this one is gonna be good.

on the blue side, it looks like edwards isnt throwing in the towel just yet. hilarys got to throw the sink at BO though, cuz i think his victory wasnt as surprising as the margin of it. the inevitable candidate's 3rd place finish was a double loss, losing tuesday could be crippling for her campaign.

on the red side, it looks like this could be one hell of a race, and potentially much more interesting and that the dem's.

There's two kinds of undecided.

The first kind of undecided happens when the results are all rather tight, but the same candidates always seem to pull it out. The second kind of undecided happens when one candidate wins by a landslide in one place at one time, but a different candidate blows everyone else out of the water somewhere else later.

The first kind of undecided happens when people are generally happy with their candidates. The second kind happens when people hate the candidates. The second kind happened a lot with the Dems in 2004, but now it seems to be happening to the Republic party in 2008.

As a typically Dem voter, I am pretty cool with most of the candidates. I like Edwards best, and I'm OK with Obama. I'll hold my nose and vote Hillary if I have to, come Novemer. I will not consider voting for a Republican, not anymore.

this one is gonna be good.

on the blue side, it looks like edwards isnt throwing in the towel just yet. hilarys got to throw the sink at BO though, cuz i think his victory wasnt as surprising as the margin of it. the inevitable candidate's 3rd place finish was a double loss, losing tuesday could be crippling for her campaign.

on the red side, it looks like this could be one hell of a race, and potentially much more interesting and that the dem's.

Good, I actually like Edwards quite a bit. I'm pulling for Obama, but Edwards is the only other canidate I like really.

well, i wouldnt count on him being in the race by 10 pm tuesday. he spent all his money in iowa. right now he's hoping that he has some momentum that will somehow catipult him into a win in NH.

right now hes beyond a long shot.

Rasmussen poll: Obama soars to a 10-point lead

1 minute ago



A major national pollster says that Hillary Clinton has fallen well behind in New Hampshire after her third-place finish in Iowa, while John McCain now has a five-point lead over Mitt Romney.

Rasmussen Reports, in a telephone survey of 510 likely Democratic voters on Friday, found 37 percent backing Barack Obama, 27 percent for Clinton, 19 percent for John Edwards and 8 percent for Bill Richardson.

In Rasmussen's last New Hampshire polling, before Christmas, Clinton led Obama by 3 percent. Romney had a narrow lead over McCain.

Rasmussen now projects that 40 percent of the Democratic ballots and 32 percent of GOP ballots will be cast by independents, not registered party members.

This week's survey shows McCain with 31 percent, Romney at 26, Ron Paul rising to third place with 14, Iowa winner Mike Huckabee at 11, Rudy Giuliani 8, Fred Thompson 5, others 2. Three percent are undecided.

The poll's admitted margin of error is 4.5 percent.


http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rasmussen+poll%3A+Obama+soar s+to+a+10-point+lead&articleId=e81b58c5-ec9a-415e-9b46-89d5bbf36eb2

He's unstoppable imo

I like the quote about the power of the christian vote being indisputable in the republican party.
No shit, Sherlock, those are the only people DUMB enough to vote republican nowadays. That conservatism is anything BUT a religion, and that they need god because their message is a complete failure IS truly indisputable.
When all else fails, link your sorry ass to the ruin of the country and going to hell if the people see through your bullshit. I hope Chuck Norris has a patented Movie Vietnam Flashback and dropkicks the entire republican party to death.
Come on Chuck only YOU can save this country now, right?

We've got candidates holding out, here. Guliani is setting his sights on the delegate-heavy states, completely ignoring these first two rounds, while some must wonder if Fred Thompson is either a)hording his money for the Feb 5th push or b)even really cares anymore, and I think Edwards is looking forward to the southern swing (South Carolina, I think).

Of all the candidates, I think Clinton has the most to lose. If she drops NH, she's certainly not dead in the water, but I'm beginning to wonder if she's the '08 version of Howard Dean, with a little bit of John Kerry bland mixed in for good measure.... after all, she is "so ready" for the challange.

I watched part of the debate last night (between commercial breaks, more after Chauncey turned into Mr. Shot and biffed those fucking FTs). I got the distinct impression Edwards was squaring up to be Obama's VP, or at least somewhere in Obama's organization. Edwards and Obama came across a little bit better than Hillary did, because she bit on the bait and kinda lost her cool while they didn't. It was a nice debate format, though. Candidates got to actually speak.

I hear that Romney got absolutely abused out there, but didn't see it.

I think the Republican debate is tonight.

This is BO's race to lose.

I watched part of the debate last night (between commercial breaks, more after Chauncey turned into Mr. Shot and biffed those fucking FTs). I got the distinct impression Edwards was squaring up to be Obama's VP, or at least somewhere in Obama's organization. Edwards and Obama came across a little bit better than Hillary did, because she bit on the bait and kinda lost her cool while they didn't. It was a nice debate format, though. Candidates got to actually speak.

I hear that Romney got absolutely abused out there, but didn't see it.

iv suspected a secret vp promise from obama to edwards for a while now, too.

obama gets to keep his hands clean while also throwing dirt he needed to bring down the front runner.

over the last few months, nearly all of edwards' attacks have been on hilary, and he eve went as far as to defend obama last night. either edwards is politcially inept and never realized how close obama really was, and is, or something else is going on.

I think the Republican debate is tonight.

This is BO's race to lose.

the republicans were directly before the dems. it might be rerun tonight.

