I expect BO to get quite a bump in the national polls vs JM, in the next week or 2. The super delis should start to break for him shortly and then the flood gates will open.

Whats going to help JM out in this race is Hillary's support came from blue collar worker. JM does have an apeal to those peeps.

I think JM will be hurt a lot by the fact that the skeletons for BO are already out of the closet. JM has been given a free pass (since he has no opponent right now) for a while. How he reacts to what is thrown at him will be huge.

JM WILL make some dumb mistakes. He has had no pressure on him and he's goofed already.

He's so grumpy. He'll do something really stupid. Can't wait. It'll be funny.

I think we'll avoid some mud though without Hillary. I can't imagine the mud thrown with her vs JM.

Are yellow teeth considered a "mistake"?

I think we'll avoid some mud though without Hillary. I can't imagine the mud thrown with her vs JM.

Yes, I agree between the 2 of them. but the 527s will be ruthless this fall.

Anything and everything, out of context or not. It'll all be there.

Are yellow teeth considered a "mistake"?

^ sneaky attempt to derail.

Not trying to de-rail, just being snarky.

It was snarky-funny.

Are yellow teeth considered a "mistake"?
I'm sure McCain had a quality dental plan at the Hanoi Hilton.

It just seems like his handlers could have slipped some Crest Whitestrips into his overnight bag when he decided to start campaigning.

Obama says McCain's losing his bearings.

A younger Team McCain staffer goes apeshit, trying to spin that phrase into an ageist attack (which it may be) and acting defensive to a stupid degree.

Team Obama's response? Team McCain is losing its bearings, too. :)

And we're just getting warmed up...

^ I saw that. Almost reminds me of when Bush said BO was articualate and well-dressed or something, that Bush was a racist.

I think there will be many McCain meltdowns in the general. Even fellow republicans in office are talking about his temper.

I can't remember who said it but basically the general will be like the Dem race. They'll get a lil ugly for a while, then back off, then get a lil heated again. Hope not...

^ I saw that. Almost reminds me of when Bush said BO was articualate and well-dressed or something, that Bush was a racist.
I love that shit. What the fuck were people expecting? Obama running around with a loincloth and a bone through his nose, shouting gibberish? Come on now.

^ I saw that. Almost reminds me of when Bush said BO was articualate and well-dressed or something, that Bush was a racist.
That wasn't Bush... that was Joe Biden, and he said this on the day he was announcing his own candidacy:


I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.

Of course, Biden's two-edged sword was responsible for dismantling Giuliani:


There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11.

I'm wondering if Biden's angling for some kind of VP slot. He hasn't endorsed.

Sounds kinky if you ask me...
_mvPvi1ZEQ4

I love that shit. What the fuck were people expecting? Obama running around with a loincloth and a bone through his nose, shouting gibberish? Come on now.

Maybe Bush had a lil thing for that well-dressed man.

http://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/0805apolla.jpg
http://gothamist.com/2008/05/12/apollo_braun_de.php

Odds On: Who will be the next president of the United States?

Winner of the 2008 presidential election.

Hillary Clinton
12/1

John McCain
6/5

Barack Obama
5/6

I think once Hillary is out of the picture, the gulf between Obama and McCain will open up pretty wide. I see this as eventually becoming similar to the 1996 race between Clinton and...who was that? Bob Dole?

I think once Hillary is out of the picture, the gulf between Obama and McCain will open up pretty wide. I see this as eventually becoming similar to the 1996 race between Clinton and...who was that? Bob Dole?

Seriously? Wow. If you would have asked me that question a year ago, I'd have agreed. Not now.

FWIW...Rasmussen had 28% said that they'd vote for McCain instead of BO.

FWIW2...In another poll: Bush is more of a drag on JM than THE Rev Wright is on BO.

Yeah, Republican loyalty cuts two ways.

FWIW2...In another poll: Bush is more of a drag on JM than THE Rev Wright is on BO.
The Dems won a couple of special election congressional races in Louisiana and Mississippi, in districts that voted ~60% for Bush in 2004. National Republicans plunked over $1 million into each of their reasonable candidates, ran all kinds of Obama and Wright smear tactics stuff, and still lost. So, it would appear that the poll is accurate.

The Dems won a couple of special election congressional races in Louisiana and Mississippi, in districts that voted ~60% for Bush in 2004. National Republicans plunked over $1 million into each of their reasonable candidates, ran all kinds of Obama and Wright smear tactics stuff, and still lost. So, it would appear that the poll is accurate.

And the Dems who ran went out of their way to act like gun toting, bible thumping, tough on defense type of peeps.

Ok, not sure about the Bible thumping part but from what I saw, they weren't liberals.

BO IS a liberal.

And the Dems who ran went out of their way to act like gun toting, bible thumping, tough on defense type of peeps.

Ok, not sure about the Bible thumping part but from what I saw, they weren't liberals.

BO IS a liberal.
They're pro-life and pro-gun, but Democratic on the Iraq and the economy aspects of things. BO is a liberal on some matters, but his positions on the economy and on Iraq are fairly mainstream. The Iraq-economy one-two punch has been surprisingly effective, all by itself. Like you said, they're not too different from their Republican candidates otherwise.

The point is that this shouldn't have been even close. Neither Democratic candidate had any huge advantage relative to their Republican counterpart. Both should've lost by 15-20 points on a good day, and more with the Wright business. Heck, in the case of Mississippi, Republicans had TWO chances to rally around their man and failed. If Wright can't play for a win in Republican strongholds that historically respond to racial politics, then Wright as we know the issue today shouldn't be a factor.

I read there were some attack adds on both sides.

But I'm sure its NOTHING compared to what JM will face this fall. Soros, D Kos, etc can't wait to fuel the hate machines.

Soros, D Kos, etc can't wait to fuel the hate machines.
Come on Tahoe. I believe you can do better than that. Dkos? Soros? "Hate machine"? Really?

Biden calls Bush comments 'bulls**t'
Posted: 02:22 PM ET
From CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-congressional-producer-ted-barrett/)

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) — The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls**t” and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.
“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.
“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”
He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”

Crazy Joe strikes again.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists

I'd like to see where Bush names BO.

I think this is just something for the dems to get all pissy about.

The amusing bit is -- as part of McCain supporting Bush's remarks, he starts talking about Iran and Reagan:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/mccain-agrees-with-bushs-remarks/

I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.

Unless you buy conspiracy theories that imply that Reagan DELAYED the hostages coming home in order to win election, Reagan wasn't really involved with the hostage negotiations. The only reason those hostages came home after Reagan's inauguration was as a parting shot to Carter. And of course, Reagan certainly DID have interesting dealings with Iran over hostages. It's called Iran-Contra. McCain was in office during the time. Maybe he forgot. Reagan forgot a lot too. ;)

Come on Tahoe. I believe you can do better than that. Dkos? Soros? "Hate machine"? Really?

Honestly, I couldn't. I don't visit them. I just name DKos cuz I heard they did something with the Bush Wedding pics. <--classy.

But I was kind of throwing some tooth picks (not spears) at you libs. Just pointing out that y'all have your own lil smear machines ready to go.

All I hear about is how the Repubs are the bad guys. :(

All I hear about is how the Repubs are the bad guys. :(

Aren't you glad that you aren't one, then?

^ good point. How the Conservatives are the bad guys. :(

The neocons have fucked the conservative label as surely as they have fucked the liberal label.

Bwahahaha.... McCain flip-flops on Hamas:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.

And, there's video of the above event! Heh heh heh...

Obama's nuanced stance is that the U.S. President shouldn't be afraid to meet up with other heads of state directly and talk turkey, even if they have interests hostile to the U.S. Iran may be terroristic pricks, but they're pricks with a generally-recognized country and leadership herarchy, so we should have leader-to-leader relations. By contrast, the Palestinians don't have a real "state" by most definitions. So, the President meeting with the head pricks from some faction of a foreign non-country (Hamas in this case) all by himself (without Israel being involved) is bad in his world view.

I suspect Obama's nuance exists to reflect the political reality that a black needs to be more of an Israel hawk for domestic Jewish voters. But, it's a principled stance nonetheless, especially for a post-cold war landscape.

That's your typical conservative: Lining up behind a powerful man is the most important thing you can do.

I'd like to see where Bush names BO.

I think this is just something for the dems to get all pissy about.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/bush.dems/?iref=mpstoryview


The president did not name Sen. Barack Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

After Bush's comments were reported, the White House denied that they were specifically aimed at Obama.

CNN is liberal propaganda machine. I don't trust a word they say.

But....BO must have a guilty conscience or something. If BO would have just said, "I agree with the Prez. Appeasing terrorism sure won't work"

Instead he and other Dems get all up in arms. I'm honestly getting quite a laugh out of it all.

I notice in BO speech a couple of minutes ago, he started his flip flop. He has his flag lapel pin, etc and even talked about our military.

So he's shifting (or attempting to pull some wool over on some peeps) to a tough guy, after running to the left vs Hillary.

Let the flip flopping begin.

lol, so now he can't wear a flag pin or even talk about the military?

Just taking notice of his zig zagging. Back and forth. Flip and flop

I think it was a direct attack on Obama. Bush said anyone that thinks we should meet with these nations...

And Obama has been at the forefront of diplomacy with potential enemies to resolve issues before they lead to wars.

If you don't think that was a calculated attack you are mistaken. You can agree or disagree with the strategy of talking to enemies all you want, but that was definately an attack on BO.

