NationStates Jolt Archive

I think you're over-simplifying his experience due to your station in life and your understanding of how things work. This is not meant as disrespectful to you. Have you served your country in uniform? I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion. It just makes the understanding of why Patraeus does what he does more evident. You don't get that high in the ranks without knowing how to smooch some ass. That goes for everyone involved.

Edit: Bed time for me with an 0530 wake up call. I'll be back tomorrow to check the thread just so you know I'm not running from our discussion.

You realize of course that his ass-kissing cost the lives of LOTS of people?

I think you're over-simplifying his experience due to your station in life and your understanding of how things work. This is not meant as disrespectful to you. Have you served your country in uniform? I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion. It just makes the understanding of why Patraeus does what he does more evident. You don't get that high in the ranks without knowing how to smooch some ass. That goes for everyone involved.

QFT

I think you're over-simplifying his experience due to your station in life and your understanding of how things work. This is not meant as disrespectful to you. Have you served your country in uniform? I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion. It just makes the understanding of why Patraeus does what he does more evident. You don't get that high in the ranks without knowing how to smooch some ass. That goes for everyone involved.

Edit: Bed time for me with an 0530 wake up call. I'll be back tomorrow to check the thread just so you know I'm not running from our discussion.

See, thats the problem though. Just because thats the reality doesnt make it right.


His ass kissing is getting people killed and is liable to start ANOTHER war.

Just a little update for ya on this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572415&postcount=2832):

Remember how Obama creamed Hillary in Alabama? How about these latest polling numbers:

Alabama 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

56% McCain
38% Clinton
6% Undecided

62% McCain
35% Obama (including 86% of the black voters)
4% Undecided

Another one you picked for Obama:

Missouri (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=8d367ce2-f928-4f60-b2a1-ce2b97ad6144) 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

48% McCain
46% Clinton
6% Undecided

53% McCain
39% Obama (including 85% of the black voters)
9% Undecided

Another interesting one here in the State where Kennedy and Kerry both back Obama:

Massachusetts (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=692c0281-9ce4-4c71-8e4f-b970d4ea8193) 03/14/2008 - 03/16/2008:

42% McCain
55% Clinton
3% Undecided

47% McCain
47% Obama
6% Undecided
Let's sing the "Polls 7 months before the election when the Democratic nominee isn't even decided don't have the value of shit" song...

Also, it would appear that the 10 point bulge that Obama had a few days ago has dissapated?

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/040208DailyUpdateGraph1_clob_dkww08.gif
That is fluctuating all the time and doesn't mean much at all.

O'Bama
I wonder if he had that name, how things would change...

Nice conservative article.

He loves Obama too (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc160.htm):


We need to be careful picking the roses?
Hillary is berated as a Communist even more. They even have shirts...

I realized something today which made me think that if God forbid McCain won, that maybe hed still be better than Bush in a few regards, one of which being the begining of new wars. His a military man. I think hed listen to his generals and we wouldnt have these situations:

Pres: I want to bomb Iran.
General: Sir, we dont have the man power for another war, especially with a country with an actual military
Pres: Out of my sight you anti-American coward! Guards, bring me a spineless sniviling boot-lick!

*Enter General Petraeus*

General Petraeus: Mr. President, we could easily afford, handle, and win a war with any country of ebil brown muslims you wish to whip the American public into a frenzy against. We will be greeted as liberators.
Pres: Bravo my pet! You shall have another star!
Almost exactly true. McCain is not in the least bit a third term for Bushism.

The Karl Rove machine has tons of crap to rip Clinton into little tiny pieces with. Obama has no dirt on his record that they can exploit really.

I personally believe that Petraeus is a pretty good military general. The surge did reduce violence - but it, and Petraeus, cannot solve the political problems of Iraq no matter how sucessful we are militarily.

I think you're over-simplifying his experience due to your station in life and your understanding of how things work. This is not meant as disrespectful to you. Have you served your country in uniform? I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion. It just makes the understanding of why Patraeus does what he does more evident. You don't get that high in the ranks without knowing how to smooch some ass. That goes for everyone involved.

Edit: Bed time for me with an 0530 wake up call. I'll be back tomorrow to check the thread just so you know I'm not running from our discussion.

Well Petraus was approved without dissent and let us all remember that it was the Democrats that tried to discredit his report days before it even was made public and when it was, the democrats had egg on their faces.

You realize of course that his ass-kissing cost the lives of LOTS of people?

Funny how the Democrats praised him before his report on Iraq that showed progress where the Democrats said there was none.

I personally believe that Petraeus is a pretty good military general. The surge did reduce violence - but it, and Petraeus, cannot solve the political problems of Iraq no matter how sucessful we are militarily.

Yes, that huge rise in violence recently shows it was really a lasting effect.


The reduced violence after the surge was a fluke.

His ass kissing is getting people killed and is liable to start ANOTHER war.

Oh please prove that assertion.

Funny how the Democrats praised him before his report on Iraq that showed progress where the Democrats said there was none.

No one has said democrats were bright or any better than their Republican counter parts.

I personally believe that Petraeus is a pretty good military general. The surge did reduce violence - but it, and Petraeus, cannot solve the political problems of Iraq no matter how sucessful we are militarily.

QFT!

Oh please prove that assertion.

The guy who has been an outspoken critic of a war with Iran is pressured to resign.

Petraeus has pretty much been the Bush administration's pet general and he just nods his head and says what Bush wants him to say. Petraeus has NOT said that a war with Iran cannot happen.

Its really not hard to connect the dots.

Yes, that huge rise in violence recently shows it was really a lasting effect.


The reduced violence after the surge was a fluke.

Funny how most of it was in the BRITISH sector.

Petraeus has pretty much been the Bush administration's pet general and he just nods his head and says what Bush wants him to say. Petraeus has NOT said that a war with Iran cannot happen.

Ok. Stop listening to Propaganda and actually prove it.

Its really not hard to connect the dots.

The dots aren't there. Keep trying though. Maybe one day, you'll get it but this is not the thread for this debate.

Ok. Stop listening to Propaganda and actually prove it.



Until I get every transcript of every converstation in the White House, thats impossible. However it does seem suspicious that the Admiral who was an outspoken critic of a war with Iran was pressured to resign.


If you want to ignore the warning signs though be my guest. I cant force you to acknowledge whats out there.

Until I get every transcript of every converstation in the White House, thats impossible. However it does seem suspicious that the Admiral who was an outspoken critic of a war with Iran was pressured to resign.


If you want to ignore the warning signs though be my guest. I cant force you to acknowledge whats out there.

I can!

*forces Corny to acknowledge what's out there*
:D

The reduced violence after the surge was a short term effect that should have been used to create political negotiations to secure the peace between the Shia/Sunni factions in Iraq or, if said negotiations failed, should have been followed by a scaled withdrawl to put pressure on the Iraqi government.


^ My view on the subject

Until I get every transcript of every converstation in the White House, thats impossible. However it does seem suspicious that the Admiral who was an outspoken critic of a war with Iran was pressured to resign.

Funny how a military buildup seems to be 100% absent for said conflict.

If you want to ignore the warning signs though be my guest. I cant force you to acknowledge whats out there.

Warning signs? There really are no warning signs present except from fearmongerers who see a war brewing everywhere even though nothing is brewing anywhere.

As I said. Stop listening to propaganda.

And this from the Admiral in question:

Adm. William J. Fallon, one of the most experienced officers in the U.S. military, said the reports were wrong but had become a distraction hampering his efforts in the Middle East.

http://cbs2.com/national/Defense.Secretary.Robert.2.674871.html

Now let us get back on track.

Funny how a military buildup seems to be 100% absent for said conflict.


We have a massive troop pressence in Iran's neighbor. What further buildup is required?


Warning signs? There really are no warning signs present except from fearmongerers who see a war brewing everywhere even though nothing is brewing anywhere.

As I said. Stop listening to propaganda.

I think its you who is listening to propaganda, being so willing to brush off the warning signs and all.

Tell me, why else would the Admiral, who was well respect, however an outspoken critic of a war with Iran, have been pressured to resign.

I don't think that Bush would be able to get the Congressional votes for a war in Iran, and I also think he would murder the Republican's chances for victory in 08 with an Iran "police action". Furthermore, it would require withdrawl of troops from Iraq - a Very Bad Thing according to Bush.

We have a massive troop pressence in Iran's neighbor. What further buildup is required?

We also have a troop presence in Far East Asia. That does not mean we want a war with China nor resume the War with North Korea.

I think its you who is listening to propaganda, being so willing to brush off the warning signs and all.

What signs am I missing? You mean the increased embargo with Tehran or labeling their elite unit a terrorist organization? If anything, it is Iran that is provoking shit. But I guess its easier to blame the US for all the wrongness even though we are only half to blame. I see both sides and I do not blame just one side in ANY conflict. Maybe you should really consider reading everything more carefully instead of jumping on the "War is coming" bandwagon that so many fucking people seem to be on. A war is not going to happen with Iran any time soon. PERIOD!!!!

Tell me, why else would the Admiral, who was well respect, however an outspoken critic of a war with Iran, have been pressured to resign.

Adm. William J. Fallon, one of the most experienced officers in the U.S. military, said the reports were wrong but had become a distraction hampering his efforts in the Middle East. Fallon's area of responsibility includes Iran and stretches from Central Asia across the Middle East to the Horn of Africa.

"I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility," Fallon said, and he regretted "the simple perception that there is." He was in Iraq when he made the statement.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Pentagon news conference that he accepted Fallon's request to resign and retire from the Navy, agreeing that the Iran issue had become a distraction. But Gates said repeatedly that he believed talk of Fallon opposing Bush on Iran was mistaken.

http://cbs2.com/national/Defense.Secretary.Robert.2.674871.html

Yes, that huge rise in violence recently shows it was really a lasting effect.


The reduced violence after the surge was a fluke.

The downturn in violence was not due to the Surge but due to the ceasefire with the Mahdi Army, and the violence went up with this agreement was broken the other week.

or if you are a christopher hitchens fan he has a diatribe against her on slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/

no one does angry like hitchens does angry.

There is an obvious bias there, of course, but this is what kills me about the whole electability argument. See, they're attacking Obama for something someone ELSE said. Hillary is getting attacked for things she said and the fact is what is being said is true even if it is a little exaggerated. It really does insult everyone who died in that conflict to pretend she put herself in harm's way to end it. It really is completely flipping reality. And when she says they sent the first lady in when it was too dangerous for the President (and sent their daughter as well, apparently) essentially is insulting her husband AND the secret service.

And when she says they sent the first lady in when it was too dangerous for the President (and sent their daughter as well, apparently) essentially is insulting her husband AND the secret service.

Either that or Bill wanted to get rid of her so he can bang women all he wants :D

And, please, end the hijack. We have enough to follow in this thread without huge hijacks about General Patreaus.

And, please, end the hijack. We have enough to follow in this thread without huge hijacks about General Patreaus.