Who hosted it? I missed it completely

cnn is replaying it tonight. at 7 i think.

thx
FoxNews Republican debate is tonight. The Dems don't do FoxNews debates

Are you going to watch the Republicans debate tonight Diddy or it'd be a waste of time cuz you are voting Dem regardless?

ill probably watch a bit. even though i like obama alot, ill probably vote my consciounce and green party, btw.

im also rooting for huckabee on the red side, just because he seems like he has a fairly populist message for a republican.

i thought people hated mit cuz hes a mormon, but theres something very disingenuous about him. hes not believable.

ill probably watch a bit. even though i like obama alot, ill probably vote my consciounce and green party, btw.

im also rooting for huckabee on the red side, just because he seems like he has a fairly populist message for a republican.

everything ive read about huckabee is that hes left leaning on fiscal policy, but im pretty sure i just heard him say he would end corporate, income, capital gains, and the death tax. doesnt sound too left leaning to me.

I like this format

Mit comes across ok for me.

how is ron paul not part of this debate??? he has as much a right to be there as mccain, thompson, and giuliani.

Because Fox told him you are not invited and quit masquerading as a Repuclican.

It was a lil dust up, but Fox stood by their formula for being invited.

i thought people hated mit cuz hes a mormon, but theres something very disingenuous about him. hes not believable.
He's a nice-hair sales weenie who'll say anything.

I'm kinda liking Romney. I remember you, mxy, posting the youtube thing on Romney...I think it was Utube, where he switched on this or that, but couldn't find it.

He did become pro-life, but I switched on that issue too. He addressed it tonight.

1) ive stated i think this is an especially important election many times. so you can only imagine how disgusted i was to see people interviewed by fox in the post debate discussion bring up abortion as their first issue. my god. what the fuck is wrong with some people?

2) did fox ever explain why ron paul isnt allowed to talk. after all, hes more of a true conservative than anyone running or currently in office, imo. paul's blacklisting, sans a very good explanation, is a rather disturbing development in american democracy. if i harbor on this very long, i could get reaaaaaaaaaaaaaly upset.

re: Paul They did state their requirements at the begining but I didn't pay much attention to it.

The Abortion thing is prolly still trying to get the Christian right to vote for them. It more about votes than their true conviction on the issue, imo.

edit...

I'll make a prediction. Huckabee won't make any noise in the Rep race again. He's toast.

If I was a Christian, or cared about sanctity of life, I would be going to war right now over abortion. If I believed that thousands of babies were being killed I'd have no choice but to make it my #1, 2, and 3 issue. But I don't care, so kill away.
And I'll be voting for Paul in some way I'm sure. He's no Republican though, they ran far away from conservitivism years ago. Republicans are just Democrats without the common sense include the tax part in "tax and spend".

I'm kinda liking Romney. I remember you, mxy, posting the youtube thing on Romney...I think it was Utube, where he switched on this or that, but couldn't find it.
I don't know where I posted it, but they're all over YouTube and easy to find:

ToQbeBC_fOI

Remember, Romney's a leveraged buyout dude. AFAICT, his biggest consistent principle is the almighty $. He's done a lot of "nice-guy" things, but they're calculated. My sense is that at the end of the day, his rich friend special interests come first.


He did become pro-life, but I switched on that issue too. He addressed it tonight.
Out of curiosity, what prompted you to switch? Maybe this deserves to be a separate thread.

It just kind of happened over the course of a few years.

My brother-in-law was a gynecologist, not religious at all. He did abortions the first part of his practice, but stopped.

He said they were being used as birth control. He was a really smart guy(passed away) and well thought out. It wasn't that short of a reason for him to quit but I tried to boil it down to a one-liner.

It wasn't just him but he did have a part in my thinking.

[brain dump of my stand on abortion -- barf now or forever hold your peace]

With today's technologies, there's not many good reasons a woman needs to wait until they have a fetus, let alone a positive HPT, to deal with pregnancy.
If she doesn't know at the time of conception (+ 3 days -- "morning after" is a misnomer) that she wants to have a baby, she doesn't have one, and she can make that decision pretty quickly. If she can't afford the $15-20 for Plan B (or free at some clinics) because she oops'ed her birth control, or she can't talk to the man about it for whatever reason, she can't afford to have a child and shouldn't. None of this is foolproof, of course, and things were different even 10 years ago. But as of today, a woman usually goes through at least a couple rounds of poor choices to get to where abortion is the choice. At the time they make the abortion choice, hormones that they may have never had going on before may be mood-swinging them big-time. Yeah, sounds like a terrific fucking time to make that kind of choice... uh-huh, yeah.

Unfortunately, many of the "women" involved are really underage girls, where questions of "what choice should they have or not have" are complex. And, there's lots of bad reasons to make poor choices. Too many people lack a good understanding of what is possible today, aided in no small part by our government being under the sway of fear-mongerers. Republicans made their bed with the fear-mongerers, and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Speaking of which... I dunno about anyone else, but having kids SHOULD BE SCARY, even for a responsible couple going into it willingly. I wish that the fear-mongerers would play up THAT angle! If you're a single mom with ADC, school age kids should see you in your environment as a condition of your check. Preach fucking responsibility. I'm pro-choice, to be sure, but I'm pro-informed-choice, not pro-slacker pro-stupid-people.

Honestly, women have had a choice for millenia (quite literally the dawn of time, to a strict Bible sort!). Back then no one was giving last rites to the unborn. There were a million+ abortions per year in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade. As with most modern medicine, it's safer and easier than ever. We can't really go back. AFAICT, pro-life executed over some broad geography amounts to death-by-coathanger, and I haven't heard any good reasons why a pro-life agenda wouldn't result in that.

Obama Has 90% Odds of New Hampshire Win, Traders Say (Update1)


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAsdGLltkeKo&refer=home

Hillary cries for the crowd today...boo hoo hoo. Well she got all chocked up and teary eyed anyway. WHAT A JOKE! Go away you ugly bitch

Was she crying because she's an ugly bitch?