I notice in BO speech a couple of minutes ago, he started his flip flop. He has his flag lapel pin, etc and even talked about our military.

So he's shifting (or attempting to pull some wool over on some peeps) to a tough guy, after running to the left vs Hillary.

Let the flip flopping begin.

That's busch league Tahoe. That's right in line with the "if you don't support the Iraq War you don't support the troops" crap. Why can't we as Americans denounce an illegal war and still support our troops at the same time? Are we supposed to say "I support our troops, therefor anything Bush chooses to do with our troops I am OK with because hey, I support our troops"

And hopefully it will raise the debate.

It seems to be a debate both McCain and BO want to have. Finally something worth while for voters to decide.

Unfortunately the issue was raised with all the bullshit, but its good for voters that the actuall issue came up.

BO is just shifting to topics that he can debate with McCain. He couldn't talk about that stuff before because there was no point (his views are not very different than Hillary's). But, when asked in debates they did talk about that stuff. I see nothing wrong with changing gears now that Hillary is being left in the dust and he can talk about differences on issues with JM.

That's busch league Tahoe. That's right in line with the "if you don't support the Iraq War you don't support the troops" crap. Why can't we as Americans denounce an illegal war and still support our troops at the same time? Are we supposed to say "I support our troops, therefor anything Bush chooses to do with our troops I am OK with because hey, I support our troops"

Ok, I admit I added a lil acid with my tone cuz Mxy did the 'bwa bwa...McCain is flip flopping" thing (which I actually laughed about. Not in a mean way), but if you don't think BO is moving to the right for the general election, you are sorely mistaken.

His thumping in WVA and his weakness with that constiuency is why he is changing.

I think Chris made a very good point.

In BO vs. Hil, BO had to emphasize how his positions were different that Hil's. It didn't make any sense to go on and on about how much they agree.

In BO vs. JM, the game is changing, different topics, positions and stances need to be discussed. The emphasis is different.

That, in no way, means he is changing his positions.

^ Nice spin

Thanks Glenn. Also keep in mind JM's focus will change as well. He'll bring up things he didn't talk alot about facing Huckabee, Romney and the rest.

^ Nice spin

Seriously?

Thanks Glenn. Also keep in mind JM's focus will change as well. He'll bring up things he didn't talk alot about facing Huckabee, Romney and the rest.

Absolutely!

If someone here were to claim that doing so was flip flopping then I think they would be called on it, even as largely Dem as we are.

Maybe someone that followed the GOP primary closer can chime in on this. What did McCain talk about during that race? I bet you his tone changed a lot once he secured that nomination. Not his stance, but his tone.

You're way off base here Tahoe. If Obama starts preaching about staying the course (going back on his change message) then you can call him a flip flopper.

Well, kind of.

I mean, politicians (any politicians) change tactics to fit the situation. BO is doing that.

Now he's wearing the flag, etc. I see it my way, you guys will see it your way.

Thats my spin. Yours is in line with Chris. Thats fine.

^ I wrote that just after GD wrote...seriously. Didn't see the other posts.

I'll prolly get myself in trouble here on this somehow but BO has a problem with conservative Dems. They are strong supporters of our military and BO is PERCEIVED by some to NOT be as much of a supporter as JM.

BO has to move his position to correct that. So he wears the pin now. Just my take.

I guess we see flip flopping differently. To me flip flopping is being for something, then against it. Flip flopping is going from one side of the fence to the other. It's not approaching a new fence and staying on one side of it.

Again, the flip flopping comment by me was made in a reponse to Mxy's comment about McCain.

It isn't a complete flip flop.

It was made to stir things up. It was wrong. I'm sure we won't need any extra to stir things up as we go forward. My bad.

BO has to move his position to correct that. So he wears the pin now. Just my take.


That seems like calling someone who decides to comb his hair a different way a "flip flopper".

Good enough, moving on...

I'll prolly get myself in trouble here on this somehow but BO has a problem with conservative Dems. They are strong supporters of our military and BO is PERCEIVED by some to NOT be as much of a supporter as JM.

BO has to move his position to correct that. So he wears the pin now. Just my take.
You need to understand something or we have no hope of any logical discussion...

Supporting military/troops does NOT equal supporting illegal wars and vise versa.

If anything, the current administration is LESS supportive of our troops than BO or Hillary. They sent them on this oil war with shotty equipment so they could make a buck.

I just don't see how you can equate national security stances to whether or not you are supporting troops. If you see Obama saying he won't talk to enemies, or something along those lines...then call him a flip flopper.

You need to understand something or we have no hope of any logical discussion...

Supporting military/troops does NOT equal supporting illegal wars and vise versa.

If anything, the current administration is LESS supportive of our troops than BO or Hillary. They sent them on this oil war with shotty equipment so they could make a buck.

I just don't see how you can equate national security stances to whether or not you are supporting troops. If you see Obama saying he won't talk to enemies, or something along those lines...then call him a flip flopper.

You may very well be right on that. But I think you need to understand that you are not in the majority on those comments.

My post that you quoted is more of what I see in watching the tube. I wasn't stating my opinions. I was stating what I've seen in polls. He has a problem with convincing some in the Dem party to vote for him. So does McCain. But you see the polls where he does not do well with less educated, conservative dems. Thats not me believing what they believe, I'm just stating what they've said in these polls.

With that said, it is MY opinion that the flag pin, etc is an attempt to go after those voters. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. JM will do it too.

With that said, it is MY opinion that the flag pin, etc is an attempt to go after those voters. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. JM will do it too.
That's fine, but it's not flip flopping. It's patriotism. And I don't think it's an attempt to go after working class voters (that suggests that more educated voters don't care about patriotism).

It's probably just something he wore to show unity and that he's preparing to fight for the entire country's votes, not just democratic votes. I'm sure that it is calculated, but not for the reasons you spoke of.

That's fine, but it's not flip flopping. It's patriotism. And I don't think it's an attempt to go after working class voters (that suggests that more educated voters don't care about patriotism).

It's probably just something he wore to show unity and that he's preparing to fight for the entire country's votes, not just democratic votes. I'm sure that it is calculated, but not for the reasons you spoke of.

Patriotism? Is politics.

He didn't wear the pin when he had to secure the far left vote. Now when he needs to move to the right ( to get more conservative Dems and indis) he wears it.

Just my take. And I could be wrong.

and to say that BO and Hillary have no differences in their policies isn't correct, imo. After all she did call him 'NAIVE" when he said he would talk to Irans leader.

Just saw this from a Dem...

BO out polls JM in Health Care, Education and the economy, but has a 20% negative in Security for this country. Especially with Jewish voters.

So someone else is seeing what I'm seeing with his comments. I might have to retract my retraction of the flip flopping. LOL

Obama's flip-flopped when it comes to the flag pin. There's no question about it, and any Obama fans who'd try to defend it as something other than spin will have to answer to me. :) Tahoe is absolutely 100% right on this particular point.

He's been donning the flag pins for a little while now -- sometime after Wright and patriotism attacks. I believe that the latest spin on his flag pin use is that he's wearing flag pins that veterans and family members give him as he's campaigning, so not just any flag pin but "a flag pin for so and so". It's definitely spin, though.

I think Tahoe is wrong on some other points. Obama's changing because he's wrapping up the primaries and going into the general election. He's not losing sleep over his loss in West Virginia. WVa (and soon, Kentucky) is simply an expectations setting exercise. He's been deliberately NOT contesting those states, realizing that solid wins in Oregon (to push him over the "most pledged delegates" edge), and South Dakota/Montana (the last two states) are more important and more do-able.

I guess I have to plead ignorance.

Maybe I should stay out of these threads.

Patriotism? Is politics.

He didn't wear the pin when he had to secure the far left vote. Now when he needs to move to the right ( to get more conservative Dems and indis) he wears it.

Just my take. And I could be wrong.

and to say that BO and Hillary have no differences in their policies isn't correct, imo. After all she did call him 'NAIVE" when he said he would talk to Irans leader.
So tell me again where I said they have no differences:


BO is just shifting to topics that he can debate with McCain. He couldn't talk about that stuff before because there was no point (his views are not very different than Hillary's). But, when asked in debates they did talk about that stuff. I see nothing wrong with changing gears now that Hillary is being left in the dust and he can talk about differences on issues with JM.

And yes, it is playing towards patriotism. As I said I think he's attempting to take the unity message to another level in the general campaign. He's trying to show Americans that he's their canidate. I never said he didn't have a plan with it, just that he hasn't changed any stances on policies because he is wearing a pin. It's no different than Hillary taking a shot of whiskey at a bar with people. Yes it is calculated. No, it is not flip flopping (what policy did he change his mind on? that it's now ok to wear a pin and it wasn't before?)

Obama's flip-flopped when it comes to the flag pin. There's no question about it, and any Obama fans who'd try to defend it as something other than spin will have to answer to me. :) Tahoe is absolutely 100% right on this particular point.

He's been donning the flag pins for a little while now -- sometime after Wright and patriotism attacks. I believe that the latest spin on his flag pin use is that he's wearing flag pins that veterans and family members give him as he's campaigning, so not just any flag pin but "a flag pin for so and so". It's definitely spin, though.

I think Tahoe is wrong on some other points. Obama's changing because he's wrapping up the primaries and going into the general election. He's not losing sleep over his loss in West Virginia. WVa (and soon, Kentucky) is simply an expectations setting exercise. He's been deliberately NOT contesting those states, realizing that solid wins in Oregon (to push him over the "most pledged delegates" edge), and South Dakota/Montana (the last two states) are more important and more do-able.