How about whether Barrack Obama (http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_070424_ms.jpg) has an evil twin (http://levelselect.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/carllumbly_as_marcion-wm.jpg)?

:p

See, there is the problem. He says two things. One is an opinion. The other is supported by evidence. A lot of evidence. You treat them as exactly equal. They aren't. His opinion about Obama and why he doesn't like him, isn't the same as a factual story that can be corroborated by evidence. At all.

You need to learn the difference.
Your arrogance astounds me. Get over yourself.

If I wrote on my blog that I witnessed Jimmy beating his son showing you pictures and that I don't like Kelly because I think she's unrealistic. They aren't equal. One is only my opinion. The other actually has substance. The problem this entire time is that you've treated your unsupported opinion as if it can trump actual substance, just as you have here.
You've gone off on a tangent my friend. You have made some wrong assumptions.

I personally believe that Petraeus is a pretty good military general. The surge did reduce violence - but it, and Petraeus, cannot solve the political problems of Iraq no matter how sucessful we are militarily.

Indeed. Note that we have never had sufficient troop levels in Iraq, not even at the peak of the surge.

Fixed.

The mods frown on that, I believe.

And, please, end the hijack. We have enough to follow in this thread without huge hijacks about General Patreaus.

To tie this back in, as the force levels return to pre-surge levels over tghe spring and early summer, we can expect to see the levels of violence increasing. This will most likely have a significant effect at the Dem. convention, and on the general election.

Your arrogance astounds me. Get over yourself.


You've gone off on a tangent my friend. You have made some wrong assumptions.

You crack me up. So instead of addressing my arguments, you insult me? How about you address the fact that you compared an opinion article about Obama to an article about factual events regarding Clinton?

Tell me, what are these wrong assumptions? 180 pages and you still don't get that you don't just get to dismiss arguments with these kinds of statements. If my assumptions are wrong, demonstrate it. If I'm off on a tangent, demonstrate it. I swear you just have a random number generator for a list of dismissive statements. How about you make today the day you make reasoned arguments instead of avoiding everything that counters your 'gut feeling"?

Your arrogance astounds me. Get over yourself.

The only arrogance I see there is yours in dismissing it out of hand without providing a reason.

There is a different between quantitative and qualitative statements. If I say "Barack Obama has won more states during the primaries and caucauses than Hillary Clinton" I can prove it. If I say "[CandidateName] is evil" that would be impossible to prove or disprove because it's a point of view.

I still don't get how someone can jump up and down about the will of the voters in Florida and Michigan (even though Michigan didn't have both the candidates on the ballot-and you got to love her Dick Cheneyish response to that fact...) and at the same time do more than hint that your current strategy is to convince delegates to override the voters that appointed them- (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Apr/03/clinton_hints_at_wooing_obama_delegates.html)
"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate," Clinton said at a news conference in California, where she has been fundraising.
...
The former first lady said she was traveling to North Dakota to thank her supporters and delegates — and wooing Obama supporters was fair game.

Pledged delegates are a "misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain," Clinton said. "And I think that process goes all the way to the convention."

She's still banging that drum. After finding out that Ickes was the guy who drove Ted Kennedy's truck into the Democratic party during the 1980 primary I'm losing confidence that should she not win by any reasonable metric (I've already said that I'd accept a popular vote one, but that doesn't seem likely either) she won't burn the place down to get her way.

Her more level headed yet high profile supporters aren't buyin' it. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/03/clinton-backers-she-must-win-popular-vote/)
In separate media interviews, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine and Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha both indicated they believed Clinton will be unable to convince enough superdelegates to support her if she finishes second to Obama in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.

Speaking on CNBC, Corzine suggested it won't be enough for Clinton to argue she deserves the nomination because she has won more crucial swing states than Obama — a talking point the senator's campaign has long argued.

"I think it would be a very hard argument to make," Corzine said of that position. "I'm a very aggressive supporter of Senator Clinton, but I think you need at least a popular vote."

Corzine also suggested he himself may cast his superdelegate vote for Obama should Clinton fail to win the popular vote, though the New Jersey governor insisted he thought Clinton would come out on top in that count if the Florida and Michigan contests were counted.

Murtha echoed Corzine's sentiments in an interview later Thursday, saying, "Clinton has to win Pennsylvania…She has to be ahead in the popular vote to have any chance at all of getting this nomination."

I still don't get how someone can jump up and down about the will of the voters in Florida and Michigan (even though Michigan didn't have both the candidates on the ballot-and you got to love her Dick Cheneyish response to that fact...) and at the same time do more than hint that your current strategy is to convince delegates to override the voters that appointed them- (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Apr/03/clinton_hints_at_wooing_obama_delegates.html)

self-serving compartmentalization ftw!

what frightens me are the number of people (on the internet, at least) that actually are buying it. CH ain't alone, and that scares the crap out of me.

I caught a bit of Jay Leno last night (ugh I know...) where Hillary was on, and he was asking her about the whole Michigan/Florida fiasco. The blatant lies she told were actually starting to make me sick. She said shes always supported seating them, and that Obama's campaign was against a revote, both of which are 100% lies. She also made it sound like the voters of Florida and Michigan only found out they werent going to count until after they voted, which is also purely a lie.

Most frusterating was Leno faught her on that a little bit, saying "Well, they did break the rules..." and she basically said the rules were stupid and they shouldnt have been punished anyway.

I know all politicans lies, but not so blatantly, and shes not even freaking good at it.

self-serving compartmentalization ftw!

what frightens me are the number of people (on the internet, at least) that actually are buying it. CH ain't alone, and that scares the crap out of me.

Dude, just read the comments sections of the articles we post here. Really, we have it good with CH. The commenters in those articles are so far off the tracks it's unbelievable. There's a whole subset of them that actually believes if they capitalize everyones middle name it totally gets them off the hook for trying to slag Obama for his. And thats where it starts to go downhill.

CH may be frustrating but he's not a dillhole. Every time I get worked up now I just read the comments on articles and it gives me a warm fuzzy about him. We really are, despite what it feels like sometimes, in an oasis of civility.

Dude, just read the comments sections of the articles we post here. Really, we have it good with CH. The commenters in those articles are so far off the tracks it's unbelievable. There's a whole subset of them that actually believes if they capitalize everyones middle name it totally gets them off the hook for trying to slag Obama for his. And thats where it starts to go downhill.

CH may be frustrating but he's not a dillhole. Every time I get worked up now I just read the comments on articles and it gives me a warm fuzzy about him. We really are, despite what it feels like sometimes, in an oasis of civility.

Its true, CH may be filled with irrational Clinton love, but at least his reason for voting against Obama isnt "OMG his middle name is Hussien!!!"

Dude, just read the comments sections of the articles we post here. Really, we have it good with CH. The commenters in those articles are so far off the tracks it's unbelievable. There's a whole subset of them that actually believes if they capitalize everyones middle name it totally gets them off the hook for trying to slag Obama for his. And thats where it starts to go downhill.

CH may be frustrating but he's not a dillhole. Every time I get worked up now I just read the comments on articles and it gives me a warm fuzzy about him. We really are, despite what it feels like sometimes, in an oasis of civility.

On the CNN Political Ticker, I can hardly read the comments anymore because it is quite clear that if Clinton doesn't get in, its because of sexism and that all Obama supporters are brainwashed hicks who do not know any better. I shake my head everytime I read it.

On the CNN Political Ticker, I can hardly read the comments anymore because it is quite clear that if Clinton doesn't get in, its because of sexism and that all Obama supporters are brainwashed hicks who do not know any better. I shake my head everytime I read it.

Wait, you could stand to read the CNN political ticker before all this?

Wait, you could stand to read the CNN political ticker before all this?

The articles yes. Comments? No!

You realize of course that his ass-kissing cost the lives of LOTS of people?

I do, and some of them were friends of mine. You're mistaking his job with the person he is. His job is to advise the President of the current situation in Iraq. He relays information as it is given to him. It is the President who gave the order to go to war. It will be the President who will give the order to go to war with Iran if that is the case. There's a reason why they call it military service. In the military and the civilian world it is commonly the "yes men" who get the promotions and big assignments. It's very hard to tell your boss "no" in any situation. The military handles the war and security function of the battle. It is up to the President, Pentagon, and State to figure out the rebuilding, restructuring, and political solutions. Do you really think Bush would pack up and go home if Petreaus told him things were not dandy? He would just extend the tours of service members who are there, and possibly call up more National Guard troops. General's have limited control over the political situation. Bush has made it clear this is "a war we must win." He's not leaving even if the military tells him the situation is Fubar.

See, thats the problem though. Just because thats the reality doesnt make it right.


His ass kissing is getting people killed and is liable to start ANOTHER war.

Presidents make decisions to go to war, not military leaders.

Presidents make decisions to go to war, not military leaders.

I know. But its the job of the military leaders to tell the president their advice on the subject.


When a guy who doesnt want to bomb Iran is forced out, there is an issue.

When another general is just nodding and saying "We can bomb whomever you like Mr. President," that is where the problem arises.

I know. But its the job of the military leaders to tell the president their advice on the subject.


When a guy who doesnt want to bomb Iran is forced out, there is an issue.

When another general is just nodding and saying "We can bomb whomever you like Mr. President," that is where the problem arises.

Do I have to go to the link I gave you previously again?

The reduced violence after the surge was a short term effect that should have been used to create political negotiations to secure the peace between the Shia/Sunni factions in Iraq or, if said negotiations failed, should have been followed by a scaled withdrawl to put pressure on the Iraqi government.


^ My view on the subject

Agreed. Civilian leadership failed their objectives.

Wait, you could stand to read the CNN political ticker before all this?

Well, at least ya'll are getting CNN. (CNNj seems to have turned innto the "all autisim, all day" network...)

Do I have to go to the link I gave you previously again?

I dont know what youre talking about. If you posted it earlier I probably never saw it, because I dont ever backtrack on this topic. Too many pages.

There is an obvious bias there, of course, but this is what kills me about the whole electability argument. See, they're attacking Obama for something someone ELSE said. Hillary is getting attacked for things she said and the fact is what is being said is true even if it is a little exaggerated. It really does insult everyone who died in that conflict to pretend she put herself in harm's way to end it. It really is completely flipping reality. And when she says they sent the first lady in when it was too dangerous for the President (and sent their daughter as well, apparently) essentially is insulting her husband AND the secret service.

I remember when Obama got lambasted for the comments of one of his advisors while he was not on a official visit for Obama, but a university. This time it's her campaign manager, Penn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.

Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.

Hillary's shrinking superdelegate lead (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080404/ts_csm/ascenarios)

I dont know what youre talking about. If you posted it earlier I probably never saw it, because I dont ever backtrack on this topic. Too many pages.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13581637&postcount=3018

And, please, end the hijack. We have enough to follow in this thread without huge hijacks about General Patreaus.