MXY...good post. I'll respond a lil a lil later but abortion is something that peeps feel pretty passionately about. Tough issue.

And I agee with your first paragraph....With todays tech a woman doesn't need to get preg. The cliche...you can lead a horse to water but you can't...blah bl;ah blah, comes to mind.

Was she crying because she's an ugly bitch?

She was crying because, in her words...."I don't want this country to fall back" and later she admitted her tear were, in part, due to she's an ugly fucking whore. <--her words. I was a lil surprised at that.

OMFG, they just replayed the whole thing...fucking embarrassing to me. She is sooooooo fake.

embarrassing is what i'd call it, too.

turnout is more than NH gets in a general election usually. warm weather. expect a blood bath on the blue side. hilary is F'ed.

I hope Edwards nudges her out again for 2nd.

Hillary's camp is saying that its a victory if she only loses by single digits. WTF? The Clinton's definately have a spin machine.

Hillary's camp is saying that its a victory if she only loses by single digits. WTF? The Clinton's definately have a spin machine.

They said that now? Wow, if I'm a NH voter I see that as a sign she doesn't care about NH then.

"They said that now?" Exactly. They would have never said that a week ago (before Iowa).

I think it is more of a "Its a victory if we ONLY lose to the surging BO by 9 or less"

The Dem race is over. And if Huck is nominated, which he won't be, I will vote for BO.

diminish expectations, its a good way of building momentum. bush does it all the time, project a defcit to be huge, so when the real number roles around it makes you look like youve accomplished something.

problem with hilary is that just a week ago she was the "inevitable" candidate. kind of too stark a contrast to ignore.i LOVE that one backfired on her.

Clinton's camp did the same thing in Iowa. Bill was saying how its miracle if she came in 2nd.

Now the Clinton camp is considering, according to reports, a house cleaning after her tears yesterday. Who? rumored to be Begala and Carville. This is great stuff.

mccain winning tonight isnt surprising in the context of the last few weeks, but as far as the last year, i am utterly shocked. his campaign was dead.

hilary is doing alright on cnn for the moment, but i believe other networks have reported that obama should win by a 5% margin. not sure how true that is.

Whats shocking to me about the McCain win is how much he won by. Not sure if the lead he holds will be the final number but I thought it was at least going to be close. McCain vs BO?

The last I saw Hillary was winning. A win would be HUGE for her.

cnn suggesting its the liberals for obama and the moderates for hilary. uhhhh.... ill hold of for results but i think thats complete bs. i think obama's supporters arent as easilly categorized as 'the far left' or the 'middle left'. at the end of the night, i suspect obama is going to be the leader in pretty much all categories, not just the far left.

(incidentally, dude was referring to the west side of the state being the far left, who favored dean in 04, with pretty much everyone else being moderate).

hilary winning would be huge. however, i wouldnt count on it just yet. before mccain got in bed with the far right, i liked him. imo, he sold his soul to get in the good graces with the republican base.

romney's campaign is utterly fucked right now, it seems. people hate mormons.

obama is inching up if you watch those delegates, at this pace he'll catch hilary in the 60%s or so, is my guess.

its officially looking bad for obama at 48%. what was new hampshire thinking?

its officially looking bad for obama at 48%. what was new hampshire thinking?



Electibility. Which usually screws you.

this could finish within a percentile. this is just one state of many. a win here means more to hilary than BO. winning by a thousand votes means they are dead even, the delegates gained probably wont make or break the nominaiton.

http://www.dudehisattva.com/hell%20no%20rudy%201.jpg

"there is nothing false about hope"

expect to hear that about 5000000000 times over the next year. awesome.

all hilary proved tonight is that be it a traffic ticket or campaigning in a the new hampshire primary, women can cry their way out of anything.

ok, thats just sour grapes, i dont believe that.

barak obama could tell me that i have cancer, and that that cancer has aids, and i'd still feal good about myself having him tell me it.

hilary could tell me i won the lottery and i'd still head streight for the jack.

who's voting for this corps?

Electibility. Which usually screws you.

Hillary is?

I know how many peeps hate Bush. HATE HIM! I feel the same way about Hillary, so maybe its payback. If she is elected, seriously, I'll puke.

I guess Hill carried women by 16pts.

seems to me that obama lost for 2 reasons:

1) a significant portion of his base (in NH) included people who typically do not vote (ie students). obama, due in large to great organization and infrastructure, did a fantastic job of getting these people to the caucasus in iowa. perhaps due to overconfidence, or just not as much money and effort, did not have the same great turn out in NH. he lost by about 7k, mobilizing his base better would have eaten deap into that.

2) bill clinton is a tank. hilary can send him to any obama stronghold and bust it up. 8 years later and his magnetism is still undeniable.

Just heard an interesting stat...The independents in NH can vote either way. Instead of voting for BO in the Dem Prim, they voted for McCain in the Rep. I forgot the numbers already, but that explains a little of what happened.

BO was supposed to get into the low 40s, he ended up at roughly 35-36%. That coupled with the great turnout of women voters for Hillary.

its officially looking bad for obama at 48%. what was new hampshire thinking?

Pride comes before the fall.

Hillary is?


She's a lock vs. every Lick in the field.

I guess Hill carried women by 16pts.

And the gap is huge amoung educated women. Explains Iowa. The slovenly will listen to the media trouncing Hill has been given, those with degrees weren't swayed.

And the gap is huge amoung educated women.

And it's the exact opposite for men. Weird.

I'm startled by what happened on both sides. I dislike both candidates that won.