You don't see his patterns changing going into the general?

Also, it isn't that its WVA, its that segement of voters that he has lost from the first primaries. He was doing pretty well with them, then lost ground after his comments in SF about middle America clinging to guns and religion.

So tell me again where I said they have no differences:



And yes, it is playing towards patriotism. As I said I think he's attempting to take the unity message to another level in the general campaign. He's trying to show Americans that he's their canidate. I never said he didn't have a plan with it, just that he hasn't changed any stances on policies because he is wearing a pin. It's no different than Hillary taking a shot of whiskey at a bar with people. Yes it is calculated. No, it is not flip flopping (what policy did he change his mind on? that it's now ok to wear a pin and it wasn't before?)

re: Hill and BO likeness...It was the part you bolded that I was referring too. I might have taken that quote too far for your liking.

And commenting on the bolded part...That is a politics to me.

^I don't understand what you are talking about in that last post. I posted the "it's no different than Hillary" after your comment. Are you trying to say you were referring to a comment I hadn't made yet?

I'll try again Chris... I'm not a very good writer

So tell me again where I said they have no differences:







He couldn't talk about that stuff before because there was no point (his views are not very different than Hillary's).


It was this point you made where I assumed you were saying that there were no differences.

And yes, it is playing towards patriotism. As I said I think he's attempting to take the unity message to another level in the general campaign. He's trying to show Americans that he's their canidate. I never said he didn't have a plan with it, just that he hasn't changed any stances on policies because he is wearing a pin. It's no different than Hillary taking a shot of whiskey at a bar with people. Yes it is calculated. No, it is not flip flopping (what policy did he change his mind on? that it's now ok to wear a pin and it wasn't before?)

The above bolded part is politics to me. You described them more as Patriotism. If I'm not mistaken.

btw...this is starting to get a lil confusing for me too. We're going way back in posts.

The above bolded part is politics to me. You described them more as Patriotism. If I'm not mistaken.

I said playing towards patriotism. Just like Hillary was playing towards gun owners with her comments that BO called her annie oakley over. Yes, it's politics. If you said politics instead of flip flopping, we probably would have avoided the last 3 pages :)

Obama's flip-flopped when it comes to the flag pin. There's no question about it, and any Obama fans who'd try to defend it as something other than spin will have to answer to me. :) Tahoe is absolutely 100% right on this particular point.

He's been donning the flag pins for a little while now -- sometime after Wright and patriotism attacks. I believe that the latest spin on his flag pin use is that he's wearing flag pins that veterans and family members give him as he's campaigning, so not just any flag pin but "a flag pin for so and so". It's definitely spin, though.

I think Tahoe is wrong on some other points. Obama's changing because he's wrapping up the primaries and going into the general election. He's not losing sleep over his loss in West Virginia. WVa (and soon, Kentucky) is simply an expectations setting exercise. He's been deliberately NOT contesting those states, realizing that solid wins in Oregon (to push him over the "most pledged delegates" edge), and South Dakota/Montana (the last two states) are more important and more do-able.

I just noticed this part. Thx Mxy. I owe you one.

Usually, if Uncle Mxy disagrees with me, I know it's time to step away.

Usually, if Uncle Mxy disagrees with me, I know it's time to step away.

Good point. He'll find a poll somewhere somehow to show you that you are wrong. :)

You don't see his patterns changing going into the general?
Oh, they're definitely changing. I expected it. The dynamics of him against Hillary for a Democratic nomination are different than him versus McCain for a presidency. He's adjusting his focus and messaging like he should. Thus far, it seems to be working for him.


Also, it isn't that its WVA, its that segement of voters that he has lost from the first primaries. He was doing pretty well with them, then lost ground after his comments in SF about middle America clinging to guns and religion.
He was never doing "pretty well" or even close with the Appalachian districts. He only got 20-30% tops in that turf. But, judging from how Indiana turned out, he's still doing ok with those Midwest small towns apart from Appalachia. Michigan and Wisconsin aren't even close to West Virginia and Kentucky.

As far as Obama and flag pins, it's pandering... nothing more or less. It's relatively minor in the grand scheme of pandering, but I'm not afraid to call it for what it is. He's a politician. I like Obama, a lot but I don't agree with him on every point and the handling of this is one of 'em. At least he's not pulling an Apollo Creed in Rocky IV.

At least he's not pulling an Apollo Creed in Rocky IV.
Ok, so maybe he is.
http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/Obama%20as%20Apollo%20Creed.JPG

I haven't seen any polls but it seems to me that BO is kicking JM's ass on this 'talking to Iran' thingy.

BO to JM..."What is he afraid of?

If he starts beating JM on the security front...can you say President Obama?

I've never understood the drawback to talking to those people. I'm not a republican (obviously), but I do understand why they do some of the things they do (even though I disagree with it). I don't understand their point on talking to enemies though.

EDIT- I just remembered that we had this discussion not too long ago, so lets not have it again.

A lot of pundits are blaming Bush for giving Obama this platform to expand on, rightfully so.

Bush put McCain in a bad position, IMO, he either had to come out and agree with Obama or side with Bush.

Lose/lose.

Obama really seems to be scoring points in this latest exchange, thanks to GWB.

Bush has put McCain in a bad position on many fronts. 8 years of a crappy administration has really put McCain in a bind IMO (and republicans across the board). McCain is going to have to have a really good campaign to overcome the failed administration in place now and pull the independants in.

I've never understood the drawback to talking to those people. I'm not a republican (obviously), but I do understand why they do some of the things they do (even though I disagree with it). I don't understand their point on talking to enemies though.

EDIT- I just remembered that we had this discussion not too long ago, so lets not have it again.

Its a policy that has been in place for this country for decades. Bill didn't talk to anyone either.

Just to be clear, from my point of view anyway, no one is saying 'Never talk to X, they are saying never talk to X without preconditions.

From what I understand, Bush has said until Iran changes its policy of the destruction of Israel and stopping its nuclear weapons program, WE DON"T TALK.

For BO, he said, no preconditions we talk. Is that a minor distinction? Kinds of seems like it to me.

Personally, I've never been afraid to talk to anyone.

A lot of pundits are blaming Bush for giving Obama this platform to expand on, rightfully so.

Bush put McCain in a bad position, IMO, he either had to come out and agree with Obama or side with Bush.

Lose/lose.

Obama really seems to be scoring points in this latest exchange, thanks to GWB.

BTW... I think you can give BO a loser issue and he'll be able to out debate JM on it, purely on his smarts, his charisma, his oratorationalism(wtf?) him being a good orator.

But give him an even/steven issue. He's going to win it everytime.

Give him a win/win and its definately a lose/lose for JM>

I just thought about this though...But the Dems wouldn't come on FoxNews for a debate. They didn't want to talk to them. Hypocritical?

GEtZlR3zp4c

Sound bites sound bites I thought libs didn't like sound bites. :)

Regarding this 'talk to everyone' thing. I think some of BO's supporters on campuses around the country need to listen to him.

They seem to shout down or throw pies or threaten any conservative that speaks on campus.

Minute Men
Ann Coulture Unless they were protesting her cuz she is fugly.
That one dude with the book about liberal profs.

These 3 come to mind. I'm sure there are plenty more.

But my point is that you want to go talk to a leader of country whos policy is the total destruction of Israel, but you can't listen to the minute men?

Then the campuses restrict our Military from having a recruiting station in their cities.

Who do y'all think is really stopping Iran and some of its neighbors from destroying Israel? the French? Please. Its the US military and thats it. Russia and China wouldn't get their military involved to defend Israel.

Ok, I think I got up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm done.

I agree with Tahoe on most of this. That bed wouldn't happen to be a couch, would it?

The university sorts bitching about recruiters on public campuses bugs me. As long as the military isn't being obnoxious about it (e.g. stalking you to all your classes, bugging the shit out of you), why not? You want some sort of anti-military platform? Do it on a private campus.

As for the conservative speakers at public campus, I mind somewhat when public campuses spend tax dollars paying for stupid shock jocks of various ideologies and presenting them as anything other than entertainment. Ann Coulter's skanky ass as a distinguished speaker on campus is as objectionable as Randi Rhodes (formerly of Air America). I mind public campuses paying big bucks for entertainment with tuition as high as it is, for that matter.

The guy with the book about the liberal profs falls in a different category. That's academentia bitching about academentia. No matter what's said, people at universities will bitch. On a related note, I LIKE seeing John Yoo, former Bush admin attorney, teaching at Berkeley. Those Berserkeley nuts should stop protesting and treat it as an opportunity to witness a prominent neocon in his full fucking glory, someone to be studied for years to come. How many other big neocons are they gonna get at Berkeley of all places?

I agree with Tahoe on most of this. That bed wouldn't happen to be a couch, would it?

The university sorts bitching about recruiters on public campuses bugs me. As long as the military isn't being obnoxious about it (e.g. stalking you to all your classes, bugging the shit out of you), why not? You want some sort of anti-military platform? Do it on a private campus.

As for the conservative speakers at public campus, I mind somewhat when public campuses spend tax dollars paying for stupid shock jocks of various ideologies and presenting them as anything other than entertainment. Ann Coulter's skanky ass as a distinguished speaker on campus is as objectionable as Randi Rhodes (formerly of Air America). I mind public campuses paying big bucks for entertainment with tuition as high as it is, for that matter.