Agreed. I will now discontinue commenting on that topic.

You crack me up. So instead of addressing my arguments, you insult me? How about you address the fact that you compared an opinion article about Obama to an article about factual events regarding Clinton?

Tell me, what are these wrong assumptions? 180 pages and you still don't get that you don't just get to dismiss arguments with these kinds of statements. If my assumptions are wrong, demonstrate it. If I'm off on a tangent, demonstrate it. I swear you just have a random number generator for a list of dismissive statements. How about you make today the day you make reasoned arguments instead of avoiding everything that counters your 'gut feeling"?

Or he could respond to the long post I made linking several polls, articles, and even op-ed pieces. I've pointed it out to him 3 times, but he's chosen to ignore it. I didn't insult him so he can't use that excuse for not responding. He's just been punked and that's the bottom line because Stone Cold said so...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13581637&postcount=3018

I have so much to say about this article and how I dont by the Admirals lines and how I think hes just trying to get out of the spotlight, but I dont want to threadjack anymore.

Anyway, in an unrelated to the dems note:

More than 20 social-conservative leaders purchased a full-page ad in an Arizona paper warning Sen. John McCain against picking Mitt Romney as his running mate, calling the former Massachusetts governor a "deal breaker" and an "utterly unacceptable" choice for social conservatives.



The open letter to Mr. McCain, which focuses on Mr. Romney's record on abortion and gay marriage and calls him "unfit to be a 'heartbeat away' " from the presidency, runs in tomorrow's editions of the Prescott Daily Courier. It's dominated by block type words "No Mitt."

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NATION/977540625/0/FRONTPAGE


Now I just gotta cross my fingers that he doesnt pick the Huckster and Ill be A LOT less worried about him winning the nomination.

Pledged delegates should vote for me says Clinton. This lady is really willing to do absolutely everything to win. She's willing to tear down her party for her own ambition. God damn she sucks (my opinion of course). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-trailguide_rightrail_0404apr04,0,2244606.story

Pledged delegates should vote for me says Clinton. This lady is really willing to do absolutely everything to win. She's willing to tear down her party for her own ambition. God damn she sucks (my opinion of course). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-trailguide_rightrail_0404apr04,0,2244606.story

:headbang:

And people wonder why 1) Obama is winning the pledged and popular vote and 2) why she has the highest unfavorable rating of any presidential candidate left.

God damn she sucks (my opinion of course).

Im willing to bet that her sucking is a fact, considering Bill had to get an intern to do it. :D


Im sorry Im sorry. Poor taste I know.

Im willing to bet that her sucking is a fact, considering Bill had to get an intern to do it. :D


Im sorry Im sorry. Poor taste I know.

Now that's comedy :D

I know. But its the job of the military leaders to tell the president their advice on the subject.


When a guy who doesnt want to bomb Iran is forced out, there is an issue.

When another general is just nodding and saying "We can bomb whomever you like Mr. President," that is where the problem arises.

You truly don't know what his advice is in private. Have you ever given someone advice and have them not follow it? For instance, you tell your friend that the guy who cheats on her and abuses her should be cut loose. She agrees with you while sitting there that she will leave him. The next day you see them at the diner like your conversation never happened. No matter what Bush is linked to Iraq. He feels that if he leaves before they are just perfect than his plan was a failure. His plan was already a failure, but he'd never admit it.

:headbang:

And people wonder why 1) Obama is winning the pledged and popular vote and 2) why she has the highest unfavorable rating of any presidential candidate left.

Peggy Noonan wrote a great column (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120663639483768965.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc) about Hillary Clinton for the WSJ. She leads off with a statement that just about nails it...

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

And some people here never will get it either.
She sums up the problems with Ms Clinton pretty well -- congenital liar, power-hungry, expedient beyond any loyalty... It all comes together in this little bit about her history of attempted deception...

She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.

Fortunately, we are realizing exactly who she is, and we don't like it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/us/politics/04campaign.html?em&ex=1207454400&en=8d54d037b5e28a75&ei=5087%0A


Some interesting factoids.

I remember when Obama got lambasted for the comments of one of his advisors while he was not on a official visit for Obama, but a university. This time it's her campaign manager, Penn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726769569388303.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.

Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.

Hillary's shrinking superdelegate lead (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080404/ts_csm/ascenarios)
I'm a little underwhelmed on this one, to be honest. While his firm does represent the Colombian government, all it really says is that he was there to discuss an agreement, not really what that discussion entails. And the Colombians say everyone is there-
A spokesman for Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe said the ambassador met with Mr. Penn to discuss the bilateral agenda. "There have also been meetings with the advisers to the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain," he said. "It's the embassy's job to explain Colombia's reality."
Of course being there doesn't imply as much as Penn's firm representing the Colombian government. This concerns me though-
An Obama spokesman and the Colombian Embassy spokeswoman both said the Colombian ambassador had never met with an Obama representative.
He's been caught out on this kind of thing before. I really hope that someone at the Obama campaign didn't answer that question too quickly.

Duality in her top campaign people isn't necessarily new. Ickes voted to remove the delegates of Florida and Michigan but now that he has the job with Clinton 'they must be counted.' It doesn't surprise me that Penn acts like what he is, a hired gun.

I'm a little underwhelmed on this one, to be honest. While his firm does represent the Colombian government, all it really says is that he was there to discuss an agreement, not really what that discussion entails. And the Colombians say everyone is there-

Of course being there doesn't imply as much as Penn's firm representing the Colombian government. This concerns me though-

He's been caught out on this kind of thing before. I really hope that someone at the Obama campaign didn't answer that question too quickly.

Duality in her top campaign people isn't necessarily new. Ickes voted to remove the delegates of Florida and Michigan but now that he has the job with Clinton 'they must be counted.' It doesn't surprise me that Penn acts like what he is, a hired gun.

Just adding to it.

WSJ: Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist [Mark Penn] met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm.

I'm a little underwhelmed on this one, to be honest. While his firm does represent the Colombian government, all it really says is that he was there to discuss an agreement, not really what that discussion entails. And the Colombians say everyone is there-

Of course being there doesn't imply as much as Penn's firm representing the Colombian government. This concerns me though-

He's been caught out on this kind of thing before. I really hope that someone at the Obama campaign didn't answer that question too quickly.

Duality in her top campaign people isn't necessarily new. Ickes voted to remove the delegates of Florida and Michigan but now that he has the job with Clinton 'they must be counted.' It doesn't surprise me that Penn acts like what he is, a hired gun.

Agreed. But considering that her campaign jumping all over the Canada NAFTA thing with the Obama aide, how is this any different? She literally held up a memo that actually showed the aide never gave the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but that someone else just felt like the position of Obama was pandering and claimed the aide had said it.

In this case, her aide really IS saying it. Just not on behalf of her. Both are underwhelming but when she claimed people should vote on the first one...

We really are, despite what it feels like sometimes, in an oasis of civility.

not just civility. we also seem to have disproportionately logical and informed discussions compared to other forums - let alone the comments sections of news sites and youtube. i wonder why that is?

Agreed. But considering that her campaign jumping all over the Canada NAFTA thing with the Obama aide, how is this any different? She literally held up a memo that actually showed the aide never gave the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but that someone else just felt like the position of Obama was pandering and claimed the aide had said it.

In this case, her aide really IS saying it. Just not on behalf of her. Both are underwhelming but when she claimed people should vote on the first one...

This is exactly why I posted it. There was such a big deal made over Obama's aide who was not there on official business that turnabout is truly fair play.

not just civility. we also seem to have disproportionately logical and informed discussions compared to other forums - let alone the comments sections of news sites and youtube. i wonder why that is?

Because when people are being unreasonable and uninformed they are "shouted down" as CH puts it.

And just to raise the level of intelligent debate in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OWuq9WFqCc&feature=related

Because when people are being unreasonable and uninformed they are "shouted down" as CH puts it.

though it seems notable that we, as a forum, have been able to do that where others have failed.

Penn has apologized for moonlighting- (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aT5kJ_heKgnI&refer=politics)

`The meeting was an error in judgment that will not be repeated and I am sorry for it,'' Penn said in a written statement about his March 31 meeting with the Colombian ambassador. ``The senator's well-known opposition to this trade deal is clear and was not discussed,'' he said in the statement released by Clinton's campaign.

Seems a more adjusted response than Obama's campaign, but then, now they've had time and practice.

The leader of a group in opposition isn't buying it-

Greg Tarpinian, executive director of Change to Win, which represents seven unions and about 6 million workers, said Penn's meeting ``suggests that he has been playing a double role -- advising the senator on what to say to curry Democratic voters and advising the Colombian government on what to say to curry a majority of votes in Congress.''

You crack me up. So instead of addressing my arguments, you insult me? How about you address the fact that you compared an opinion article about Obama to an article about factual events regarding Clinton?
You had no argument to address, only your insulting comment. You made an assumption about what I know or don't know about opinion/factual articles. You were wrong. You compounded that error by stating that I "need to learn the difference". Hence, my appropriate reply.

How about you make today the day you make reasoned arguments instead of avoiding everything that counters your 'gut feeling"?
How about you make today that you put me on ignore, so that you won't feel compelled to further poison the well.

The only arrogance I see there is yours in dismissing it out of hand without providing a reason.

There is a different between quantitative and qualitative statements. If I say "Barack Obama has won more states during the primaries and caucauses than Hillary Clinton" I can prove it. If I say "[CandidateName] is evil" that would be impossible to prove or disprove because it's a point of view.
Are you lining up to be Jocabia's understudy? :p

You certainly are guilty of making the same mistake he did.

I had echoed Jocabia's criticism of this before, so now that it's out I'm hoping that it might be the end of it, Clinton has released her tax returns (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/The_Clintons_taxes.html)

The Clintons' joint returns show them earning more than $109 million over a period of seven years.

The biggest source of income is Bill Clinton's speeches — source of $51 million. He made another $30 million from books; Hillary made about $10 million from her book.

Yay. I totally needed to know that. This changes everything...I really don't know what this is supposed to be all about. Was there some hope for an Al Capone realization?

Of course, this won't be the end of it-

UPDATE: The interesting part, of course, is the roughly $18 million that the summary doesn't account for.
Of course, that seems to come from Drudge, so I give that as much credence as some dude at a bus stop...

On the theme of transparency I kind of get it, but it really was a mountain out of a place an ant might think of making a hill.

I have so much to say about this article and how I dont by the Admirals lines and how I think hes just trying to get out of the spotlight, but I dont want to threadjack anymore.

Anyway, in an unrelated to the dems note:



http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NATION/977540625/0/FRONTPAGE


Now I just gotta cross my fingers that he doesnt pick the Huckster and Ill be A LOT less worried about him winning the nomination.

I caught a bit of Jay Leno last night (ugh I know...) where Hillary was on
I'll have to look for clips of that.