I'm fairly sure that Edwards is Obama's spoiler here. I'd bet that two-thirds of Edwards voters have Obama as their 2nd choice, and he got as big a boost from Hillary's 3rd-place Iowa finish as Obama. And I was surprised that Kucinich is getting votes -- I thought he was supporting Obama now. It'll be interesting to see what it is that Edwards wants, since it's still not clear that he can win a race. The polls I've seen show that Edwards matches up better against Republican candidates than either Hillary or Obama, probably due to the "white male" factor, but I'm not certain how that translates in real life since he can't campaign convincingly on Iraq. (Obama can, but he hasn't.)

I know how many peeps hate Bush. HATE HIM! I feel the same way about Hillary, so maybe its payback. If she is elected, seriously, I'll puke.
Nothing wrong with that. I'm voting Hillary just on the strength of this. [smilie=heatsmiley2:

Seriously the question is who can beat the republicans. imo Barrack Obama can't. So its between Hillary and Edwards. Personally I don't think either/or is an amazing candidate. For some odd reason I think Hillary has the best chance. I think the women vote always gives her an unspoken advantage. With that said Jon Edwards may be the better choice against my judgment to knock out red states. dont know if he can though.

Its pretty apparent that whoever gets out of the primary will be crucified by the media. Obama won't, but he won't need to be. IMO he can't win any red states.

Clinton's camp did the same thing in Iowa. Bill was saying how its miracle if she came in 2nd.

Now the Clinton camp is considering, according to reports, a house cleaning after her tears yesterday. Who? rumored to be Begala and Carville. This is great stuff.
Rumored by Bill O'reilly no less. :P

[brain dump of my stand on abortion -- barf now or forever hold your peace]

With today's technologies, there's not many good reasons a woman needs to wait until they have a fetus, let alone a positive HPT, to deal with pregnancy.
If she doesn't know at the time of conception (+ 3 days -- "morning after" is a misnomer) that she wants to have a baby, she doesn't have one, and she can make that decision pretty quickly. If she can't afford the $15-20 for Plan B (or free at some clinics) because she oops'ed her birth control, or she can't talk to the man about it for whatever reason, she can't afford to have a child and shouldn't. None of this is foolproof, of course, and things were different even 10 years ago. But as of today, a woman usually goes through at least a couple rounds of poor choices to get to where abortion is the choice. At the time they make the abortion choice, hormones that they may have never had going on before may be mood-swinging them big-time. Yeah, sounds like a terrific fucking time to make that kind of choice... uh-huh, yeah.

Unfortunately, many of the "women" involved are really underage girls, where questions of "what choice should they have or not have" are complex. And, there's lots of bad reasons to make poor choices. Too many people lack a good understanding of what is possible today, aided in no small part by our government being under the sway of fear-mongerers. Republicans made their bed with the fear-mongerers, and it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Speaking of which... I dunno about anyone else, but having kids SHOULD BE SCARY, even for a responsible couple going into it willingly. I wish that the fear-mongerers would play up THAT angle! If you're a single mom with ADC, school age kids should see you in your environment as a condition of your check. Preach fucking responsibility. I'm pro-choice, to be sure, but I'm pro-informed-choice, not pro-slacker pro-stupid-people.

Honestly, women have had a choice for millenia (quite literally the dawn of time, to a strict Bible sort!). Back then no one was giving last rites to the unborn. There were a million+ abortions per year in the U.S. before Roe v. Wade. As with most modern medicine, it's safer and easier than ever. We can't really go back. AFAICT, pro-life executed over some broad geography amounts to death-by-coathanger, and I haven't heard any good reasons why a pro-life agenda wouldn't result in that.
I'm not pro choice myself. My homeboy 3 kids with his tenuous GF, yet fucks around on the daily. Gets an 18 year old bitch pregnant then gets out of it by pressuring the abortion. He's a good friend but thats lame on his part and he'll have no unfortunate lesson in life on responsibility of "man up on your own mistakes). If its not the result of rape or medical issues, then i can't see much legitimacy in pro choice not being the most abused thing out there.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm voting Hillary just on the strength of this. [smilie=heatsmiley2:

Seriously the question is who can beat the republicans. imo Barrack Obama can't. So its between Hillary and Edwards. Personally I don't think either/or is an amazing candidate. For some odd reason I think Hillary has the best chance. I think the women vote always gives her an unspoken advantage. With that said Jon Edwards may be the better choice against my judgment to knock out red states. dont know if he can though.

Its pretty apparent that whoever gets out of the primary will be crucified by the media. Obama won't, but he won't need to be. IMO he can't win any red states.

He damn sure could if peeps would quit thinking like that and vote for him.

I'm a conservative on most issues and if Huck wins the Republican nomination, I'm voting for BO. If its Hill, then I'd vote for the devil himself.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm voting Hillary just on the strength of this. [smilie=heatsmiley2:



Seriously, I'll go from puking to laughing. It will be fun to watch all the Clinton bashing starting back up and I'll prolly be a part of it.

If Clinton wasn't elected the Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush..."Clinton" streak would be broken as our Presidents. If BO is elected all that hatred or something would cease, imo.

I know how many peeps hate Bush. HATE HIM! I feel the same way about Hillary, so maybe its payback. If she is elected, seriously, I'll puke.

Big difference here, Tahoe: You are echoling sentiments of the Threatened Angry White Male.
99% of the country was behind GDub just a few years ago. What he's done since is EARNED the hatred. Hillary has done nothing except be a woman who threatens the NRA, Bible thumping, beer swilling white males who get their thoughts from Rush Limbaugh.

99%. That's a lot.

So Hillary is the only Dem on the ballot in Michigan. SWEEEEET! for her.

