was his words. I think that swayed lots of peeps.

If you endorse picking out countries w/o getting your facts str8, then you shouldnt vote. because thats the responsibility of a guy who holds office. To find the best answer with military action as a last resort. You have every right to get personal, the President does not, you've been watching too many Air Force One movie marathons.


Not even a legit question. In fact its idiotic, even for you. I dont give a fuck if he's black. And of all things it would be the last thing i'd make a factor in my voting. If he gets the nomination, he gets my vote by default(you only get two real choices and I'd vote green before i'd vote for another republican after the way they bent over for Bush's insane policies even when it became apparent that he was a loon). The reality is that when people still factor their own personal feelings and false morals into their voting, Its too easy to beat Obama. Mark my words, the Dems arent really cut throat in the primaries. But in the real election, I expect ridiculous shit that means nothing to come out and for it to work. I've seen nothing to show me otherwise.

But back to the primaries. I dont feel he has enough experience. He seems too green to me. Again not so much that I wouldnt vote for him, but I wonder if he can handle the hardcore politics that'll he'll need to get this country atleast turned in a proper direction.


EDIT: That question was just too damn stupid for me to think it came from you, sure enough a quick peak on the igg off/on button shows that you asked it for an idiot. A midget crybaby idiot no less. b-pussy is obsessed after all this time? WTF? Get a life guy.

BTW...what does that first sentence mean? I'm not following that part.

The one that stuck out for me was when Kerry said...on film btw..."I was for that one, before I was against it" or something like that. It wasnt the Republicans words, it was his words. I think that swayed lots of peeps.
Yea it was a bigger deal than laughing instead of giving an answer. ~sigh~ Man fuck this buffoon country up the ass if thats swaying and all the fake bullshit I was putting myself through watching bush answer questions is ok.


BTW...what does that first sentence mean? I'm not following that part.
Thats a whole other thread. The short answer is we are dying in a country that had lil to nothing to do with 9/11, and we never had proof that they did.

I think I'm on record as saying, that arguing whether we should have ever gone into Iraq is a seperate argument from should we leave now.

Over the past couple of years or so, I've stopped with the 'should we have in the first place' and on to 'now that we are there' debate.

I think we should stay till we can stabilze the region. The military surge was a success. The dimpomatic part is not doing so well. But I'm going to give it time.

I see a difference in the 2 debates. If you don't, or come to the same conclusion on both, thats fine with me.

i never liked GB, but what he shows is that the GOP just needs someone that embraces all its ideals, and the party will rally around him. ie, socially conservative (pro life, anti gay marriage, pro death penalty), will lower taxes, is strong on defense. if you take all those positions, the party will support you. a candidate that strays from those values potentially fractures the party (none of those positions are related, infact, in many instances they oppose each other).

bush wasnt a fantastic candidate, but he did a fantastic job of embracing the party's ideals.

kerry was wishy washy from the start. not a strong candidate, and only stood a chance because bush had already proven to be a rather unpopular president.

I hate pre-general polls holding value in a conversation like this. Mainly because polls are a big fat skewed up guess posing as a legit stat.
I'm not using the poll to predict who actually wins. I agree, it's too early to assign these polls any great meaning. My point is more about voter psychology. Democrats too often pick who they perceive to be the better -person- rather than the better -candidate-. You rarely see that on the Republican side. The person they like the most head-to-head against the rest of their party is the candidate they think can actually win, and it only gets ugly when they don't think they have any candidates that can win.

The only thing that concerns me today is the fact that Virginia is an open primary, and that means conservatives who would normally vote Republican (or just Republican spoilers who are bummed out about not having a real choice) can vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary. Virginia's conservatives are a whole different breed, and there's a ton of them.
7:00:00 - Virginia polls close
7:00:01 - Obama declared winner

i'm voting for anybody yet. all i know is that i wont vote republican.

But your considering...

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8315/hbod3.jpg

i never liked GB, but what he shows is that the GOP just needs someone that embraces all its ideals, and the party will rally around him. ie, socially conservative (pro life, anti gay marriage, pro death penalty), will lower taxes, is strong on defense. if you take all those positions, the party will support you. a candidate that strays from those values potentially fractures the party (none of those positions are related, infact, in many instances they oppose each other).

bush wasnt a fantastic candidate, but he did a fantastic job of embracing the party's ideals.

kerry was wishy washy from the start. not a strong candidate, and only stood a chance because bush had already proven to be a rather unpopular president.

I know this won't change your mind, but I'll toss it out there. I was reading some of CPAC stuff. They have said that Bush failed them but they were late in their criticism. Some of what I've read said they will NOT be late when a Republican prez fails them again. FWIW!

But your considering...

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/8315/hbod3.jpg
Better than anything republican. and you endorse this guy,
http://instapunk.com/images/bush_hitler02.jpg
so yea i'm cool with "hillbilly" as you put it or obama over republican..

You really have no grasp of reality if you think the 2 compare.

Mike Henry HillBilly's Deputy Campaign mgr left or was fired too???

Mike Henry HillBilly's Deputy Campaign mgr left or was fired too???
He was part of Patti Solis Doyle's posse. He was the campaign manager for someone who lost to Obama before.

Team Hillary also got rid of a couple of Internet outreach/blogging folks.

Sorry, still not buying into that its Hillbilly getting rid of as much as employess removing themselves from the positions. It might be, but not what I read.

So is HillBilly really suing for the Michigan and Florida delegates? Thats what this one commentator just kind of said. They said if she does that, it changes everything. I know y'all just had a debate about this, but I didn't know she was suing over them.