The guy with the book about the liberal profs falls in a different category. That's academentia bitching about academentia. No matter what's said, people at universities will bitch. On a related note, I LIKE seeing John Yoo, former Bush admin attorney, teaching at Berkeley. Those Berserkeley nuts should stop protesting and treat it as an opportunity to witness a prominent neocon in his full fucking glory, someone to be studied for years to come. How many other big neocons are they gonna get at Berkeley of all places?

I'm feeling better as we get closer to game time. :)

A Reuters/Zogby poll showed Obama opening an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the two looked ahead to a likely general election battle for the White House in November.

^ yep. He started taking quite a lead nationally vs Hillary in the last week too. As peeps feel more and more sure that he will be the guy, they seem to be leaving Hill and going to him.

People want to get behind a winner, I wouldn't expect those numbers to hold up.

^ you don't think he's going to win it?

^ you don't think he's going to win it?

Just not sure the delegate math holds up. I don't think he gets Ohio or FLA...he's gonna need a number of other states then like VA, Carolinas, Iowa, Colorado. That's tough. This is supposing Bush just hides under a rock for the next 6 months.

My hope lies in the fact I know McCain is a dope, and he seems genuinely oblivious to facts. Every other day he says something wrong about foreign policy.....eventually one of those things is gonna stick and the media will strip him of his "ready to lead" blanket.

Just not sure the delegate math holds up. I don't think he gets Ohio or FLA...he's gonna need a number of other states then like VA, Carolinas, Iowa, Colorado. That's tough. This is supposing Bush just hides under a rock for the next 6 months.

My hope lies in the fact I know McCain is a dope, and he seems genuinely oblivious to facts. Every other day he says something wrong about foreign policy.....eventually one of those things is gonna stick and the media will strip him of his "ready to lead" blanket.

I'm a lil surprised Mxy and now you think Fla is questionable, at best, for the Dems. It completely in play, imo.

"ready to lead" I dont think its the media as much as it is the media repeating what polls say about him. But regardless, if he loses that edge on BO (his only edge), he's 'Done"

I'm not trying to put that initiation on the media, it comes from him being in the military and being 70 whatever years old vs. a relative kid. What I put on the media is running with it and seeminly letting it dictate the narative. But we'll see, we haven't seen much of McCain yet, and most of what you see this time of year is bad.

He's basically wasted all this time the Dems have been beating each other up. He has raised some money, but thats about it.

I'm not inspired by him. the only thing that motivates me is that I dont' want my taxes to go up and I don't want to cut and run in Iraq. Other than that, I'd rather have BO. I like his speeches...even if they are full of bull.

I think Obama has a legit chance at Virginia, Colorado and a couple more swing states. They showed last night he could win even if he didn't carry Ohio or Florida. They also mentioned NM and Georgia as places he may be able to steal (along with Iowa). Will it all happen, we'll see. The point they were making last night is that Obama has just as many swing states in play as Hillary would (just different ones). Choosing his VP canidate could make a big impact on one of those states.

He's up in colarado between 3 and 7 points, so that is surely a target....wait for the GOP to stir up gun stuff though....that plays big there.

He's up in colarado between 3 and 7 points, so that is surely a target....wait for the GOP to stir up gun stuff though....that plays big there.

I don't know much about that but I would imagine it would in NM as well. I went to Santa Fe a few weeks ago and I saw a huge NRA ranch in northern NM.

He's up in colarado between 3 and 7 points, so that is surely a target....wait for the GOP to run on the right to bear arms ...that plays big there.

:)

I own 11 guns Tahoe.

I own 11 guns Tahoe.

So you're just starting your collection... j/k

I own 11 guns Tahoe.

Do you have 11 fingers?

Do you have 11 fingers?

2 more kids and I'll have 10. 1 is broke.

I'm a lil surprised Mxy and now you think Fla is questionable, at best, for the Dems. It completely in play, imo.
Florida Republicans have nearly a supermajority in their state legislature. Kerry pushed VERY hard in Florida and lost it by 5 points. I don't see Hillary as being significantly better than Kerry, and McCain's better demographically for Florida than Bush was. All the recent growth in the state is in the Republican areas, and people are leaving south Florida, the most Democratic area in the region.

Yeah, I though FLA was all but a given to McCain.

The blue hairs can relate to him.

Clinton might have won FL.....no shot for BO.

Clinton might have won FL.....no shot for BO.
I guess I don't understand how Hillary does better than Kerry, how McCain does worse than Bush. 2004 was peak performance time for Florida Democrats in the wake of the 2000 mess, and it didn't happen. If anything, Florida Democrats are more fucked up than they were in 2000-2004.

I guess I don't understand how Hillary does better than Kerry, how McCain does worse than Bush. 2004 was peak performance time for Florida Democrats in the wake of the 2000 mess, and it didn't happen. If anything, Florida Democrats are more fucked up than they were in 2000-2004.


Political atmosphere (Bush), age of the electorate fits right into Hill's breadbasket, and the Clinton love from Hispanics.

Political atmosphere (Bush), age of the electorate fits right into Hill's breadbasket, and the Clinton love from Hispanics.
Most of the demographics that Hillary was strong on, McCain is stronger on. That's a good part of why there's so much defection to McCain when Hillary voters are asked who they'll vote for in the general. Hillary's near-retirement age and doesn't want to look it against Obama. McCain IS retirement age, and proudly wears the white hair and surgery scars to prove it. Hillary's got Mexican/Central American Hispanic love, but those aren't big constituencies in Florida. 50% of voting Hispanics in Florida are Castro-hating Cubans and solidly Republican, unlike the dynamic in the rest of the country.

Democratic voting registration in Florida has gone up slightly, but nowhere near the levels seen in the rest of the country. Lack of early campaigning there loses it for Dems, if nothing else. The national trends don't necessarily reflect in any given state. There was a big Democratic wave in 2006 fueled by anti-Iraq sentiment that didn't win any races in Michigan.

Florida's population may be aging, but it's aging because of the influx of boomers who are still a decade from retirement. I just closed on a condo in Naples yesterday, the trends for new couples have continued despite the real estate mess. Most are 50-65 and will better identify with one of their own. And remember, as people get older, the demographics skew more towards women, as the men, well, let's say only in 1950s Chicago would their votes count, and possibly several times.

The Cuban population isn't what it once was there. It's becoming an integrated blend with the caucation majority, and really it's only the 40+ age folks who form the solid block now. The remaining nonrefugee Cuban's voting tendencies are pretty similiar to those mexican hispanics.


No question the demos skew more towards Licks than Dems in the past 8 years, but given the climate (which is much worse than 2 years ago), and the lack of an incumbant, I can see where Hill can outperfrom Kerry. The Florida republican is not like my neighbors in W. Michigan, they are financial conservitives, not as much social. The financial spread between Hill and McCain isn't as great as Bush V.Kerry, and coupled with a strong health care reputation she can get some of the selfish classic conservitive "I'll take the government that gives me more than I take but nothing else" types.

Not saying she would win, just that she could and Obama IMO can't.

If Hillary were the nominee, we'd see Charlie Crist as VP and Florida is locked up for Republicans. Heck, we might see Crist as VP anyway, if the rumors of who McCain's interviewing today pan out.

Naples is probably not the right place to find Democrats, no matter what the national trends are. That's some batshit crazy Republican turf. It was one of the few areas where Katherine Harris actually won in her losing Senate bid.

If Hillary were the nominee, we'd see Charlie Crist as VP and Florida is locked up for Republicans. Heck, we might see Crist as VP anyway, if the rumors of who McCain's interviewing today pan out.

Naples is probably not the right place to find Democrats, no matter what the national trends are. That's some batshit crazy Republican turf. It was one of the few areas where Katherine Harris actually won in her losing Senate bid.


Yeah, Naples=Ada over here. I've seen Devos and Prince and a bunch of other superstars down there. Lots and lots and lots of old money.

McCain losing his cool with Obama about the GI Bill, then not voting on it, isn't seen as a good thing, is it?

Is this the same as the "you didn't play in the NBA so you can't comment on it" line of thought:


The legislation, an updated version of the GI Bill, passed the Senate Thursday afternoon by a 75-22 vote margin and passed the House earlier this month by a similar margin. It proposes to essentially provide a full scholarship to in-state public universities for members of the military who have served for at least three years. Obama on Thursday questioned McCain's stance on the measure.
"I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country ... but I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue," he said while on the Senate floor.
"There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them."
Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) said he thinks the expansion of the GI Bill would "strengthen our military and improve the number of people who are interested in volunteering to serve."
McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html) supports enacting legislation to expand education benefits for veterans, but he, as well as President Bush and much of the military brass, oppose this specific measure because they worry it will deplete retention rates among those currently serving in the military at a time when recruitment efforts are already struggling.
"I will not accept from Sen. Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," he said in the statement.

If Hillary were the nominee, we'd see Charlie Crist as VP and Florida is locked up for Republicans. Heck, we might see Crist as VP anyway, if the rumors of who McCain's interviewing today pan out.