I'm fairly sure that Edwards is Obama's spoiler here. I'd bet that two-thirds of Edwards voters have Obama as their 2nd choice, and he got as big a boost from Hillary's 3rd-place Iowa finish as Obama. And I was surprised that Kucinich is getting votes -- I thought he was supporting Obama now. It'll be interesting to see what it is that Edwards wants, since it's still not clear that he can win a race. The polls I've seen show that Edwards matches up better against Republican candidates than either Hillary or Obama, probably due to the "white male" factor, but I'm not certain how that translates in real life since he can't campaign convincingly on Iraq. (Obama can, but he hasn't.)

right, kucinich endorsed obama in iowa w/ the 15% rule. he should just get out of the way, imo.

obama still has 2 states coming up that he should win. just because some awfully quick polling was erroneous doesnt mean hillary is back to being the "inevitable" candidate. however, if 3600 people had voted differently in NH this race would have been over already. just means hilary survives for another month.

I'm not pro choice myself. My homeboy 3 kids with his tenuous GF, yet fucks around on the daily. Gets an 18 year old bitch pregnant then gets out of it by pressuring the abortion. He's a good friend but thats lame on his part and he'll have no unfortunate lesson in life on responsibility of "man up on your own mistakes). If its not the result of rape or medical issues, then i can't see much legitimacy in pro choice not being the most abused thing out there.
But is that an argument against choice, or against irresponsible people? Why doesn't the woman bear some responsibility here? It's her body, and she's a willing participant.


Obama won't, but he won't need to be. IMO he can't win any red states.
A number of red states became red states owing to the disenfranchised black folks who don't vote, and some of the western red states out west are voting in Dems more and more frequently. Bush and the war have pissed off a lot of people. To counterbalance that, you have states like Michigan that are very much poised to go red.

So Hillary is the only Dem on the ballot in Michigan. SWEEEEET! for her.

I have a question about that one: If I've understood it correctly (having only read it once or twice in the papers) Michigan got penalized for trying to jump the gun with having all their delegates removed. Is that right?

I heard a good point from one analyst on CNN. He said the many dems might have voted for Hillary just because they knew Obama would be way out front with another victory. His theory is that they don't want it all wrapped up quick and have no options. They went the Denny Green (if you want to crown them, then crown them) route maybe and weren't ready to annoint Obama just yet.

Personally, I'd rather Obama and Edwards fight it out because I'd be happy with either canidate.

I have a question about that one: If I've understood it correctly (having only read it once or twice in the papers) Michigan got penalized for trying to jump the gun with having all their delegates removed. Is that right?
http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11262

Thank you

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11262

cough cough...Step off MR Mxy, Tahoe and Denny had this story covered first.

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10420

Big difference here, Tahoe: You are echoling sentiments of the Threatened Angry White Male.
99% of the country was behind GDub just a few years ago. What he's done since is EARNED the hatred. Hillary has done nothing except be a woman who threatens the NRA, Bible thumping, beer swilling white males who get their thoughts from Rush Limbaugh.

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh....WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hillary didn't do anything wrong...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH Bush is an asshole but hillary didn't do ANYTHING. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Leaver her alone.

Thats my attempt to copy that one guy that did that on the internet about Brit Brit. And I'll just say right now, I think that my post is pretty dog gone funny.

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh....WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hillary didn't do anything wrong...WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH Bush is an asshole but hillary didn't do ANYTHING. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Leaver her alone.

Thats my attempt to copy that one guy that did that on the internet about Brit Brit. And I'll just say right now, I think that my post is pretty dog gone funny.

Since you brought it up, it would be interesting to hear you articulate what it is she's done to inspire "hatred"

Ok, you won. Not that I don't hate Hillary, along with a hundred million other peeps, but it won't make a difference to state what I think about her. And frankly, I don't care to persuade anyone to vote, or not vote, for any candidate. Thats where MB digress, imo.

I'm not trying to dodge you, but if you've lived in the US over the past 16 years, you've prolly heard some of the reasons.

Ok, you won. Not that I don't hate Hillary, along with a hundred million other peeps, but it won't make a difference to state what I think about her. And frankly, I don't care to persuade anyone to vote, or not vote, for any candidate. Thats where MB digress, imo.

I'm not trying to dodge you, but if you've lived in the US over the past 16 years, you've prolly heard some of the reasons.

That was a tremendous dodge, Tahoe! You missed your calling!

http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/0604_dodgeball_315x388_2.jpg

cough cough...Step off MR Mxy, Tahoe and Denny had this story covered first.

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10420
Doh! I forgot about that one, and it has a cooler title even.
Admins, please merge my thread into that one. Thanks!

And I didn't care about covering it first. I didn't refer to the thread so I could toot my own horn. It actually did have the details he was asking about. So there. ;)

You know what, Goddamnit, you are right. I contradicted myself. I basically said I was dodging him, then said I wasn't. WTF? I should run for office.

But is that an argument against choice, or against irresponsible people? Why doesn't the woman bear some responsibility here? It's her body, and she's a willing participant.
1.) Its an argument against both since imho they go hand in hand in the long run.

2.) absolutely she bears half of it. But she's not my friend i've known since high school, so i was speaking from how i felt about his decision from aq disappointment in him standpoint on his end. Overall my opinion is reflective of people in general. Not just fellow males. Choice w/o accountability leads to more irresponsibility.

Just opinion though. Not adamant as most about it.

Since you brought it up, it would be interesting to hear you articulate what it is she's done to inspire "hatred"
As much as Bill and Gore did, next to nothing politically, everything personally. America is idiotic american idol obsessed popularity contest to leadership.

2.) absolutely she bears half of it. But she's not my friend i've known since high school, so i was speaking from how i felt about his decision from aq disappointment in him standpoint on his end. Overall my opinion is reflective of people in general. Not just fellow males. Choice w/o accountability leads to more irresponsibility.


Would it really be better for anyone involved or the world at large if your friend had brought a kid or two into the world that he had no interest in raising?

Come on gee, there is an answer to that which you are walking straight into.