The theory is that she will sue if she has to. The problem is that the courts have ruled MANY times that parties can do whatever the damn well they want as long as it's not discriminatory (e.g. no "all white" KKK party). Her own words, actions, and signed statements will be used against her in court. She may not have standing, and it may be "friends of Hillary in Michigan and Florida" who she backs who'd file the lawsuits.

It's all about posturing in the event of a do-over. That's the right solution that causes our voices to be heard, causes interest in all the races on the ticket, counters all the Republican ads that did their subtle programming on the swingers. The problem is that the state Democratic parties already have egg on their face, and a do-over is like cooking the egg on ther face to make it vaguely palatable. As near as I can tell, here's the dirt:

The early primary stuff passed near-unanimously in the Florida legislature -- 115-1 in their House, 37-2 in their Senate. Hell, even one of the co-writers was a Democrat. So, they can't say that Republicans tied their hands up, that it was all the mean Florida Republicans fault. When the national party said "no delegates, you can do a caucus instead if you can't change the primary date, we'll give you some $ to help out", the reason Florida Democrats can't do it is because they're poor with money management and pissed away money they should've had. Florida is really a red state now.

In Michigan, it's worse. Democrats were critical to this passing, and with its total failure, Republicans will campaign about how dumbass Democrats wasted $10 million just so they wouldn't count your vote. It's toxic sludge for them to touch. They don't get to break up the Iowa/NH duopoly, which was their fabricated reason for doing this. And as for their real reason -- so Granholm and crew could suck on Team Hillary's tit -- that ain't looking too good at the moment. As for a do-over, since they had to defend Granholm against a billionaire and times have gotten worse since, the state party has no $.

Nice attack ad by Hillary.
HzGbj_ERlJ0
The Obama response should be interesting.

^can i get a quick synopsis Mxy? Our steeming video is disabled at work and I cannot watch it.

She disses BO for not debaing her in Wisconsin. Then touts her health care plan.

We talked about this somewhere in one of these threads....Hill has proposed a bunch more debates, BO said no. She hasn't made a huge deal about him not wanting to debate, until now.

BO would have a good comeback though, They have debated 18 times. Plenty of times to get out their positions.

Hill asking for debates is another sign to many peeps that she is not the front runner. Asking for debates isn't typically something the frontrunner wants.

Debating her more is pointless. She doesn't really say anything in them. All she does is dodge around the issues (saying she'll reveal her total plan in office) and attack the current administration.

Obama knows he has the momentum. His camp probably doesn't want any more of her "ally" requests from Clinton. I wouldn't do it either if I'm Obama.

I don't know how old some of y'all are but I remember Oliver North testifying in congress during the Iran/Contra thing. His answers went something like this...

Congressman: Col North did you or did you not sell that crate of arms to Mr X?

North: Congressman, I love my country. I'm a Marine. My dad came here and blah blah blah...completely dodged the question to talk about himself. Hillary does that to me. Won't answer to question but will say, "I want to get this coutnries respect back in the world" Say something everyone wants to hear, but wont address the question.

Prolly a bad analogy, but it works for me.

She disses BO for not debaing her in Wisconsin. Then touts her health care plan.
The easiest way to attack Hillary's health care plan, besides talking about how bad mandates are, is to mention that she plans to deliver it by the END of her SECOND term. "We want someone who will work to fix healthcare NOW, not 8 years from now! You're not so ready on day one, are you?" or some politically correct variation thereof will undercut her badly.


We talked about this somewhere in one of these threads....Hill has proposed a bunch more debates, BO said no. She hasn't made a huge deal about him not wanting to debate, until now.
She's also flopping a debate in Ohio, once she realized it was in the middle of a bunch of black folks, and waffling on another debate in Texas because it's on MSNBC. She ducked debates against her Democratic primary challenger in 2006. She's not credible on this issue. It's easy enough to attack just with the "18 debates" line, but there's other lines of attack.


Hill asking for debates is another sign to many peeps that she is not the front runner. Asking for debates isn't typically something the frontrunner wants.
She wants to be seen as the underdog. She wants Obama supporters to be too confident of a win and ease up. Unfortunately for her, Obama knows how to stir the troops up in a big way.

I thought they had an Ohio debate lined up that she backed out of because it was on MSNBC too:


Clinton and Barack Obama are scheduled to participate in an MSNBC debate Feb. 26 from Ohio, which holds its primary March 4.

Hillary wanted free advertising/a debate every week.

Obama said no, just a couple more debates. (As an aside, they were supposed to have a debate just a couple days ago before the Potomac primaries, but it turned into a Q&A with taking questions from residents submitting them online. It was more insightful than any of the debates.)

Then the MSNBC happened, and Hillary's been using that as an excuse to try to "game" the debate schedule. She wants to avoid Cleveland as a place to debate because that's an Obama stronghold, so she uses "it's NBC" as an excuse. But she's ok to have a debate in Youngstown, also on NBC:

qt2_XKeKTGI

Oh, and if it didn't make you barf about Hillary, this will -- her viral marketing:

5FvyGydc8no

And something that should really make you barf is -- she "rented" the list of people who made donations to her to InfoUSA, a direct marketing firm. If you gave Hillary your email address, rest assured that you too can pay for the privilege of your penis growing as large as Hillary's.

BO has been SAYING that he is the best person to have the debate with the Republicans about the war and everything else.

It looks like he and his handlers have decided to show that he can debate McCain. I think this is one of the best political moves I've seen in a while...if what I'm thinking happened happened.

I mean, it kind of says, look you can forget about Hill and i'm ready to take on the Reps.

Its a don't tell me, show me move that I think will help him a ton.