I had echoed Jocabia's criticism of this before, so now that it's out I'm hoping that it might be the end of it, Clinton has released her tax returns (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/The_Clintons_taxes.html)



Yay. I totally needed to know that. This changes everything...I really don't know what this is supposed to be all about. Was there some hope for an Al Capone realization?

Of course, this won't be the end of it-


Of course, that seems to come from Drudge, so I give that as much credence as some dude at a bus stop...

On the theme of transparency I kind of get it, but it really was a mountain out of a place an ant might think of making a hill.
The "speeches" is fairly suspicious. How can you make $51 million from speeches in 7 years...

I personally believe that Petraeus is a pretty good military general. The surge did reduce violence - but it, and Petraeus, cannot solve the political problems of Iraq no matter how sucessful we are militarily.
There is no proof whatsoever that it did anything at all. There was a major ceasefire at almost exactly the same time violence started to drop.

Yes, that huge rise in violence recently shows it was really a lasting effect.


The reduced violence after the surge was a fluke.
Coincidentally the ceasefire was dropped. :rolleyes:

The downturn in violence was not due to the Surge but due to the ceasefire with the Mahdi Army, and the violence went up with this agreement was broken the other week.
Exactly.

Pledged delegates
It isn't a misnomer. It is absolutely correct. They are pledged. A pledge is not binding at all.

The "speeches" is fairly suspicious. How can you make $51 million from speeches in 7 years...
He's a former president, he gets a grip of money for every speech. It wouldn't be that hard to rack up that kind of money in appearances, really.

He's a former president, he gets a grip of money for every speech. It wouldn't be that hard to rack up that kind of money in appearances, really.
I still question it, as do many people.

I still question it, as do many people.

But it's kind of an old story, though. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/15/politics/main272386.shtml) (from a 2001 article)

The investment firm Morgan Stanley Dean Witter paid Mr. Clinton a reported $100,000 to speak last week.
...
n fact, the controversial Mr. Clinton is commanding almost unheard-of appearance fees.

While sources say former President Ford gets $60,000 a speech, and former President Bush $80,000, astronaut and former U.S. Senator John Glenn is one of a few in Mr. Clinton's orbit at $100,000 an appearance.

And Mr. Clinton has reportedly been offered significantly more.

The speaking fees are a sweet supplement to the president's pension. Imagine, says Chajet, if Mr. Clinton makes just a speech a week, "and let's say he takes two weeks off for Christmas. You multiply 50 by $100,000 and that's a pretty good annual income."

In fact, Mr. Clinton will deliver a keynote address to the Oracle Corporation on Monday and will speak to a conference sponsored by another investment firm, Credit Suisse First Boston, the following week. Despite the controversy, his agent Don Walker told CBS News the former commander-in-chief has several offers lined up.


He was a key and dynamic figure, and he turned that into a lucrative speaking career. It's not uncommon, and given the fees he was able to command it's not unbelievable that he could have made that much money. Are the fees scandalously high? I don't know-are the appearance fees for the Rolling Stones too high? There are only three living former presidents, and is was arguably the most dynamic of them, and certainly a gifted speaker.

I don't really see scandal here.

I don't really see scandal here.
Bah, you're just a Clintonite. :p

I still question it, as do many people.

Blair was reportedly paid half a million dollars for one speech in China. Given that a former U.S president could command a much higher fee than a former British Prime Minister, it's far from impossible.

Someone really wants the Edwards endorsement... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=2&ex=1365048000&en=96229b4f025b0a49&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

In her remarks at the Mason Temple Church of God in Christ, delivered in a meeting room behind the main sanctuary to a small group of religious and civic leaders, Mrs. Clinton called for the poverty czar — a proposal that would endear her to John Edwards, the former Democratic presidential candidate whose endorsement she is seeking — as one in a list of things she said America needed to do to redeem Dr. King’s promises.

Not to be outdone-

The reason Dr. King was in Memphis the day he was shot, Mr. Obama told the crowd of about 2,000 people, had to do as much with economics, in the form of wages and income, as with race. “It was a struggle for economic justice, for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life,” he said. “Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one, that each was part of a larger struggle for freedom, for dignity and for humanity.”

And the sweepstakes goes to...

Mr. Edwards said he was pleased with Mrs. Clinton's announcement.

"America's need to address the great moral issue of poverty demands strong action, and a cabinet-level poverty position is exactly that kind of action," Mr. Edwards said through a spokesman.
Clinton.

Edwards was the "two Americas" candidate. Having grown up in a family that was well off (not rich, but...well, I had race cars...) and now being poor I've lived the truth of that. And I'm not even near the bottom.

I don't really know what a 'poverty czar' is supposed to do, but that falls into the stupid criticisms of Obama-it's just an article reporting on the speech, expecting details is a bit much. We'll see how that pans out...

No Do-Over Primary For Michigan Democrats (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/politics/main3994280.shtml)

(AP) Michigan Democrats officially have declared they won't hold a do-over presidential primary.

Members of the state party's executive committee issued a statement Friday saying "we have concluded that it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's Democratic National Convention delegates seated.

To bad the party does not have the guts to exact the punishment they already laid on them. You break rules, you get punished. That's the way the world works however, I do like what Obama had came up with about splitting the delegates 50-50 and no surprise, Billary has rejected it.

Clinton's economic ad is a bust:

It's not plausible that a president would be called at 3 a.m. in a financial crisis; the stock markets close at 4 p.m

It's not true that McCain would let the imaginary phone keep ringing -- he has a housing plan, but it's less sweeping than those of the Democratic candidates.

Even McCain's online ad does not hold up either:

Sorry, wrong number.

Clinton and Obama have not proposed raising taxes to deal with the mortgage mess, although their rescue plans would obviously use taxpayer dollars.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/campaign.commercials.check/index.html

Gotta love election year :D

Clinton's economic ad is a bust:



Even McCain's online ad does not hold up either:



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/campaign.commercials.check/index.html

Gotta love election year :D

Graham Bell must be so "proud"...

On a side note, if McCain didn't want to become a POW, why did he not stay home? Surely a good way not to be a POW is by not warring?

No Do-Over Primary For Michigan Democrats (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/politics/main3994280.shtml)
This is old news.

To bad the party does not have the guts to exact the punishment they already laid on them.
You mean that they shouldn't be allowed to re-do the vote?

You break rules, you get punished. That's the way the world works however,
Even if it means that 1 in 10 Americans can have no say in who wins the nomination in those States?

[I do like what Obama had came up with about splitting the delegates 50-50 and no surprise, Billary has rejected it.
Hillary rejected it because Obama's solution was anything but fair.

Hillary rejected it because Obama's solution was anything but fair.

The fair solution to you, naturally, being giving out the votes to Hillary even though Obama was not even IN THE BALLOT in Michigan.

Then her having the delegates ignore the will of the people anyways, and I don't mean only the SUPERDELEGATES, I mean the PLEDGED ones.

Then her running against McCain on a pissed off and disenfranchised Democratic electorate due to her getting the pledged delegates to ignore the will of the people.

Then her LOSING to McCain.

Then McCain harming the world more and more.

All because of her ego and fake sense of entitlement.

The fair solution to you, naturally, being giving out the votes to Hillary even though Obama was not even IN THE BALLOT in Michigan.
The democratic way to have resolved this was through a revote. It won't happen and I suggest this will cost the Dems come November.

Then her having the delegates ignore the will of the people anyways, and I don't mean only the SUPERDELEGATES, I mean the PLEDGED ones.
I am not exactly in tune with Hillary on this one, but some argument could be forwarded that certain caucuses were mismanaged.

Then her running against McCain on a pissed off and disenfranchised Democratic electorate due to her getting the pledged delegates to ignore the will of the people.
I don't see how including Michigan and Florida voters would disenfranchise the Democratic electorate.

Then her LOSING to McCain.
I do believe that she would prevail over McCain.

Then McCain harming the world more and more.
IF McCain gets elected, then that will be the will of the electorate, and should weigh heavily on any Dems who vote Republican out of spite.

All because of her ego and fake sense of entitlement.
I think that not counting Michigan and Florida will be the ultimate reason she would lose the nomination.

The democratic way to have resolved this was through a revote. It won't happen and I suggest this will cost the Dems come November.


I am not exactly in tune with Hillary on this one, but some argument could be forwarded that certain caucuses were mismanaged.


I don't see how including Michigan and Florida voters would disenfranchise the Democratic electorate.


I do believe that she would prevail over McCain.


IF McCain gets elected, then that will be the will of the electorate, and should weigh heavily on any Dems who vote Republican out of spite.


I think that not counting Michigan and Florida will be the ultimate reason she would lose the nomination.

Oh, but she DIDN'T argue that caucuses were mismanaged, now DID she? She argued that pledged delegates should eschew the will of the people. And that superdelegates should overturn it. She argued that REPEATEDLY. And then went on to claim "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan voters. You know, after calling for the disenfranchisement of EVERY SINGLE VOTER.

I didn't argue that including the states would "disenfranchise" them. It WILL, however, if Michigan delegates get seated when her opponent WAS NOT IN THE BALLOT! A revote would be the best option, yes.

She's also the candidate with the undisputed biggest rejection rate. Hillary would have SEVERAL problems against the cursed one, McCain, more than double what Obama would.

And please, PLEASE, try to argue that, by getting Obama's pledged delegates to vote for her and superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, she'd get voted over McCain, curses be upon him, by these same people she blatantly wants to ignore. I BEG of you, try to argue that, nothing would be funnier.

Regarding disenfranchisement, it will only be even an issue if Obama wins the nomination by less than 100,000 votes - an unlikely scenario at worst.

The democratic way to have resolved this was through a revote. It won't happen and I suggest this will cost the Dems come November.

Your argument would make sense if it wasn't the choice of both Michigan and Florida to not have a revote. What do you want to do? Force them. They've chosen. That is their will.

This is old news.


You mean that they shouldn't be allowed to re-do the vote?


Even if it means that 1 in 10 Americans can have no say in who wins the nomination in those States?


Hillary rejected it because Obama's solution was anything but fair.

You know what else is old new? Your tears over the FL and MI even though ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AGREED. They could have been allowed to redo the vote, but they F'd that up too. The silly part is that if they just left their primaries where they were they'd. Ah, 1 in 10 Americans...You weren't very good at math when you were in school were you? Florida census info (http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1230.shtml) Michigan stats (http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1243.shtml)

Their total population is not even equivalent to your 1 in 10 claim. Almost 4 million of the people in Florida are under 18 and cannot vote. Those who are old enough to vote are not all even registered. Even less than that are democrats. Even less than that actually voted in the primary. You fail! Now let's do Michigan. 2.5 million are under 18. Note the same comments I made for Florida apply to Michigan as well. You fail again!

Florida there was no contest really. No one campaigned in the states so it wasn't contested. Michigan didn't have anyone but Hillary on the ballot. This is where you look a fool over and over again. I bet you'd pick Chuck Ladell (MMA fighter) over a 10 year old too. It's essentially what you are arguing.