I'm really terribly upset about both the Pistons and the NH primaries. What contests can I be emotionally invested in now?

Hillary was never especially diplomatic back when she was First Lady. She was easily turned into a lightning rod by putting herself in the forefront of big policy stuff moreso than any First Lady before. Politically, Hillary set universal health care back 10-15 years, and now she wants to cite it as "experience". She cries her way to a victory, on the machine of her husband, which seems like a setback for progressive women. Ugh.

One question that's worth asking many Hillary naysayers is -- are there any women they seriously like to see be president?

Your mom.

Wait, that didn't work.

I'm really terribly upset about both the Pistons and the NH primaries. What contests can I be emotionally invested in now?

At least you gots dem 500 alpacas.

Hillary was never especially diplomatic back when she was First Lady. She was easily turned into a lightning rod by putting herself in the forefront of big policy stuff moreso than any First Lady before. Politically, Hillary set universal health care back 10-15 years, and now she wants to cite it as "experience". She cries her way to a victory, on the machine of her husband, which seems like a setback for progressive women. Ugh.

One question that's worth asking many Hillary naysayers is -- are there any women they seriously like to see be president?


these are my exact thoughts on hilary. its bizarre what shes trying to get away with.

and people say, 'any woman in charge is always concidered a bitch', which is probably an unfair stereotype. but in hilary's case, she does tend to perpetuate it.

I think she's a brilliant woman that lacks in social skills and personality.

i think she's very fortunate that she is married to bill clinton, and wouldnt have a chance in hell at getting elected otherwise.

i went from not liking her to being adamently against her when unclemxy posted the link with her saying "you might not like it, but lobbyists speak for somebody" (defending her acceptance of lobbyist money).

Hillary was never especially diplomatic back when she was First Lady. She was easily turned into a lightning rod by putting herself in the forefront of big policy stuff moreso than any First Lady before. Politically, Hillary set universal health care back 10-15 years, and now she wants to cite it as "experience". She cries her way to a victory, on the machine of her husband, which seems like a setback for progressive women. Ugh.

Experience is what you call it when you don't succeed. I think it's ridiculous to imply that she doesn't have experience when its so well known that she played a major role in both getting Bill elected president and in his policy during his presidency. She used to be refered to as already being the 1st female president.

Would it really be better for anyone involved or the world at large if your friend had brought a kid or two into the world that he had no interest in raising?
That assumption of what he will do about his child that really isnt on point. Actually he'd raise the child. It would mostly screw over his already rocky relationship with his woman. But muthafuckas i roll with raise their children because most of us our bastards who have no respect for dead beat fucktards. The caring of the child is a given even for my shadiest of friends. IMO it reflects some shitty to piss morals i can't be around for someone to leave a child hanging for any other reason other than being locked up.

I think she's a brilliant woman that lacks in social skills and personality.
I can agree with this. Maybe not as lacking as Gore, but under the same guidelines. With that said, I think alot of the reasoning to not liking candidates reflects the utter idiocy of voting. between that and muthafuckas who throw a pussy fit about who they voted for, its a headache to be around this presidential election shit all year.

Every once in a while I look at the fact that Hillary Clinton has a child, which means she's had sex with Bill at least once. And I find myself wondering "Who in the world would want to fuck that?"

And every time you find yourself asking that question, the answer is always the same: a hillbilly.

Bill was no looker himself..I guess the HillBilly thing is spot on.
http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

Hillary was never especially diplomatic back when she was First Lady. She was easily turned into a lightning rod by putting herself in the forefront of big policy stuff moreso than any First Lady before. Politically, Hillary set universal health care back 10-15 years, and now she wants to cite it as "experience". She cries her way to a victory, on the machine of her husband, which seems like a setback for progressive women. Ugh.

One question that's worth asking many Hillary naysayers is -- are there any women they seriously like to see be president?

I'm not a big fan of Hillary. But, I think it's funny that she set back the healtch care debate by simply being the first politico to actually come out and say she gave a shit about it.

I'm no expert on this issue, but in Sicko Moore talked about how she was put in charge of the Health Care issue by Bill and then she turned around and took 800 grand from lobbiests and ended up doing not fixing anything.

Again, I'm no expert, but I think that's what Uncle Mxy was referring to.

On a serious note, I agree with Glenn's assessment. Everyone knows someone who is kind of like that. I know a woman with similar problems - she's brilliant, but she's extremely socially awkward and has no ability to control the volume or tone of her voice.

The problem with a personality like that is twofold - first, this is the person you depend on to deliver important speeches to the American people. Second, this is the person you depend on to conduct some important diplomacy. Do you really want this person to be socially awkward and easily misinterpreted?

Believe me, it's 1000x better than having a dimwit in the Oval Office like Bush or Huckabee. But why make that choice when you could easily have someone like Obama conducting diplomacy, who is going to be treated like a rock star by everyone he meets (at least for a little while)?

I would personally want someone like Obama meeting with the Russians, the Mexicans, and the Japanese. Maybe we can still send her to deal with the Chinese.

Clearly America doesn't care about have a social idiot in the oval office or the current president wouldn't be there.

If I heard the clip right, Chris Mathews MSNBC said the only reason she was elected was because her husband had an affair...implying peeps felt sorry for her. Ouch.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

BTW... I think its really fucked up that Iowa, NH and now Michigan, get to thin the field of candidates. WTF is up with that?

I've hear rotating the first 3 primaries, having a lottery to decide the 3.

Why can't the primary results NOT be disclosed till at least 20-25 states have had their primary/caucuses?

The Michigan primary isn't going to have any effect on the field of Democratic candidates at all. No one is going to drop out because they didn't win Michigan. Michigan isn't sending any delegates to the convention.