Naples is probably not the right place to find Democrats, no matter what the national trends are. That's some batshit crazy Republican turf. It was one of the few areas where Katherine Harris actually won in her losing Senate bid.
Imagine the McCain slogan: "McCain has Crist on His side"

Still a clear seperation of church and state, since Crist is the Veep nominee. And, since half of America can't spell (see "Tahoe") and are devoutly religious, McCain wins in a biblical flood.

a

Imagine the McCain slogan: "McCain has Crist on His side"

Still a clear seperation of church and state, since Crist is the Veep nominee. And, since half of America can't spell (see "Tahoe") and are devoutly religious, McCain wins in a biblical flood.

a

Nice Obama sweatshirt...
http://images.politico.com/global/mccainobama.jpg
...in a McCain ad.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

Interesting stuff.

You have to wonder if Obama's camp commissioned a similar study when he was formulating his platform oh, so long ago.

Talks with no preconditions? Or conditions?

Talks with no conditions is completely fine with me, as long as people like Ahmedinejad don't actually think they're going to get something out of it immediately.

Agreed.


Just watched a bit of JM's speech. Totally beginning a massive amount of lip service to independents who are swaying towards Obama. Green backgrounds with the slogan "A Leader We Can Believe In." Speaking more about change than in any of his previous events and citing his differences from Bush back pre-Bush despite his 95% support of Bush during-Bush.

Watching the Clinton speech now...

Agreed.


Just watched a bit of JM's speech. Totally beginning a massive amount of lip service to independents who are swaying towards Obama. Green backgrounds with the slogan "A Leader We Can Believe In." Speaking more about change than in any of his previous events and citing his differences from Bush back pre-Bush despite his 95% support of Bush during-Bush.

Watching the Clinton speech now...

JM is more of an independent than either Hillary or BO. I'm not saying he'll win the vote the but he's does more across the isle work than most Senators.

JM's message even as a Senator has been reform. He's tried to stop all the crap that goes on up there, in spite of Republicans getting on him about it.

And I don't see JM as a Bushie at all.

Here, let me use mah strong hand.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/uploaded_images/mccain2-749173.jpg

Obama cracking on McCain a little now.

I posted it in the wrong thread but I heard him say 95% of the time. So there must be some way they came up with that.

Wow, Obama delivering stronger than I thought he would right now.

He is something.

"What you won't hear from this campaign... is using religion as a wedge, or patriotism as a bludgeon."

beautiful.

I can't say I agree with him much anymore but I think he could sell me some swamp land. Very convincing.

What did you agree with him on before that you no longer do?

Just curious.

God damn, what a speech. "We can look back and tell our grandchildren: This was the moment."

Well, Im hittin the hay but feel free to answer so I can read tomorrow. Thanks sir.

You know I'm not sure, but I was considering voting for him.

I know it wasn't cutting and running when we are making huge strides in Iraq, and I don't mind paying more taxes (BO raises taxes) if 50cents out of every dollar wasn't wasted by our Gov't.

And the whole Trinity Church thing. I don't trust BO on that at all. BO expects me to believe HIM when he says that he didn't hear any of those things and that isn't the Trinity Church that he knows. So he expects me to believe him over my lying eyes when I see the church go crazy over racially devisive speech in the pulpit.

So my point isn't that there is a church that does it, its that BO never heard it and didn't know anything about it. YEA RIGHT! Laughable really and not trustwothy at all.

Talks with no conditions is completely fine with me, as long as people like Ahmedinejad don't actually think they're going to get something out of it immediately.

I think the argument is that by leaders of US, Spain, France, Russia meeting with some of these nutjobs props them up in their own country.

^ FWIW.

And the whole Trinity Church thing. I don't trust BO on that at all. BO expects me to believe HIM when he says that he didn't hear any of those things and that isn't the Trinity Church that he knows. So he expects me to believe him over my lying eyes when I see the church go crazy over racially devisive speech in the pulpit.

So my point isn't that there is a church that does it, its that BO never heard it and didn't know anything about it. YEA RIGHT! Laughable really and not trustwothy at all.
What he said was that he never heard those specific things played on Fox 24x7 when he went to church. And, a lot of those things WERE taken out of context, so even if he heard them, he didn't hear them as presented by the media so might not remember them. There's many years of Wright on tape, and the broad consensus and empirical evidence is that 99+% of it is quite uninteresting.

He never said "I never heard anything controversial ever." Hell, he WROTE IN HIS FIRST BOOK that there were controversial things Wright said, well over a decade ago. He knew that Wright was had some kooky aspects, especially as he's gotten older, and had diminished his role somewhat early in the campaign (but he couldn't divorce from it and from religious figures, especially since he was a Muslim).

So, if you're calling him a liar, provide a statement with context where he lied about this. About the only way I've observed that you can peg him as a liar on this matter is to take his words (which occasionally have generalities) out of the specific context in which they were spoken. That's the sort of game the pundits and spin doctors play all the time, which lead down the torturous path of "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is" that we hate.

I think the argument is that by leaders of US, Spain, France, Russia meeting with some of these nutjobs props them up in their own country.

^ FWIW.
For many decades, it used to be that the world was a proxy fight between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. A country's meetings with one side or the other always had great spin beyond the country, as part of the chess match between the two great powers. A country's internal conflicts would be capitalized on and often perverted by both sides. A lot of how we engage with world leaders has been dictated by that.

In some senses, it worked. We won the Cold War. In some senses it didn't. Along the way, we propped up a lot of scumbags, as did the Soviets, and there's a lot of refuse from that era that's hard to sort out (e.g. Saddam -- we didn't just talk, we sold him weapons until he was a pain in the ass). In any event, that Cold War era is over. There's a new dynamic in the 21st century, and we need a "talk to leaders" strategy that reflects that.

We aren't the superpower we once were. Iraq ended that, and should be a big fucking wakeup call. We're simply one of the great powers now, along with China, the EU, and perhaps Russia. None of them are engaged in big military buildups trying to decide whose proverbial penis is longer. Their challenges are on other fronts. If we don't recognize that and apply the diplomacy that makes sense for the situation, we have fucked ourselves.

What he said was that he never heard those specific things played on Fox 24x7 when he went to church. And, a lot of those things WERE taken out of context, so even if he heard them, he didn't hear them as presented by the media so might not remember them. There's many years of Wright on tape, and the broad consensus and empirical evidence is that 99+% of it is quite uninteresting.

He never said "I never heard anything controversial ever." Hell, he WROTE IN HIS FIRST BOOK that there were controversial things Wright said, well over a decade ago. He knew that Wright was had some kooky aspects, especially as he's gotten older, and had diminished his role somewhat early in the campaign (but he couldn't divorce from it and from religious figures, especially since he was a Muslim).

So, if you're calling him a liar, provide a statement with context where he lied about this. About the only way I've observed that you can peg him as a liar on this matter is to take his words (which occasionally have generalities) out of the specific context in which they were spoken. That's the sort of game the pundits and spin doctors play all the time, which lead down the torturous path of "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is" that we hate.

I'm calling him a politician, You can translate that however you want.

I happen to believe what I saw with my own eyes. Its a mess but if he would say, I was there, there was a lot of shit said, but it aint my cup of tea, I would have believed him more.

He made his choice, now I make mine.

For many decades, it used to be that the world was a proxy fight between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. A country's meetings with one side or the other always had great spin beyond the country, as part of the chess match between the two great powers. A country's internal conflicts would be capitalized on and often perverted by both sides. A lot of how we engage with world leaders has been dictated by that.

In some senses, it worked. We won the Cold War. In some senses it didn't. Along the way, we propped up a lot of scumbags, as did the Soviets, and there's a lot of refuse from that era that's hard to sort out (e.g. Saddam -- we didn't just talk, we sold him weapons until he was a pain in the ass). In any event, that Cold War era is over. There's a new dynamic in the 21st century, and we need a "talk to leaders" strategy that reflects that.

We aren't the superpower we once were. Iraq ended that, and should be a big fucking wakeup call. We're simply one of the great powers now, along with China, the EU, and perhaps Russia. None of them are engaged in big military buildups trying to decide whose proverbial penis is longer. Their challenges are on other fronts. If we don't recognize that and apply the diplomacy that makes sense for the situation, we have fucked ourselves.

I disagree that Iraq ended it. China is simply outspending us at a huge rate.

"What you won't hear from this campaign... is using religion as a wedge, or patriotism as a bludgeon."

beautiful.

You know I was thinking about this line a lil more and its been the libs that have made being religious a negative issue in campaigns in the past.

Which is why Obama would still be fresh, although I do think that was directed at conservatives, who I see as using religion as more of a crutch.

Which is why Obama would still be fresh, although I do think that was directed at conservatives, who I see as using religion as more of a crutch.

I agree it was directed at conservatives, imo. I assumed it was about the Trinity Church thing.

I just thought, who really brings religion into these things in a negative way? My answer is libs beating up the religious right. So I thought it was a lil ironic for him to say that.

My religion is attacked at every turn.

Obama is now a Jedi:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080604062402.9hhqclqi&show_article=1

I'm starting to get that feeling again, which is concerning, because I had the same one in 2000 and 2004, and look how those turned out.

There doesn't seem like there should be any way for Obama to lose to McCain.

I'm starting to get that feeling again, which is concerning, because I had the same one in 2000 and 2004, and look how those turned out.

There doesn't seem like there should be any way for Obama to lose to McCain.

Obama can't possibly lose to McCain right? McCain is a decrepit piece of crap.

Kerry can't possibly lose to Bush right? Bush is a thicko.

Gore can't possibly lose the court case right? I mean, they're not even done counting the votes in Florida yet.

I'm gonna drink until I fall down.

Shades of Jon Lovitz as Dukakis

Whoa, that post was totally like "Dave Chappelle's History of Dissent" sketch.