Finally, Hillary thought it was unfair because it didn't benefit her. Go figure. She made an agreement and now she wants to break her word. Yeah, that's a President I can trust. You still haven't responded to my other post I put in front of your face three separate times. You didn't try, not because I flamed you or anything, but just because you knew you couldn't top it. This is the situation now, and I'll never tire of pounding you on your false claims. I wonder if you'll get tired of taking the beating? It just seems that you go back in hiding and lick your wounds when things get too tough.

At the current time Obama is nearly 10 points ahead in the gallup daily tracking poll. Hillary Clinton's negative numbers have gone up nationally and state wise. Her attempted attacks On Rev. Wright and her fallacy about Bosnia have made her look worse than ever. Superdelegates are declaring for Obama much quicker than before. Her hopes of the supers saving her seems to be fading.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105907/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Keeps-Lead-Over-Clinton-51-43.aspx

Money running dry? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html)

Hill's negatives up http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002694330

Obama racking up supers (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_snags_mor.html)

Hillary is the best choice for McCain to win (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/29/politics/main3979266.shtml)

Obama lead largest this year (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/gallup_obama_lead_over_clinton.html)

Obama possibly pulling even after PA in supers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement;_ylt=AqAdNKwrHzKeceU25DOdW9Os0NUE)

Obama does better against McCain in Virginia. (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/03/mccain-builds-big-lead-in-virg.html) McCain is ahead of both but far ahead of Clinton.

Clinton not paying her bills to small and medium sized businesses around the country. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html)

Finally, Obama draws 20,000 at penn state really

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AoAzo07H_Ntf9v5hyuMgaGCs0NUE

Edit: The negatives for Hillary are what mean the most. Voters might not go out to vote for someone they just like mildly, but they sure as hell go out and vote against someone they do not like. Hillary needs to blow out every single primary by at least 15 points. Not going to happen.
You have been pushing for me to answer this post, yet I fail to see its' relevance in regards to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572391&postcount=2830).

Clearly the polls that you posted have changed, for example the 10 point lead for Obama according to Gallup, and one of the articles (poll showing McCain with an 11 point lead over Obama) actually supports my contention that Obama would not likely win Virginia.

You have been pushing for me to answer this post, yet I fail to see its' relevance in regards to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572391&postcount=2830).

Clearly the polls that you posted have changed, for example the 10 point lead for Obama according to Gallup, and one of the articles (poll showing McCain with an 11 point lead over Obama) actually supports my contention that Obama would not likely win Virginia.

Weren't you saying earlier that the early polls didn't matter?

You know what else is old new? Your tears over the FL and MI even though ALL OF THE CANDIDATES AGREED. They could have been allowed to redo the vote, but they F'd that up too. The silly part is that if they just left their primaries where they were they'd. Ah, 1 in 10 Americans...You weren't very good at math when you were in school were you? Florida census info (http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1230.shtml) Michigan stats (http://www.classbrain.com/artstate/publish/article_1243.shtml)

Their total population is not even equivalent to your 1 in 10 claim. Almost 4 million of the people in Florida are under 18 and cannot vote. Those who are old enough to vote are not all even registered. Even less than that are democrats. Even less than that actually voted in the primary. You fail! Now let's do Michigan. 2.5 million are under 18. Note the same comments I made for Florida apply to Michigan as well. You fail again!
Ummmm, thanks for the math lesson, but what I really meant is 1 in 10 of all elegible US voters, although it is actually closer to 1 in 10.6 voters.

Florida there was no contest really. No one campaigned in the states so it wasn't contested. Michigan didn't have anyone but Hillary on the ballot.
There was no campaign but there was a vote. There was a contest, just no winners according to the Democratic party.

This is where you look a fool over and over again. I bet you'd pick Chuck Ladell (MMA fighter) over a 10 year old too. It's essentially what you are arguing.
That is not what I am arguing. I suggested that a re-do was the most democratic resolution. The re-do was shot down, and my prediction is that it will cost the Dems in the general election.

Finally, Hillary thought it was unfair because it didn't benefit her. Go figure. She made an agreement and now she wants to break her word. Yeah, that's a President I can trust.
I really can't blame her for wanting the votes to be meaningful, especially if they would help her win the nomination, allow the voters of those states to have a say in who should be the nominee, and if it enables the Dems to have a better shot at winning those States in the general, thus giving them a better shot at the Presidency.

I still believe that this is a huge mistake for the Dems.

You still haven't responded to my other post I put in front of your face three separate times. You didn't try, not because I flamed you or anything, but just because you knew you couldn't top it.
Response has been posted. My non response had nothing to do with whether I could top your response or not.

This is the situation now, and I'll never tire of pounding you on your false claims.
What false claims were you pounding me on? I saw no relevance to my post with your response.

I wonder if you'll get tired of taking the beating?
So you admit that you are trying to beat up on me huh? :p

It just seems that you go back in hiding and lick your wounds when things get too tough.
I have no reason to hide, and I certainly am not wounded. I figure the ones that have the most to lose are in fact encouraging their own defeat. I sense a Democratic implosion.

Weren't you saying earlier that the early polls didn't matter?

CH often has logical disconnects.

Weren't you saying earlier that the early polls didn't matter?
The major problem in the US is that you have too many polls. Secondly, there is way too much variance in the polls. Thirdly, the polls are taken too often.

Another important thing to consider is the overall picture? The state by state analysis.

What good is it to say that Obama has a marginally overall popular vote lead over Clinton, if Clinton has a far better chance at winning big states that Obama would lose, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio?

There is still a ways to go yet. I suggest that if the polls show a significant upbeat for either of the candidates over a period of a few weeks, then some insightful reasoning might result.

Until then, there are too many see-saw polls throwing out odd ball numbers.

This is old news.

Actually not really as they have continued to try to come to some sort of agreement. This just makes it 100% official that they will not have a revote.

You mean that they shouldn't be allowed to re-do the vote?

Where oh where did you get that from?! They should've had a revote but BOTH STATES SAID NO!!

Even if it means that 1 in 10 Americans can have no say in who wins the nomination in those States?

You break the rules, you get punished! Should we not punish those who break the rules?

Hillary rejected it because Obama's solution was anything but fair.

And how is it any fairer to allow Michigan to be seated when Obama was not even on the fucking ballot?

The democratic way to have resolved this was through a revote. It won't happen and I suggest this will cost the Dems come November.
Florida won't vote Democratic. Michigan isn't going to have "revenge" against the Party. It will have revenge against the fuckwits who didn't listen to the DNC rules and set an early primary. The party needs to lay down the law and grow a backbone. It certainly was a poor decision to strip all delegates, but that's what we have. If we just let states set their primary or caucus whenever they want, we'll be having primaries before the previous general election.

I am not exactly in tune with Hillary on this one, but some argument could be forwarded that certain caucuses were mismanaged.
Because they didn't expect the turnout, but mismanagement (if it benefitted a candidate) benefitted both equally.

I don't see how including Michigan and Florida voters would disenfranchise the Democratic electorate.
No one said it would. He was referring to the fact that having the delegate counts overturned by the superdelegates or a sneaky inclusion of unfair/uncontested primaries to favor Clinton would make most new voters stay home or vote McCain or third party. Also, there is the fact that those with dark skin will feel cheated (as usual) and exact revenge by not voting for Hillary.

I do believe that she would prevail over McCain.
It's just virtually impossible for her to do it. She is divisive. She would send a lot of the new electorate out of the party. She'd lose a core base (by overturning the will of the people). She'd continue the failed strategy of only focusing on the "Democratic base". McCain is a moderate and will reach across the aisle. He will certainly put many Democratic states in play against her and we may see many McCain Democrats not seen since Reagan Democrats. Her 3am BS will be ripped to shreds.

IF McCain gets elected, then that will be the will of the electorate, and should weigh heavily on any Dems who vote Republican out of spite.
It won't be out of spite. It will be for the better candidate, which McCain is by far.

I think that not counting Michigan and Florida will be the ultimate reason she would lose the nomination.
Because counting unfair and uncontested primaries will steal the election for her. In a revote, both would be almost 50-50 split.

You have been pushing for me to answer this post, yet I fail to see its' relevance in regards to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572391&postcount=2830).

Clearly the polls that you posted have changed, for example the 10 point lead for Obama according to Gallup, and one of the articles (poll showing McCain with an 11 point lead over Obama) actually supports my contention that Obama would not likely win Virginia.
What part of GENERAL ELECTION POLLS NOW HAVE NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER don't you understand? The Democrats don't even have a nominee yet, so those polls have no basis in reality. Not to mention it being a full seven months before the election. Seven months before January, Hillary was supposed to win it all in a few weeks.

Ummmm, thanks for the math lesson, but what I really meant is 1 in 10 of all elegible US voters, although it is actually closer to 1 in 10.6 voters.

There was no campaign but there was a vote. There was a contest, just no winners according to the Democratic party.
That was an uncontested vote. You cannot count an uncontested vote. Obama was not on the ballot. How is that a contest. She "won" 55%. Because Obama, Edwards, and someone else weren't on the ballot, their supporters either: stayed home, voted for Clinton, or voted uncommitted. If their names were an the ballot AND the results counted AND there was campaigning, the results would have been much different: Obama would have probably won.

That is not what I am arguing. I suggested that a re-do was the most democratic resolution. The re-do was shot down, and my prediction is that it will cost the Dems in the general election.
It was shot down by the state parties. It won't cost for shit. And if it does, it costs either way. Do you want to lose one state or a third of the electorate and a whole new base?

I really can't blame her for wanting the votes to be meaningful, especially if they would help her win the nomination, allow the voters of those states to have a say in who should be the nominee, and if it enables the Dems to have a better shot at winning those States in the general, thus giving them a better shot at the Presidency.
But the elections were uncontested. What about the voters that didn't vote that day because it wouldn't count. Shouldn't they have their say?

I still believe that this is a huge mistake for the Dems.
Well you're delusional. Florida almost cannot be won. Michigan probably will be won. It hasn't been Republican since 88. These will all be made up when Obam brings in New Mexico, West Virginia, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, and others. Not to mention how he will greatly benefit down-ballot candidates. Something you consistently have ignored.

You have been pushing for me to answer this post, yet I fail to see its' relevance in regards to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13572391&postcount=2830).

Clearly the polls that you posted have changed, for example the 10 point lead for Obama according to Gallup, and one of the articles (poll showing McCain with an 11 point lead over Obama) actually supports my contention that Obama would not likely win Virginia.

You'll learn, L, that CH just claims something is irrelevant if he's not got a way to actually address it. You'll encounter that a lot if you debate with him much.

As to the gist of what you're claiming, CH. Polls are useful provided you put them in the right context, as you say. However, you don't get to ignore parts of them and them claim parts of them prove your point. The same polls that support your claim about the "big states" demonstrate that Obama would likely win the overall election, debunking your overall point.