I like the idea of a rotating lottery to decide the first 3 primary states. What happens when the first 3 states are Texas, North Carolina, and Tennessee? Or maybe Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont? A more reasonable way to do it is to divide the states into standard geographic regions and pick random states from different regions:

PNW: Washington, Oregon, Idaho
Southwest: California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico
Mountain: Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming
Plains: ND, SD, Kansas, Nebraska
Midwest: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma
Rust Belt: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania
Mid-Atlantic: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York
New England: Rhode Island, Connecticut, Mass, Vermont, NH, Maine
Atlantic South: Virginia, NC, SC, Florida, Georgia
Interior South: Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana

Pick one from each of those categories, and randomly pick one state from each of those categories to represent that region, and have all of those primaries on the same day.

Or even better: Pick two states, one that votes hard right (say, Texas) and one that votes hard left (say, Vermont) and hold them both on the same day. The candidates won't have to travel.

Or even better, say "fuck it" to the whole stupid system and come up with some voting system that's not under the mistaken impression that it's still the 18th century.

Honestly, the parliamentary system is 1000x better. Assholes get thrown out of office all the time in a parliamentary system, it's impossible to get by without forming temporary alliances on certain issues between different parties, and the conflict between the executive and the legislative is minimized (because the executive comes from the legislature).

I'd love to withold the results until they are finished, but I'm sure that doesn't work for the canidates. They'll spend millions on campaigning when they've already lost and don't know it. I suppose you could tinker with the number you need before revealing or something.

What if the primaries were all held in a week? I know the candidates wouldn't like it cuz they couldn't be shaking hands with peeps hours before they go vote, but as long as its equal for everyone.

Michigan, btw, may very well play a large role in determining the GOP race. A much more prominent role then it would have played had it been back on Super Tuesday like in the past.

it might be kind of stupid that iowa and NH are so influential, but i think the system isnt too bad. especially iowa, they put alot of effort into the system. honestly, even though the turnout isnt phenomenal, the people that do get involved put a ton of effort in. no way in hell would i spend several hours caucusing. never.

i like the parliamentary system too. makes sense.

Clearly America doesn't care about have a social idiot in the oval office or the current president wouldn't be there.
agreed. But i dont think hillary is an idiot, nor do i think she'd suck at diplomacy. it would be light years ahead of what we got in that department the last 8 years. I wouldnt mind her or Obama. I think she has a better chance of locking down wins in borderline states and maybe a red state or two. but thats my opinion.


If I heard the clip right, Chris Mathews MSNBC said the only reason she was elected was because her husband had an affair...implying peeps felt sorry for her. Ouch.
Thats a pretty irresponsible, unprofessional, overly personal, and dumbass statement for someone working at MSNBC. Another reason i dont watch news channels during election years anymore.

Fool..Yes, Michigan could have a huge influence on the Reps. If Romney loses, he's toast.

And can independents vote in either party? From what I'm reading they can and now that the Mich Dem primary is a joke, a lot of the Indi's might vote Rep. Possibly very screwed up.

Diddy... the problem I have with Iowan's determining so much of who will make it is that the demographics of the state are not close to the overall numbers in the country.

Another suggestion for the Primaries going forward is to at least have a state thats close the deographics of the country. I have no idea what state that might be...Illinois?

CodeNV...Seriously, try FoxNews. They are fair and balanced. :)

demographics not withstanding, the fact that you have 100,000s of people taking the process so seriously makes iowa a good choice. even in the general election, we have trouble getting people to take the process seriously. its too much to ask people to take 15-30 min out of the day to vote.

well, its even harder to get people to vote in a primary, or go attend a rally, or whatever. but they do it in iowa. the caucus process takes several hours out of every voter's day. alot of people say you should vote no matter what, but should you? iowans go through alot of trouble to make an informed choice, and natoriously ignore negative attacks.

to me that makes them an ideal first state. i get the jealousy or whatever, but most of the people who say iowa shouldnt have it probably dont even vote in their primaries anyway, and would never vote if it was going to take 3+ hrs plus travel.

I'm sticking with my original take on Obama when he first entered the race. A fraction of one senate term is not enough experience to be electable.

CodeNV...Seriously, try FoxNews. They are fair and balanced. :)
And the world is flat...!!! woooohoooo![smilie=heatsmiley2:

I'm sticking with my original take on Obama when he first entered the race. A fraction of one senate term is not enough experience to be electable.

Well I think he has pretty good judgement. I'd rather have someone with little experience and good judgement, rather than poor judgement and experience.

Hillary was in the WH for 8 years but so was the WH chef.

Well I think he has pretty good judgement. I'd rather have someone with little experience and good judgement, rather than poor judgement and experience.

Hillary was in the WH for 8 years but so was the WH chef.

How many years did chef do in the united states senate? Just curious.

demographics not withstanding, the fact that you have 100,000s of people taking the process so seriously makes iowa a good choice. even in the general election, we have trouble getting people to take the process seriously. its too much to ask people to take 15-30 min out of the day to vote.

well, its even harder to get people to vote in a primary, or go attend a rally, or whatever. but they do it in iowa. the caucus process takes several hours out of every voter's day. alot of people say you should vote no matter what, but should you? iowans go through alot of trouble to make an informed choice, and natoriously ignore negative attacks.

to me that makes them an ideal first state. i get the jealousy or whatever, but most of the people who say iowa shouldnt have it probably dont even vote in their primaries anyway, and would never vote if it was going to take 3+ hrs plus travel.

I still disagree. Iowan's didn't always take the process this seriously or, better said, didn't turn out in these numbers. It grew as the coverage grew.

Any state would take it seriously if they were first in line. Too many religious white people there for me.