"Man, Truman is fuckin' up!"

Shades of Jon Lovitz as Dukakis

"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy"

Attempting to be as objective as possible...

I think McCain has a chance. The Dem nominee is a very liberal candidate who beat out a more moderate Dem. Cuz they had a fairly rough, long nomination process, some peeps are pissed.

The peeps that are pissed are the supporters of the more moderate candidate. The Republicans nominated a a moderate Rep. He has a chance to steal some of those moderate or swing voters.

I honestly believe that if Hillary were the candidate, that JM would be toast. Cuz the far left would support Hillary while she has decent support of middle voters. Now the middle voters might be up for grabs.

It will be interesting to see if JM's Veep nomination is a conservative (attempting to energize conservatives) or he goes more moderate, maybe even more moderate than him attempting to go after Hillarys constituency.

Attempting to be as objective as possible...



You did pretty well, Tahoe.

Have a beer on me tonight.

Just don't watch Fox News whilst drinking it, please.

Tahoe, I would like to hear an explanation of your thoughts on Obama being more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

Based on his voting record in the Senate.

I've seen a graph of their voting records before. Obama is more to the left than Hillary on that. I think Ron Paul was the farthest right on that same graph.

I'm waiting for this big bounce that eveyone expected BO to get once he locked up the nomination. They're basically even now, so we'll see if he can surge to a double digit lead.

^ Unless Hill took some of the steam out of his win.

I'm waiting for this big bounce that eveyone expected BO to get once he locked up the nomination. They're basically even now, so we'll see if he can surge to a double digit lead.

I wouldn't expect it until she finally makes her speach (Saturday).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx

opposing (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nearly_60_say_no_talks_with_iran_until_nuclear_pro gram_is_halted) view

^ 60% say no talks with Iran unless they stop their Nuke program

Just saw a poll...

BO 47
JM 45
unsure 8

But I heard some less than flattering things are going to come out on Unsure. I expect that camp will close its doors soon.

I disagree that Iraq ended it. China is simply outspending us at a huge rate.
I think Iraq was a "here's your sign" moment, though there's been a lot leading up to it. China's only one aspect... an economically uniting Europe is just as big a deal.

^ 60% say no talks with Iran unless they stop their Nuke program
Leading question kinda poll... here's the actual questions and %s:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/pt_survey_toplines/june_2008/toplines_iran_june_3_2008

There's not much confidence in either candidate to fix Iran, really.

Look at how well our not talking worked with North Korea. <sigh>

Attempting to be as objective as possible...

I think McCain has a chance. The Dem nominee is a very liberal candidate who beat out a more moderate Dem. Cuz they had a fairly rough, long nomination process, some peeps are pissed.

The peeps that are pissed are the supporters of the more moderate candidate. The Republicans nominated a a moderate Rep. He has a chance to steal some of those moderate or swing voters.

I honestly believe that if Hillary were the candidate, that JM would be toast. Cuz the far left would support Hillary while she has decent support of middle voters. Now the middle voters might be up for grabs.

It will be interesting to see if JM's Veep nomination is a conservative (attempting to energize conservatives) or he goes more moderate, maybe even more moderate than him attempting to go after Hillarys constituency.
The interesting bit is -- many of Hillary's actual positions were to the left of Obama. Hillary managed to attract a lot of love from Bill Clinton Democrats, even though Obama's closer to centrist Bill Clinton on some big things like healthcare (mandates are far left -- no two ways about it), the economy (rate freezes, gas taxes -- populist leftist stuff), and the environment (Obama's pro-nuke, pro-ethanol, and pro-coal compared to Hillary's lefter positions on each). Massachusetts and California are left states who went big for Hillary. "very liberal" would be someone like Kucinich.

The "rating the votes in the Senate business" is junk without:

1) understanding what constitutes a "liberal" vote -- as a recent example, are more benefits for the troops a "liberal" or "conservative" position?
2) accounting for candidate absenteeism -- there's a lot of stuff the candidates didn't vote on (but did have positions on) because they were on the campaign trail -- does McCain's non-vote on the GI benefits indicate his true position on the matter? Most candidates have missed 20-30% votes for this session.

Having said all that, I agree with Tahoe. McCain has a chance. He's a more familiar face. People compare McCain to Grandpa Simpson, and the Simpsons have been on forever and aren't in any danger of being cancelled.

Z0mxXutVkX0

Did you guys hear about McCain's proposal to Obama?

He wants the two of them to travel together to 10 cities to do joint town hall meetings.

Let's see, McCain is speaking to 400 people in a high school gym and Obama is packing arenas, yep, that makes a lot of sense for BO.

John is trying hard to horn in on the hype and excitement, that's for sure.

I think it's a great idea for Obama, provided he does then in large auditoriums or basketball stadiums (hopefully on college campuses). He'd probably have 3/4 of the people in there and they'd applaud everything Obama says.

He can do that already without giving McCain increased exposure.

Well, exposure can be bad (if he gets owned). I think Obama is willing to go head to head with McCain anywhere because he thinks he has a much better message then McCain (which I agree). The more people that see it, the better. It also increases the chances of a McCain temper meltdown.

The debates will get air time, ink, crowds Glenn, I'm not sure I agree on that part.

I want everyone to see them both so they can make an informed choice...but thats just me.

Yes, I agree that the debates will suffice just fine for that.

I think it would be poor strategy for Obama to let McCain ride on his coat tails for these "extra" appearances.

That's just my opinion.

I disagree on the second sentence, but not sure I can explain it.

JM wants town hall type formatt cuz thats what he's the best at, not becuase he's trying to get coverage. I don't see that as trying to horn in on BO's crowds.

I think it's open to opinion, for sure, which makes it a nice discussion topic.


JM wants town hall type formatt cuz thats what he's the best at, not becuase he's trying to get coverage.

Based on that, and knowing how polished of a speechmaker Obama is, how would it not be a strategy error to cater to a McCain strength, on his terms, and do these 10 extra events?

It would be a mistake on BO's part imo. And JM was smart (prolly his handlers) in getting out there early so now JM can say 'he dodging me'

I say in a town hall format, the 2 are equal. But thats the best JM can do.

I was having a problem agreeing that JM was trying to horn in on all of BO's supporters, thats all I was taking a lil stance on.

I really hate the "town hall" thing. It ends up being like Oprah, which is to say, total bullshit. Therefore anyone who prefers that over a traditional Presidential debate is someone I'm immediately biased against.

I guess maybe I don't know what "Town Hall meeting" means exactly. Please explain. I thought it was a discussion about a specific issue in front of a smaller crowd in a location where the issue resides.

^ Good point. But they are smaller crowds but closer interaction...I guess.

But I've seen them where the questions and questioners have already been selected and others appear to be completely random.

what does 'town hall' mean?

I'm sure Mxy or someone else can give a better explanation, but my definition would be an unscripted forum where the questions come from the audience.

Obama would benifit from a free form town hall meeting I think. It would help shed the elitist label that some have for him and people may relate to him a little better. I think McCain has a slight edge on him in that regard right now and Obama could do a lot for his image there.

I'm sure Mxy or someone else can give a better explanation, but my definition would be an unscripted forum where the questions come from the audience.

I'd worry about people trying to get one over on someone or lying.

And then the media will focus on a question where one of the candidates didn't know how much a gallon of milk costs.

I don't know how much a gallon of milk costs and I don't care if the future Prez does either. It'd be nice for him/her to know that groceries have went up (cost of living stuff), but whether he knows how much butter to put into a batch of brownies is a different story.

Rasmussen...

BO 48
JM 43

lil bump

McCain wants a man on Mars?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/mccain_wants_a_man_on_mars.html?hpid=sec-politics

I seem to recall another candidate doing that to great effect:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b292/xjoshkriegx/CHUCKMAN20-20BUSH20-20MARS20-20READ.jpg

There are formal and informal definitions of "town hall meeting". Both candidates would do fine in such settings, as long as posers weren't involved. Of course, it is hard to do a "real" town hall without having some amount of posers involved in the logistics.

Ever since I can remember, the price of a gallon of milk has roughly tracked with the price for a gallon of gas.

Holy shit I am lol'ing. The CNN cameras on Clinton's exit/endorsement randomly showed some people clapping and then they started making out. Hilarious! Fucking awesome!

Also, a lot of the Hillary supporters are somewhat surprisingly not having the Obama endorsing. Lots of blank/sad faces in the audience; I guess, for good reason, but I was hoping to see a lot more cheering.

Gawd, why is Bill's face always so fucking red. Way OT but damn. lol

Speaking of town hall meetings and McCain:

iOl4iT46Eec

I'd guess that quesiton wasn't selected in advance.

McCain wants a man on Mars?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/mccain_wants_a_man_on_mars.html?hpid=sec-politics

I seem to recall another candidate doing that to great effect:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b292/xjoshkriegx/CHUCKMAN20-20BUSH20-20MARS20-20READ.jpg

that picture is funny. But whats sad is that some peeps believe Bush fucked up the country and this world. That would be the Islamic jihadists for the record.

With a headline like this, I think it's Hillary that would deserve the apology!

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/121279494653260.xml&storylist=newsmichigan


DETROIT (AP) — The editor and publisher of The Detroit News says he has apologized for a headline error made in early morning editions about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Jonathan Wolman says the headline incorrectly read "Clinton, Osama meet to discuss unity" and appeared Friday on page 17A of about 45,000 newspapers distributed north and west of downtown Detroit.