That was an uncontested vote. You cannot count an uncontested vote. Obama was not on the ballot. How is that a contest. She "won" 55%. Because Obama, Edwards, and someone else weren't on the ballot, their supporters either: stayed home, voted for Clinton, or voted uncommitted. If their names were an the ballot AND the results counted AND there was campaigning, the results would have been much different: Obama would have probably won.

I agree. When 40% of voters show up just to not vote for you you aren't going to win it. (The third candidate not on the Ballot was either Kucinich or Gravel, I forget which)

It won't be out of spite. It will be for the better candidate, which McCain is by far.

Come on, now. You can't be seriously saying that a Republican is a better candidate even than Hillary.

More electable, unfortunately, but not better.

I think that not counting Michigan and Florida will be the ultimate reason she would lose the nomination.
Even if you include them at this point Obama is still in the lead, and that counts a state where he wasn't even on the ballot. Pennsylvania is her last best hope to pull out a big win and Obama's on track to making that one too close to do the deed. In the end the Florida and Michigan delegates might be seated because their votes won't change the outcome.

The major problem in the US is that you have too many polls. Secondly, there is way too much variance in the polls. Thirdly, the polls are taken too often.

less data is better, i always say.

Come on, now. You can't be seriously saying that a Republican is a better candidate even than Hillary.

More electable, unfortunately, but not better.

In your eyes, no republican is better than a democrat so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.

In your eyes, no republican is better than a democrat so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.

That's because Republicans have proven, time and again, to be far more warlike, far more anti-environment and far more intrusive in personal lives than Democrats.

On a side note, McCain is getting many votes for POTUS due to having been a POW. I got beaten up in high school, can I get some votes for, at least, councilman of a small city due to that? I mean, applying the same logic here...

In your eyes, no republican is better than a democrat so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.

Heh. McCain isn't even the best Republican candidate on the ticket...

That's because Republicans have proven, time and again, to be far more warlike, far more anti-environment and far more intrusive in personal lives than Democrats.

Funny thing is, Democrats are just as warlike though the Democrats don't have the stomach for prolonged conflicts. Both parties are the same in this regard! As a side note, the comment about the environment is not precisely true either. Most republicans do care about the environment BUT they do not want to run the economy into the ground.

In your eyes, no republican is better than a democrat so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.


I'll take Hillary over McCain. She has similar views to those of Obama and is nowhere near the hawk McCain is.

Heh. McCain isn't even the best Republican candidate on the ticket...

Now there you will not get an argument out of me.

I'll take Hillary over McCain. She has similar views to those of Obama and is nowhere near the hawk McCain is.

HAHA!!

Funny thing is, Democrats are just as warlike though the Democrats don't have the stomach for prolonged conflicts. Both parties are the same in this regard! As a side note, the comment about the environment is not precisely true either. Most republicans do care about the environment BUT they do not want to run the economy into the ground.

You see, the problem with this statement is that the economies of the first-world countries that SIGNED the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, didn't suffer from it. Also, when was the last time a Democrat went "They-have-WMDs-PERIOD" on some hapless country? And what in the nine hells is to prevent the same from happening to MINE should another Republican get his paws in the White House?

Now there you will not get an argument out of me.

Go Gravel, I say.

Go Gravel, I say.

Isn't he running as a libertarian or an Independent?

Also, when was the last time a Democrat went "They-have-WMDs-PERIOD" on some hapless country?

December 1998 when Bill Clinton used the WMD excuse to bomb the shit out of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox.

And what in the nine hells is to prevent the same from happening to MINE should another Republican get his paws in the White House?

Take my advice and leave the shit at the door.

Isn't he running as a libertarian or an Independent?

I believe he's been trying to get picked for the Libertarian ticket. Only way in hell I'd vote libertarian.

December 1998 when Bill Clinton used the WMD excuse to bomb the shit out of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox.



Take my advice and leave the shit at the door.

Corny, let me, as a foreigner (to you), make something really clear for you: Right now, the world is SCARED SHITLESS of America. All because of Bush.

And there's a difference between an operation and an all-out INVASION.

The major problem in the US is that you have too many polls. Secondly, there is way too much variance in the polls. Thirdly, the polls are taken too often.

Another important thing to consider is the overall picture? The state by state analysis.

What good is it to say that Obama has a marginally overall popular vote lead over Clinton, if Clinton has a far better chance at winning big states that Obama would lose, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio?

There is still a ways to go yet. I suggest that if the polls show a significant upbeat for either of the candidates over a period of a few weeks, then some insightful reasoning might result.

Until then, there are too many see-saw polls throwing out odd ball numbers.
So basically any poll that doesn't agree with you isn't a good poll?

Come on, now. You can't be seriously saying that a Republican is a better candidate even than Hillary.

More electable, unfortunately, but not better.
To be honest, I'd take another four years of Bush over Hillary. At least we know what craziness we're in for. With her, I shudder to think how this country would be.

Heh. McCain isn't even the best Republican candidate on the ticket...
Ron Paul?

You see, the problem with this statement is that the economies of the first-world countries that SIGNED the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, didn't suffer from it. Also, when was the last time a Democrat went "They-have-WMDs-PERIOD" on some hapless country? And what in the nine hells is to prevent the same from happening to MINE should another Republican get his paws in the White House?
You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES). Not all Republicans are like Bush. In fact, he and his cronies hijacked the party. There are equal good Republicans and good Democrats (zero ;) jk), just as there are equal bad Republicans and bad Democrats. Open your mind for heaven's sake.

Ron Paul?


I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.

Isn't he running as a libertarian or an Independent?

I think Gravel was still in the democratic race... he might have dropped out, I wasn't paying attention to him.

Corny, let me, as a foreigner (to you), make something really clear for you: Right now, the world is SCARED SHITLESS of America. All because of Bush.

And there's a difference between an operation and an all-out INVASION.

You didn't ask for an invasion Heikoku. You asked and I quote:

"when was the last time a Democrat went 'They-have-WMDs-PERIOD' on some hapless country"

Notice the lack of the word invasion. Funny thing is, this was supported by Democrats who believed the intelligence that was later used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and opposed by Republicans using the same sort of phrases that the Democrats used to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Now with that said, please leave that kind of shit at the door. I do not tolerate that among anybody and I do not care what political party they belong to.

You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES). Not all Republicans are like Bush. In fact, he and his cronies hijacked the party. There are equal good Republicans and good Democrats (zero ;) jk), just as there are equal bad Republicans and bad Democrats. Open your mind for heaven's sake.

I could not have said this better myself.

You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES). Not all Republicans are like Bush. In fact, he and his cronies hijacked the party. There are equal good Republicans and good Democrats (zero ;) jk), just as there are equal bad Republicans and bad Democrats. Open your mind for heaven's sake.

Hard not to perceive as evil the group that attacked a country over false claims and made veiled threats of doing the same to at least three others. Venezuela, one of the countries Bush was barking at, shares a border with Brazil, that WOULD get involved in a conflict, even receiving refugees, should one happen. The Washington Times, a CONSERVATIVE newspaper, back in 2002, called for supporting a MILITARY COUP here in case the then-candidate, now-President won. A DICTATORSHIP. 1964 redone. PNAC calls for the worst kind of American domination in texts that read like Mein Kampf. Give me a good reason not to be pretty damn afraid of these people.

I think Gravel was still in the democratic race... he might have dropped out, I wasn't paying attention to him.

"A Personal Message from Mike

March 26th, 2008 by Senator Mike Gravel
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006."

http://www.gravel2008.us/news

I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.

I would, mainly because it wouldn't do him any good and I'd probably be needing to take a whizz after force-feeding him the kerosene.

You didn't ask for an invasion Heikoku. You asked and I quote:

"when was the last time a Democrat went 'They-have-WMDs-PERIOD' on some hapless country"

Notice the lack of the word invasion. Funny thing is, this was supported by Democrats who believed the intelligence that was later used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and opposed by Republicans using the same sort of phrases that the Democrats used to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Now with that said, please leave that kind of shit at the door. I do not tolerate that among anybody and I do not care what political party they belong to.

Stop infringing on our right as Americans to blame everything on the Republican party despite the fact that each Republican is different, you freedom hater!

"A Personal Message from Mike

March 26th, 2008 by Senator Mike Gravel
I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006."

http://www.gravel2008.us/news


Gah, I need to pay more attention to the election news...

Stop infringing on our right as Americans to blame everything on the Republican party despite the fact that each Republican is different, you freedom hater!

Oh excuse me for setting the record straight anti free speecher :D

Gah, I need to pay more attention to the election news...

No - you just need to pay attention to the only politician in American politics to be worth voting for in a half a century... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZ7t4MwCJk

Stop infringing on our right as Americans to blame everything on the Republican party despite the fact that each Republican is different, you freedom hater!

A Republican president started a war under false pretenses, alienated the WORLD, and so on.

Its Republican lackey wants to keep it on.

I don't care whether or not Republican individuals are evil, the Republican LEADERSHIP is composed of such people right now that, if the choice boiled down to them and a demon I'd check out the demon's platform before deciding who to vote for.

So you aren't against Republicans but against the Bush-Cheney policies and ideologies. Thanks for proving Corneliu's point.

There are liberal republicans, moderate republicans, socially conservative republicans, economically conservative republicans, religious and atheist republicans, republicans who voted for Bush and those who didn't. My late grandfather was an extremely conservative person but voted for Kerry because he, as a WW2 and Korean veteran, refused to vote for Bush after Bush started the war in Iraq. You can't really generalize any group, much less such a large group as the Republican party.

So you aren't against Republicans but against the Bush-Cheney policies and ideologies. Thanks for proving Corneliu's point.

There are liberal republicans, moderate republicans, socially conservative republicans, economically conservative republicans, religious and atheist republicans, republicans who voted for Bush and those who didn't. My late grandfather was an extremely conservative person but voted for Kerry because he, as a WW2 and Korean veteran, refused to vote for Bush after Bush started the war in Iraq. You can't really generalize any group, much less such a large group as the Republican party.

Regardless, now it's not the time for these threats to the world to have such power. WHERE are the liberal Republicans? Where are ANY Republicans that do not want to invade other countries and force their religions down people's throats right now? You mentioned your grandfather. I'll take your word for it. But where else?

I could not have said this better myself.
If I could figure a way to quote this in my sig, I would.

Hard not to perceive as evil the group that attacked a country over false claims and made veiled threats of doing the same to at least three others. Venezuela, one of the countries Bush was barking at, shares a border with Brazil, that WOULD get involved in a conflict, even receiving refugees, should one happen. The Washington Times, a CONSERVATIVE newspaper, back in 2002, called for supporting a MILITARY COUP here in case the then-candidate, now-President won. A DICTATORSHIP. 1964 redone. PNAC calls for the worst kind of American domination in texts that read like Mein Kampf. Give me a good reason not to be pretty damn afraid of these people.
Can you post at least half a coherent paragraph? I mean, my debating skills may suck horribly, but at least my posts can be read. I hate when people can't take the time to type things out in a readable way or in full English.