I like the idea of a rotating lottery to decide the first 3 primary states. What happens when the first 3 states are Texas, North Carolina, and Tennessee? Or maybe Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont?
Shit happens. I prefer a 4-state random lottery, sorted smallest to largest, selected -after- the mid-term elections. It's never going to be perfect, but over time, it'll balance out.


A more reasonable way to do it is to divide the states into standard geographic regions and pick random states from different regions:

PNW: Washington, Oregon, Idaho
Southwest: California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico
Mountain: Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming
Plains: ND, SD, Kansas, Nebraska
Midwest: Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oklahoma
Rust Belt: Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania
Mid-Atlantic: New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New York
New England: Rhode Island, Connecticut, Mass, Vermont, NH, Maine
Atlantic South: Virginia, NC, SC, Florida, Georgia
Interior South: Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana
Newsflash -- there's 50 states in the union. We added a couple recently, namely...


Pick one from each of those categories, and randomly pick one state from each of those categories to represent that region, and have all of those primaries on the same day.

Or even better: Pick two states, one that votes hard right (say, Texas) and one that votes hard left (say, Vermont) and hold them both on the same day. The candidates won't have to travel.
...Hawaii and Alaska. :)


Or even better, say "fuck it" to the whole stupid system and come up with some voting system that's not under the mistaken impression that it's still the 18th century.
I vote for a dictatorship. So does everyone else.

I kind of like that regional idea.

I'm sticking with my original take on Obama when he first entered the race. A fraction of one senate term is not enough experience to be electable.
Honestly, I think that too much front-and-center experience works against candidates in this day and age. Look at all of the back-pedalling Edwards and Clinton do on their war votes, and they're not much more experienced in federal elected office. You end up with all sorts of compromises and very few tenable candidates if you go 10+ years. That's why state governors and such have better luck than federal officeholders. Here's how you run against the most experienced Republican candidate:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/10/politics/mills650.jpg

Yes, experience is a double-edged sword. Because if you have experience in our Gov't means you have either contributed to the problems, or NOT been able to change whats going on.

Wow. Talk about "bumping uglies".

Yes, experience is a double-edged sword. Because if you have experience in our Gov't means you have either contributed to the problems, or NOT been able to change whats going on.
We want our candidates to be experienced, not to have to actually experience them. :)

Experience being a state governor is better than being a senator but that's a moot point since neither Obama or Clinton was a governor.

Experience being a state governor is better than being a senator but that's a moot point since neither Obama or Clinton was a governor.

Thats always a weird one for me. Senators typically don't have a good track record winning the prezidnc, while Gov's have a better record. Weird.

We want our candidates to be experienced, not to have to actually experience them. :)

lol, Yep, there are a SMALL percentage of elected officials I actually like.

I'd say Sam Nunn is still one of my favs.

Fred Thompson did well in the SC debate tonight. I could definately see him in the VP role.

to me, the more experience in washington you have just means the more compromises youve made and the more favors you owe. hilary being a prime example. shes been bathing in shit for 16 years, and it shows if you give her two minutes to tell you about it.

there are more ways to get experience than to hang out in the D.C. obama's life has been pretty much nothing but unbridled success. the dude is a genius that took the road less traveled.

i know this would never, ever happen, but i think it would be cool to see obama run as an indy if he lost in the primary. if he could find the money he would be the most dangerous third party since the bull moose.

Fred Thompson did well in the SC debate tonight. I could definately see him in the VP role.
Won't the age thing go against him? I suspect they don't want to have another VP who's not an 'heir apparent' 4-8 years down the road.

Won't the age thing go against him? I suspect they don't want to have another VP who's not an 'heir apparent' 4-8 years down the road.

Well he definately won't hurt a ticket but I think you are prolly right. Pick a younger VP.

He's kind of known as a straight talker and a true conservative. And the movie/hollywood thing won't hurt either.

Experience is what you call it when you don't succeed. I think it's ridiculous to imply that she doesn't have experience when its so well known that she played a major role in both getting Bill elected president and in his policy during his presidency. She used to be refered to as already being the 1st female president.

she also voted for the war. im not interested in hearing her spin "if i knew then what i know now" yada yada yada bullshit. she knew exactly what she was voting for, which is exactly what debbie stabenow voted for w/ the torture bill's passing a year ago: her career. clinton thought voting for the war would further her career by making her look tough on terrorism, ignoring the fact that it was a bad war that had nothing to do with terrorism. her saying otherwise now is just more bullshit.

its funny, everyone hates this war, but right now it appears the two frontrunners are people that got us into it in the first place.

its true what they say: you deserve the president you vote for.

she also voted for the war. im not interested in hearing her spin "if i knew then what i know now" yada yada yada bullshit. she knew exactly what she was voting for, which is exactly what debbie stabenow voted for w/ the torture bill's passing a year ago: her career. clinton thought voting for the war would further her career by making her look tough on terrorism, ignoring the fact that it was a bad war that had nothing to do with terrorism. her saying otherwise now is just more bullshit.
The same goes for Edwards, BTW.

I'm amused at how Clinton tries to drag Obama into the pro-war camp. At one point in 2004, Obama said basically "I'm not 100% sure how I would've voted because I wasn't in office at the time and never saw the intelligence". Contextually, the only reason for even THAT level of equivocation was to be nice to Kerry and Edwards, to not make them look totally stupid as they were running for Pres. Of course, every other thing Obama said at the time was "this looks like a bad war, not something we should go into". And then, when he <gasp> supports the troops even if not the initial decision to go into war, he's "pro-war". Riiiggghhhttt...

yea, its pretty absurd. if i recall, obama was the first prominant politician to discuss "phazed withdrawal" from iraq.

but thats all academic, as it seems much more important whether hilary cries in response to staged questions while giving out campaign talking points on beat at the most opportune time possible.