Wolman says the error was the result of a wrong choice made during a spell-check search and was caught and corrected about 20 minutes after the newspaper began publishing.

Wolman says the newspaper "made an immediate fix, even with papers on the press, and we have apologized."

He says his apology was "graciously" accepted Friday by Obama's campaign. Obama campaign spokeswoman Amy Brundage also says the campaign has accepted the apology.

The News plans to run a correction Saturday on page 2A.

This is how McCain gets the female vote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

Long but good read. The ending says it all:


...And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’

Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.
Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’
But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.
‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.
‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.

IBTGBOTLM

FNWCT

Commentary: Latinos will vote for Obama

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For the last six months, one of the media's most convenient -- and offensive -- narratives has been that Latinos wouldn't vote for Barack Obama because they refused to support an African-American for president.
Pundits, columnists and bloggers agreed and offered outlandish explanations mentioning everything from the turf wars between Latino and African-American gangs in U.S. cities to the fact that Latin America is full of countries where race and skin color can determine social mobility.
Well, what do you know? Now, it seems Latinos will support Obama after all -- meaning that everything you've heard to the contrary up to now is rubbish.
A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Los Angeles Times poll last month showed Obama leading McCain by 14 points among Latinos in California.
I'm not surprised. As I have been writing for months, Latinos haven't been voting against Barack Obama as much as they've been voting for Hillary Clinton. Give the senator from New York credit. She took full advantage of Obama's late start in courting Latino voters, and she had the benefit of what remains a popular brand with Latinos: Clinton, Inc.
Even so, while Obama got trounced by Clinton in the competition for Latino voters in California, Texas, New York, he kept the contest close in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico. And he won the Latino vote in Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia.
But, in the last several weeks, as it became clear that Obama was on his way to securing the Democratic nomination and that Clinton's campaign was running out of gas, Latinos seem to have migrated to Obama. Now that the Illinois senator has become the presumptive nominee, and Hillary has suspended her campaign and endorsed him, Latinos really have only two choices -- go with Obama, or vote for John McCain.
Choice No. 2 is not such a bad option. McCain would make an excellent president. And, in fact, I suspect that, when all is said and done, many Latinos -- perhaps as much as 35 percent -- will put their support behind him. Not because they have anything against Obama, but because McCain has -- for more than 15 years and long before the immigration issue became prominent -- had an outstanding record of reaching out to Latino voters, earning as much as 70 percent of the Latino vote in his Senate re-election campaigns in Arizona.
But make no mistake, when all is said and done, Obama will win the votes of a majority of Latinos. Ironically, he's going to benefit in the general election from the same thing that made it tough for him to win Latinos votes against Clinton in the primary: brand loyalty. This time, the brand is the Democratic Party, and with just one Democrat on the ballot, that's where most Latinos will put their support.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/index.html).

More stuff on the town hall meetings:


Campaigns reject Bloomberg, ABC offer for televised town hall
Posted: 04:54 PM ET
From CNN's Steve Brusk
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
NEW YORK (CNN) -– If presumptive presidential nominees Barack Obama and John McCain do hold joint town hall meetings before the political conventions, you’ll have plenty of options to watch them.
Both campaigns Sunday quickly rejected an offer by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and ABC News to hold the first such get-together as a 90-minute, prime time broadcast on ABC.
But the Obama and McCain camps said the idea of one network putting on the event is a non-starter.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “Both campaigns indicate that any additional appearances will be open to all networks for broadcast on TV or Internet like the presidential commission debates, rather than sponsored by a single network or news organization.”
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said, "Both campaigns agree the town hall meetings will be open to press but not sponsored or moderated by the press."
The idea of the town hall style meetings was again raised on the campaign trial last week by McCain, who called for ten joint appearances before the Democratic Convention in August. He proposed the first one be held later this month at Federal Hall in New York, saying in a letter to Obama, "What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections."

He (McCain camp) said they should be modeled on appearances President John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater planned on holding in the 1964 campaign, before President Kennedy’s death.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the idea would be discussed, but suggested a different format. He said, "The idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country… We (Obama camp) would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. But, having just secured our party's nomination, this is one of the many items we will be addressing in the coming days and look forward to discussing it with the McCain campaign."

A group called 'Party Unity My Ass' has vowed to vote for JM. lol. I just saw an interveiw....pretty funny.

I saw 2 of the 10(?) members.

Just say no deal .com or something.

Not because they have anything against Obama, but because McCain has -- for more than 15 years and long before the immigration issue became prominent -- had an outstanding record of reaching out to Latino voters, earning as much as 70 percent of the Latino vote in his Senate re-election campaigns in Arizona.
Hmmmm.....

According to the 2006 U.S. Census, Arizona is derived of nearly 30% "Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin" (29.2%). In the same census, it states "White persons NOT Hispanic -- 59.7%". Also "White Persons -- 87.3%", which I suppose also includes the Hispanic percentage.

In other words, to win Arizona you MUST kiss some Paco ass!!

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

BO's picks to guide his VP selection really catching some heat.

The CountryWide associated guy...who BO himself has personally attacked, and the guy who pushed the Clinton/Rich pardon through.

I'm not sure BO is doing such a great job of picking associates.

You can't spell Barack without Ackbar. Coincidence? I think not.

Hmmmm.....

According to the 2006 U.S. Census, Arizona is derived of nearly 30% "Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin" (29.2%). In the same census, it states "White persons NOT Hispanic -- 59.7%". Also "White Persons -- 87.3%", which I suppose also includes the Hispanic percentage.

In other words, to win Arizona you MUST kiss some Paco ass!!
A lot of that is diluted by illegals and some other factors. Historically, the hispanic vote in AZ turns out as much as the black vote does in MI -- big, but not big enough to prevent a John Engler from getting elected and re-elected, or for Granholm to be governor despite never being very popular in Detroit. For Arizona in particular, you also have the retiree influx which tends to skew a bit Republican. McCain's never had a serious challenger for Senate, ever. It's not as if he's a great campaigner or money-raiser.

One big Republican hispanic strategy has been TO support tougher measures on illegals, insuring a solid 30-40% minority of the hard-working legal hispanics who feel the illegals give them a bum rap. What Democrats hope for involves both the population and the turnout of hispanics increasing, so just getting that "solid minority" won't be enough. Hispanics skew somewhat Democratic, but turnout is the key. It's not clear what drives hispanic turnout like having a Spanish-speaking hispanic on the ballot, doing the voter registration, etc.

BO's picks to guide his VP selection really catching some heat.

The CountryWide associated guy...who BO himself has personally attacked, and the guy who pushed the Clinton/Rich pardon through.

I'm not sure BO is doing such a great job of picking associates.
It's never been too clear to me what these "vetting committees" are actually supposed to DO. Isn't the Clinton-era person there because they're a Clinton person? What does Caroline Kennedy bring to the table, exactly? My impression was that it was largely a ceremonial thing, because the candidate is the one at the end of the day who makes the big decision.

If I were picking real VP vetters, I'd go with world-class private detectives, MDs who can use MRIs as lie detectors, forensic accountants, etc. In fact, I would have these same people dig into my own candidacy. Fuck if I know what damaging thing some junior high teacher put in my record...

Maybe this is why Motown thinks I'm a used car salesman?
8ZSOpA2tXWc

Its BO who always talks about clearing out Washington of corporate this and that, then he picks one for vetting his Veep selection.

I don't get this guy.

Its BO who always talks about clearing out Washington of corporate this and that, then he picks one for vetting his Veep selection.

I don't get this guy.

I thought that was McCain?

I thought that was McCain?

No, BO and you.

No, BO and you.


Yes we can.

Its BO who always talks about clearing out Washington of corporate this and that, then he picks one for vetting his Veep selection.

I don't get this guy.

OK, how do you feel about McCain and his lobbyists?

I thought the Countrywide guy only had mortgages or such with Countrywide, not part of the business. Although I don't know much on the subject.

Its ok for JM, just not for BO.



Two degrees of separation: The Wall Street Journal reports that a very special friend of Sen. Barack Obama is also a very special friend of embattled Countrywide Financial co-founder Angelo Mozilo.

The Journal reports that James Johnson -- (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279970984353933.html) a high-ranking advisor to Obama -- was part of an elite group -- "friends of Angelo" -- who got more than $7 million in special loans from Countrywide.

The New York Sun spells out details here: (http://www.nysun.com/national/top-talent-scout-for-obama-tied-to-subprime-lender/79579/) "James Johnson, one of three people tapped by Mr. Obama recently to oversee the search for his running mate, took at least five real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corp. through an informal program for friends of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo, the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday."
More: "The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called "friends of Angelo," were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower's credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan."
About James Johnson: He's part of the permanent government of this country, a long-time Democratic fixer (Mondale and Kerry campaigns), former CEO of Fannie Mae, and as such a big buyer of Countrywide loans. He's a guy who sits on a bunch of corporate boards, etc.
Outrage: "That reeks most high," said Bonnie Russell, a public relations specialist and vocal critic of Mr. Mozilo, according to the Sun. "Where's the 'change to believe in' if they're playing the same old game using the same old players?"

More: "The Journal said at least two of the mortgages, among a series of loans made available to people Countrywide officials called "friends of Angelo," were at rates below market averages, though it is difficult to predict a market rate without access to nonpublic information about a borrower's credit history and other factors that can reduce interest charges on a loan."
So, there might have been something shady with some loans, but we don't really know? Depending on how you define "market averages", I have a mortgage that is better than "market average". And trust me, I have no sweetheart deals with any big lender CEOs. This seems like a smear to me.