No - you just need to pay attention to the only politician in American politics to be worth voting for in a half a century... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZ7t4MwCJk
That definitely should have been a rickroll.

A Republican president started a war under false pretenses, alienated the WORLD, and so on.
And a square is a rectangle.

Its Republican lackey wants to keep it on.
What lackey?

I don't care whether or not Republican individuals are evil, the Republican LEADERSHIP is composed of such people right now that, if the choice boiled down to them and a demon I'd check out the demon's platform before deciding who to vote for.
I hope you would before dismissing something just because of its name when it has no relevance.

Regardless, now it's not the time for these threats to the world to have such power.

Billary is just as much a threat to the world as McCain is.

WHERE are the liberal Republicans? Where are ANY Republicans that do not want to invade other countries and force their religions down people's throats right now? You mentioned your grandfather. I'll take your word for it. But where else?

Where are you seeing that the Republicans want to invade another country? We already went through this line all ready.

Billary is just as much a threat to the world as McCain is.



Where are you seeing that the Republicans want to invade another country? We already went through this line all ready.

Again: Iraq.

And nearly: Venezuela, Iran, North Korea.

Unless Hillary thirsts for blood as much as Bush, she's less of a threat than McCain.

What lackey?

He's talking about McCain.

I hope you would before dismissing something just because of its name when it has no relevance.

Hear Hear

If I could figure a way to quote this in my sig, I would.


Can you post at least half a coherent paragraph? I mean, my debating skills may suck horribly, but at least my posts can be read. I hate when people can't take the time to type things out in a readable way or in full English.


That definitely should have been a rickroll.


And a square is a rectangle.


What lackey?


I hope you would before dismissing something just because of its name when it has no relevance.

1- I was listing the kind of crap conservatives have pulled as of late.

2- The lackey in question is Johnny McCain.

3- Given that electing Republicans has, lately, resulted in Bush, the burden of proof is on THEM to prove they aren't like Bush.

Again: Iraq.

Not an answer!

And nearly: Venezuela, Iran, North Korea.

Again does not answer the question:

Where are you seeing that the Republicans want to invade another country?

Unless Hillary thirsts for blood as much as Bush, she's less of a threat than McCain.

You are a nut if you think McCain is thirsty for blood and a fucking stooge.

Not an answer!



Again does not answer the question:

Where are you seeing that the Republicans want to invade another country?



You are a nut if you think McCain is thirsty for blood and a fucking stooge.

They sure as hell don't wanna see Iraq UNINVADED. :p

And McCain wants to "stay the course" in Iraq. So, yeah.

They sure as hell don't wanna see Iraq UNINVADED. :p

And McCain wants to "stay the course" in Iraq. So, yeah.

You really aren't getting it are you? Comes as no surprise given the rhetoric you have been spouting.

You really aren't getting it are you? Comes as no surprise given the rhetoric you have been spouting.

What is there to get? The fact that Bush is a war criminal, check. The fact that America under him is a country to FEAR, check. The fact that McCain is Bush redeaux, check.

The fact that McCain is Bush redeaux, check.

Prove it.

Prove it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-26-mccain-cover_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-26-mccain-cover_x.htm

Proves nothing.

Proves nothing.

He wants to stay in the mistake.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton-hillary-ringing-2011934-three-white

Funny as hell.

He wants to stay in the mistake.

Still does not prove what you are trying to prove.

Still does not prove what you are trying to prove.

Unless Hillary wants to stay in Iraq as he does, she's better than him.

Unless Hillary wants to stay in Iraq as he does, she's better than him.

See...this is the problem I have with stooges from both parties. They latch on to one issue and cannot see the entire campaign. That's why I called you a stooge.

See...this is the problem I have with stooges from both parties. They latch on to one issue and cannot see the entire campaign. That's why I called you a stooge.

Need I remind you that the TWO issues that interest me as a FOREIGNER are your FOREIGN POLICY and environmental one, both of which McCain eschews and both of which affect people outside your borders the most?

I don't care about your economy. I have no reason to.

I care about the most powerful army in the world not going touring in other nations. Because I live in one of these other nations.

I care about the most powerful army in the world not going touring in other nations. Because I live in one of these other nations.

In that case, Clinton is not the person you want in the white house. McCain though, I'd put in the white house because he would not do what you are impying.

In that case, Clinton is not the person you want in the white house. McCain though, I'd put in the white house because he would not do what you are impying.

Let me make this clear:

I trust neither, I trust McCain less.

Let me make this clear:

I trust neither, I trust McCain less.

And why do you trust McCain less?

And why do you trust McCain less?

Was he not the one who said he'd follow on Bush's Iraq methods?

Is he not aligned with the party that first got you INTO Iraq?

Does he not favor the same kind of dickwaving Bush pulls with Chavez and others?

Was he not the one who said he'd follow on Bush's Iraq methods?

Not 100%

Is he not aligned with the party that first got you INTO Iraq?

Irrelevent

Does he not favor the same kind of dickwaving Bush pulls with Chavez and others?

Not exactly

Not 100%



Irrelevent



Not exactly

I'll take Hillary's "not 75%" over his "not 100%".

Relevant.

Hillary favors it LESS.

I'll take Hillary's "not 75%" over his "not 100%".

Consult lawyers on war decisions; no half-cocked war basis. (Oct 2007)

Relevant.

No it aint

Hillary favors it LESS.

Again that's not 100% true.

Consult lawyers on war decisions; no half-cocked war basis. (Oct 2007)



No it aint



Again that's not 100% true.

So far you managed to prove Hillary's slightly better.

Regardless, it'll be Obama vs. McCain, and in THAT race we agree.

You just suffer from the delusional disorder known as Republicans Are Evil Syndrome (RAES). Not all Republicans are like Bush. In fact, he and his cronies hijacked the party.

ah yes, i remember all the massive opposition from republicans to the bush movement. they sure were helpful in that fight.

ah yes, i remember all the massive opposition from republicans to the bush movement. they sure were helpful in that fight.

*Deanna Troi*

Captain, I sense sarcasm.

Clinton caught in yet another lie.

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells
By DEBORAH SONTAG

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.

“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”

Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’

“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”

Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.

The hospital would not provide details about the woman’s case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.

“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”

Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday.

Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton’s account.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Anyone see Hillary on Leno or the "Ellen" show? According to cable news, she nailed those appearances. Could be time for the big comeback, eh? :p

Clinton caught in yet another lie.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Gah! And yet people still support her.

Anyone see Hillary on Leno or the "Ellen" show? According to cable news, she nailed those appearances. Could be time for the big comeback, eh? :p

Leno? Yea I heard about that one but Ellen? New one on me.

Leno? Yea I heard about that one but Ellen? New one on me.

Same day, I think. I hadn't heard of "Ellen" either, but I guess it's a big morning show.

Same day, I think. I hadn't heard of "Ellen" either, but I guess it's a big morning show.

I know its a show TPC but I did not know that she appeared on it.

Again: Iraq.

And nearly: Venezuela, Iran, North Korea.

Unless Hillary thirsts for blood as much as Bush, she's less of a threat than McCain.
I don't think any Republicans have stated their intention to invade random countries. Especially not those three. McCain's not an idiot. He repeatedly notes that he warned against going into Iraq with inadequate troops. Why would he invade another country if we don't have enough troops?

3- Given that electing Republicans has, lately, resulted in Bush, the burden of proof is on THEM to prove they aren't like Bush.
How the hell does electing Republicans have anything to do with Bush being the result?

They sure as hell don't wanna see Iraq UNINVADED. :p
How the hell do you "uninvade" a country...?

And McCain wants to "stay the course" in Iraq. So, yeah.
He never said that. He wants to fix Iraq, not let it continue to decline like Bush.

What is there to get? The fact that Bush is a war criminal, check.
Not yet proven in a court of law.

The fact that America under him is a country to FEAR, check.
Okay.

The fact that McCain is Bush redeaux, check.
Redux is the word and no, that is incorrect and you have failed to prove it.

He wants to fix the mistake.
Fixed.

Unless Hillary wants to stay in Iraq as he does, she's better than him.
Because one single issue is obviously important.

Need I remind you that the TWO issues that interest me as a FOREIGNER are your FOREIGN POLICY and environmental one, both of which McCain eschews and both of which affect people outside your borders the most?

I don't care about your economy. I have no reason to.

I care about the most powerful army in the world not going touring in other nations. Because I live in one of these other nations.
Hillary is crazy. I shudder to think what she would do as president. Remember, she voted for the war. McCain at the time warned not to go in without enough troops. If he was president, he would do things right. He has also stated that we need to engage with other countries and not isolate them. He basically eschewed Bush's foreign policy of us or them.

What country are you from by the way? Hong Kong or Singapore, I'd guess by your name.

Was he not the one who said he'd follow on Bush's Iraq methods?
He wasn't.

Is he not aligned with the party that first got you INTO Iraq?
Are squares not rectangles?

Does he not favor the same kind of dickwaving Bush pulls with Chavez and others?
Not at all.



To diverge from this, here's more of why Obama is WAYYYYYYYYYY better than Billary:
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_el_pr/obama)
BUTTE, Mont. - Hunting for votes out West, Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday rejected the idea that the region's sparsely populated states aren't important in the presidential race and renewed his promise to appoint a high-level adviser on Indian issues if elected.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama also cast his usual message in more Western-friendly terms, talking about clean-coal technology as a way of protecting Montana's beautiful mountains and civil liberties as part of the state's tradition of independence.

An Obama supporter had scolded all the presidential candidates earlier for not addressing Western issues.

Montana and neighboring states have only a handful of delegates, but every one of them is valuable as Obama seeks to keep Hillary Rodham Clinton from narrowing his lead heading toward the nomination convention.

Obama, speaking at the Montana Democrats' annual Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner, mocked the suggestion from Clinton's campaign earlier this year that his lead is suspect because he won lightly contested small states that hold caucuses while losing some big states with primary elections.

"There are people saying Obama wins all these little states, all these caucus states, these small little Western states. I don't know about you, but I think they're pretty important," Obama told the crowd of 4,000.

And in a state where more than 6 percent of the population is American Indian, Obama talked about improving health and education for Indians. He promised to appoint a senior White House adviser on the subject and host an annual meeting of tribal leaders.

The campaign noted that Obama released a position paper involving Western issues before the Nevada primary earlier this year and has also spelled out his views on hunting and other rural concerns.

Even Obama's standard stump speech took on a Western tone.

He acknowledged his support of clean-energy technology might worry voters in a region that produces lots of coal.

"I know Montana's a coal state. My home state, Illinois, is a coal state, but we've got to make sure that we are investing in technologies that capture carbon because we can't sustain the planet the way that we're doing it right now," Obama said, speaking to 8,000 people at a college arena in Missoula. "Look at this incredible landscape around you. We've got to pass that on."