I've worked at a place that had a "friends of the CEO" VIP list. They got some special deals somewhere along the way, I'm sure, but the biggest perk was the TLC. "Please don't fuck with this person AT ALL or the CEO will fire you" and "spare no reasonable expense" -- what fun, what fun.

BO has problems picking peeps.

And the truth is, it really won't matter. BO is the teflon candidate. We have one of those every decade or so.

Has anyone else been really impressed with how Obama hasn't surrounded himself with unscrupulous characters like McCain has? I mean, it's just eerie that Mccain is surrounded by so many lobbyists and criminals, and the Republicans haven't been able to get one single association of Obama's to stick a bit? Has to be frustrating for partisans who really, really have nothing else negative to stick to a guy.

Has anyone else been really impressed with how Obama hasn't surrounded himself with unscrupulous characters like McCain has? I mean, it's just eerie that Mccain is surrounded by so many lobbyists and criminals, and the Republicans haven't been able to get one single association of Obama's to stick a bit? Has to be humorous for peeps wanting to know more about BO.

Yes, as in LOL @ the ignorants. Boy, that is what we need. More people covering his associations. Can we get one, just one news story about his pastor or church in this bitch? Must be funny, funny shit.

There is a thread for the Rev Wright issue. And it was originally discussed in the Dem Candidate thread. So you can find your humor there. Go knock yourself out homes.

BO has problems picking peeps.
Name me the last President who hasn't.

Honestly, the VP selection committee seems like weak sauce. I knew that McCain's VP selection committee head was some lobbyist who was Reagan's attorney during the "Reagan 'forgot' everything" years. If McCain chose him to be VP like Bush chose his VP committee head, that's one thing. For awhile, the speculation was that Hillary would be part of Obama's VP committee, which was just another example of how much it was about posturing for various elements of the party and how little it was about the actual choice. I expect campaign staff on both sides will be doing the real work here, assuming that candidates don't have a good idea of who they want already.

There is a thread for the Rev Wright issue. And it was originally discussed in the Dem Candidate thread. So you can find your humor there. Go knock yourself out homes.


Please don't bring it up then.

K?

Thx.

I watched many news shows last night on various channels. They all seemed to make light of the issue. The guy is not on his staff. He's helping find a VP temporarily and will not have any ties to Obama after that. Big deal. He's done this for numerous presidents from both sides of the aisle.

Please don't bring it up then.

K?

Thx.

I'll post what I want, when I want.

It jus seems to me like BO has problems choosing peeps. Just my take.

It looks like BO has only about a 5-6 pt bounce coming out of nomination process. About half a normal bounce.

The big bounce usually comes from the conventions where everyone comes together, does inspirational speeches, and other such kumbaya.

I'm not too interested in the polls at the moment. I think they show Obama ahead, but the 527s haven't come out in force on either side yet.

This is a regurgitation but after the nomination since 1980 nominees have rec'd an 11 pt bounce. Take Dole (lmao) out of that and it jumps to 13. BO went from even prior to the race being over to a 5-7 pt lead now.

^what was it like in years were the primary race was this close/late in the season?

Very good point Chris. This process was different than any other. I wasn't trying to say that BO isn't going to win the Presdnc or anything just trying to post info.

5-7 is prolly where most candidates settle in.

I know, and I am actually asking for those numbers (I have no idea what they are). I just suspect that it has more to do with a solid runner up than a weakness of Obama.

Some other poll results


Poll shows Obama with economy edge
Posted: 12:14 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-ticker-producer-alexander-mooney/)
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
(CNN) – More Americans believe Sen. Barack Obama is better suited to handle the No. 1 issue on voters' minds — the country's economic woes – than his likely rival in the fall election, Sen. John McCain.
In what could be a warning sign for the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, a new poll released by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation found that 50 percent of registered voters nationwide say the Illinois senator would best handle the economy, while only 44 percent said the same for McCain.
View full poll results [PDF] (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/12/rel7g.pdf)
The news could be particularly troublesome for McCain given voters nationwide have consistently ranked the economy as the most important issue currently facing the country. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released last week, 42 percent of registered voters named the ailing economy as their most pressing concern, almost twice the amount that named Iraq — the second most important issue. In the same poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans said the country's economic conditions were in poor shape (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/09/more-than-three-quarters-say-economy-is-in-poor-shape/).
WATCH how the candidates are talking about the economy (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/11/steinhauser.candidates.economy.cnn?iref=videosearc h)
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes that Obama's edge over McCain on the economy is even higher among voters most concerned with the issue.
"Voters who say the economy is the country's number-one problem say that Obama would do a better job than McCain on the economy by a 57 percent to 39 percent margin," Holland said.
The new poll doesn't offer McCain all bad news however. A majority of voters say the Arizona Republican is better suited than Obama to handle foreign policy issues. McCain repeatedly touts his foreign policy credentials on the campaign trail and 54 percent of voters aid he is best suited to handle such matters. Forty-three percent gave the nod to Obama when it came to foreign policy.

But overall, voters said Obama tends to agree with them more so than McCain on the issues that matter most — 56 percent said Obama is in agreement with them on the most vital issues compared to 50 percent who said the same for McCain.
Meanwhile, both candidates score high marks when it comes to leadership qualities — 66 percent said McCain has the necessary leadership qualities needed to be president while 63 percent said the same for Obama.
In what appears to be a draw for both candidates, the poll also shows voters are evenly split on whether leadership skills or the candidates' stances on the issues is most important in deciding their vote. (47 percent say leadership qualities is most important while 46 percent say their stance on the issues is.)
Holland notes Obama has the clear edge among voters most concerned with issues while McCain does nearly as well with those most looking for leadership qualities.
"Voters who say that issues are more important than the candidates' personal qualities are going for Obama by a 58 percent to 37 percent margin," he said. "But McCain has a 53 percent -41 percent edge among voters who sya that personal qualities are more important than the candidates' stands on the issues."
The poll comes as both candidates have increasingly made efforts to appeal to voters most threatened by the economic woes. Obama kicked off a two-week campaign tour Monday that focuses on the economy and takes him through several battleground states that will be up for grabs in November. He's specifically targeting white working class voters, a demographic that repeatedly supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
John McCain is also aggressively targeting those voters this week, and is attempting to paint Obama as a typical Democrat who wants to raise taxes and regulate government.
"On tax policy, health-care reform, trade, government spending and a long list of other issues, we offer very different choices to the American people," he said earlier this week.

Basically, on the issues, Obama wins. When it comes to leadership, it's a draw. But "personal qualities" drags Obama down. Of course, the URL pointing to the full poll results doesn't actually HAVE the full poll results, notably the "personal qualities" questions.

FiQJ9Xp0xxU

I didn't watcht the entire thing, but thats funny. Is that from Comedy Central?

fm9rLDU-SiE

Keep beating that drum Mxy. It might just work. You seem to know politics pretty well, so you KNOW JM is not Bush.

McCain isn't Bush, but he pandered so much to the Bush crowd in the wake of 2000 that he can't maintain straight talk with a straight face. Trying to bounce between the middle and right is turning him into a perpetual gaffe machine.

Speaking of gaffes, BO on CNBC(?) had a nice one on gas prices. He's just inexperienced.

FyBwMy27Aoc

Speaking of gaffes, BO on CNBC(?) had a nice one on gas prices. He's just inexperienced.
It's not much of a gaffe. Here's the full context of the interview, with the so-called "gaffe" in bold.


HARWOOD: As you know, gas prices now have hit a national average of over $4 a gallon. You have criticized the idea that John McCain has floated of a gas tax holiday as a gimmick. Is the reality of the situation for American consumers that there's nothing that you could do as president or anybody could do as president in the short term to relieve that pain?

Sen. OBAMA: What is true is that given the global price of oil right now, that we can't artificially lower gas prices. What we can do is provide people immediate relief through our tax code. And so I've proposed accelerating a second stimulus rebate to put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of families to offset some of these rising costs during the summer and into the fall.
When I'm president next year, what I'd like to do is pass a middle class tax cut, $1,000 per family per year to offset higher prices in gas, food, medical care. Long-term, though, the only way we're going to deal with these high gas prices is if we change how we consume oil. And that means investing in alternative fuels, it means that we are raising fuel efficiency standards on cars, that we're helping the automakers retool. Obviously, consumers are changing their habits pretty rapidly. But our US automakers are going to need some help retooling. We should be encouraging that. And when we look at other ways that we're using energy, we have to adapt renewable, clear energies like solar, wind and biodiesel. And I've got an Apollo project, a Manhattan project, to embark upon that new energy future that we need.

HARWOOD: As difficult as this is for consumers right now, is, in fact, high gas prices what we need to let the market work, a line incentive so that we do shift to alternative means of energy?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So...

HARWOOD: So could these high prices help us?

Sen. OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.

The context of the "could these high prices help us" is "could these high prices provide "incentive so that we do shift to alternative means of energy" -- a long-term context -- as you can see from the previous question to which the question in bold was a followup. Having already stated that higher gas prices were inevitable with consumption trends (but never saying this was good), Obama said it'd have been nice if the bump were gradual. Then he states that if we do alternative energy right, we can "come out of this stronger". We're falling down in gaffes, yessir...

lol. What a gaffe!