Accusing President Bush of weakening civil rights, Obama appealed to the independent pioneer tradition of his audience. "If you live out here in big sky country, I know you believe in civil liberties," he said.

Obama even expressed interest in learning to fly fish and mused over Missoula's name.

"Here's the thing, Missoula — I just like saying Missoula, by the way. It's a good name. Missoula. A lot of vowels," Obama said.

Montana's primary is June 3 and will decide 17 delegates. Two of the state's nine superdelegates have endorsed Obama, and the rest say they will decide after the primary.

Obama picked up the endorsement of Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, on Wednesday — his latest from a Western governor. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former energy secretary and UN ambassador under Clinton, announced his support for Obama in March and at least two other Western governors also have come out in favor of Obama.

Freudenthal had complained earlier that none of the candidates, Republicans or Democrats, were addressing Western issues.

In short, he's reaching everywhere and not just to the base like Hillary clearly indicates she supports and will do. This ruinous policy which cost the Democrats two presidential elections. A 50-state policy also helps down-ballot candidates and set up a long term base.

I know its a show TPC but I did not know that she appeared on it.

Ah, okay then. Yeah, it was on the ninth.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/04/hillary_clinton_alien.html

Clinton caught in yet another lie.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Under normal circumstances this really wouldn't be that big a deal, really. The anecdotal events don't change the real fact that the health care system is broken, and Obama's and Clinton's plans are really only marginally different, it's something they both wish to change. That someone relayed a story to her that wasn't accurate that she then used is bad, but really only in a 'meh, that was stupid' kind of way. If I were a supporter of Clinton I don't think that this one thing would change my mind about her.

However, given that she's just recovering from the sniper fire story, it's going to be a little more harsh than it really should in the long run. A little on the unfortunate side, really. There are worse things...

Anyone see Hillary on Leno or the "Ellen" show? According to cable news, she nailed those appearances. Could be time for the big comeback, eh? :p
It's on YouTube, but I haven't been able to watch the whole thing. From what I've heard it was full of lies and other BS she usually spurts. There will be no comeback.

I*snip*

YOu do have a way with words and I agree with what you are saying here.

What country are you from by the way? Hong Kong or Singapore, I'd guess by your name.

Brazil I think.

To diverge from this, here's more of why Obama is WAYYYYYYYYYY better than Billary:
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_el_pr/obama)


In short, he's reaching everywhere and not just to the base like Hillary clearly indicates she supports and will do. This ruinous policy which cost the Democrats two presidential elections. A 50-state policy also helps down-ballot candidates and set up a long term base.

Yep.

Snip.

1- It's the issue that's important to me because I live outside the US. Your economy means nothing to me. Your foreign policy and environmental policy do.

2- Regarding Obama being better than Hillary AND McCain, no argument there. He's also more ELECTABLE than her, which matters given the stakes.

3- Brazilian. I do know some Japanese and the name comes from the kanji compounds for "peace" and "country".

YOu do have a way with words and I agree with what you are saying here.
Wow, you're like the only person that says that here. Even I don't think I'm that good of an argument-maker....Maybe this is my strong-point...

1- It's the issue that's important to me because I live outside the US. Your economy means nothing to me. Your foreign policy and environmental policy do.
McCain's Environmental policy won't be anything like that of Bush. I'm sure only a handful of "republicans" support that ruinous policy. I'm not certain, but I don't think the Kyoto Protocol was ever put to vote. It's kind of late now though.

3- Brazilian. I do know some Japanese and the name comes from the kanji compounds for "peace" and "country".
Interesting and good to know that NSG does pervade beyond the Anglosphere.

Wow, you're like the only person that says that here. Even I don't think I'm that good of an argument-maker....Maybe this is my strong-point...


McCain's Environmental policy won't be anything like that of Bush. I'm sure only a handful of "republicans" support that ruinous policy. I'm not certain, but I don't think the Kyoto Protocol was ever put to vote. It's kind of late now though.


Interesting and good to know that NSG does pervade beyond the Anglosphere.

At the time, Kyoto probably wouldn't have been ratified even if Bush wanted us to. It was more the ":upyours: off, we refuse to do anything about global warming" attitude of this administation which turned Kyoto into a joke.

Maybe we could get Bush to increase US participation in climate change initiatives if we convinced him to declare a "War on Carbon..." ;)

Under normal circumstances this really wouldn't be that big a deal, really. The anecdotal events don't change the real fact that the health care system is broken, and Obama's and Clinton's plans are really only marginally different, it's something they both wish to change. That someone relayed a story to her that wasn't accurate that she then used is bad, but really only in a 'meh, that was stupid' kind of way. If I were a supporter of Clinton I don't think that this one thing would change my mind about her.

However, given that she's just recovering from the sniper fire story, it's going to be a little more harsh than it really should in the long run. A little on the unfortunate side, really. There are worse things...

It goes to pattern - a pattern that will be played up in the general.

Ummmm, thanks for the math lesson, but what I really meant is 1 in 10 of all elegible US voters, although it is actually closer to 1 in 10.6 voters.


There was no campaign but there was a vote. There was a contest, just no winners according to the Democratic party.


That is not what I am arguing. I suggested that a re-do was the most democratic resolution. The re-do was shot down, and my prediction is that it will cost the Dems in the general election.


I really can't blame her for wanting the votes to be meaningful, especially if they would help her win the nomination, allow the voters of those states to have a say in who should be the nominee, and if it enables the Dems to have a better shot at winning those States in the general, thus giving them a better shot at the Presidency.

I still believe that this is a huge mistake for the Dems.


Response has been posted. My non response had nothing to do with whether I could top your response or not.


What false claims were you pounding me on? I saw no relevance to my post with your response.


So you admit that you are trying to beat up on me huh? :p


I have no reason to hide, and I certainly am not wounded. I figure the ones that have the most to lose are in fact encouraging their own defeat. I sense a Democratic implosion.

Even if it were 1 in 10 eligible voters your math still sucks as I showed. With as many people under 18 your math does not work. It also fails for lack of clarity. I know you're really not good at admitting when you are wrong but...Your calculations are terribly wrong. Clinton has now been found to be lying about Bosnia, Nafta, and now she's misleading people about healthcare. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) This woman is a pathilogical liar with nothing but ambition pushing her. Further, you tried to refute only the polls of what I had posted in the previous response. There was more there than just polls numbers. Even those poll numbers show Hillary lagging continuously. PA will be close and Obama may pull it out. If that occurs Clinton really should bow out for the sake of the party. she's willing to let her blind ambition cripple the party.

In your eyes, no republican is better than a democrat so that can be taken with a grain of salt.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.

Corny, childish names like Billary are really not helpful. While I enjoy your zeal it would be good if we could keep the middle school stuff away from the thread. I know, the last time I suggested this we had a suicide by Mod. F that tool anyway for getting so pissed about being asked to be mature. It really shouldn't be that hard. Please can we agree to this?

Obama may pull it out. If that occurs Clinton really should bow out for the sake of the party. she's willing to let her blind ambition cripple the party.
I hope that does happen in the end.

I hope that does happen in the end.

The more I learn about her campaign manager Ickes the more I think that it's very much going to be the case. I think realistically Obama will keep Pennsylvania close but ultimately she'll win it, but even if he does pull it out and the party does start clamoring for real for her to drop, it's not going to happen.

They've committed themselves to the script and at this point there's no way out but to win or burn the place down trying. She'll lose the popular vote (assuming he pulls out Pennsylvania) and there will be a push for her to withdraw, she'll assemble a minority whatdotheycallit, report? Opposition? Can't remember, and she'll take this fight to the floor hoping to override the whole deal. It didn't work with Ted Kennedy and it won't work now, but she'll have poisoned the well in the attempt. The sad thing is she'll make this whole case on electability. Ignoring that if she's so fucking electable why the fuck couldn't she manage to win this election? Does she think she'll be able to game the general election as well? "We shouldn't decide the general election by electoral college or popular vote, but by states won with the best tourist spots!!!"

"We shouldn't decide the general election by electoral college or popular vote, but by states won with the best tourist spots!!!"
Did she even win that? :p

I think that some people (as I read in a Maureen Dowd column last week) are making a very valid point -- Hillary's plan is either to a.) win the nomination this year or b.) damage Obama enough so that he loses the '08 general election and she has another opportunity to run in '12. This makes even more sense considering the cordial relations between Clinton and McCain over the past few years. How sad a fact that she doesn't even really care about her policy proposals that Barack would carry out as well; the only thing she cares about is gaining recognition for her own name. What a heartless, self-centered bitch.

Corny, childish names like Billary are really not helpful. While I enjoy your zeal it would be good if we could keep the middle school stuff away from the thread. I know, the last time I suggested this we had a suicide by Mod. F that tool anyway for getting so pissed about being asked to be mature. It really shouldn't be that hard. Please can we agree to this?

Exactly. That's why I prefer Hildog. :)

I think that some people (as I read in a Maureen Dowd column last week) are making a very valid point -- Hillary's plan is either to a.) win the nomination this year or b.) damage Obama enough so that he loses the '08 general election and she has another opportunity to run in '12. This makes even more sense considering the cordial relations between Clinton and McCain over the past few years. How sad a fact that she doesn't even really care about her policy proposals that Barack would carry out as well; the only thing she cares about is gaining recognition for her own name. What a heartless, self-centered bitch.

Eh. That's pretty wild speculation (and from Maureen Dowd), and a pretty big slur. Not that it couldn't be true, but I wouldn't latch onto it so quickly. I'm pretty sure she's stocked up on name recognition as it is, anyway.

Even if it were 1 in 10 eligible voters your math still sucks as I showed. With as many people under 18 your math does not work. It also fails for lack of clarity. I know you're really not good at admitting when you are wrong but...Your calculations are terribly wrong.
Okay, let me clarify this for you, because I believe that you don't know where I am coming from.....the total number of delegates including Michigan and Florida is 4415 (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/). The total number of delegates available for Michigan and Florida is 368 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Nullified_primaries), which is 1/12 of the total number of delegates.

Clinton has now been found to be lying about Bosnia, Nafta, and now she's misleading people about healthcare. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin) This woman is a pathilogical liar with nothing but ambition pushing her.
She is obviously stumbling a bit but for you to suggest that she is a "pathalogical liar" is a bit of overkill.

Further, you tried to refute only the polls of what I had posted in the previous response.
I addressed the polls and yes they are already out of date?

There was more there than just polls numbers.
Yeah, you posted a link to this article:

McCain Builds Big Lead In Virginia (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/03/mccain-builds-big-lead-in-virg.html)

McCain leads Barack Obama 52 percent to 41 percent and Hillary Clinton by a whopping 58 percent to 36 percent.
All that points to is what I have been saying all along, which is that Virginia is going to stay red. Thanks for the ammunition. :D

Another article that you linked, also supports another of my arguments, in that Hillary shouldn't drop out yet:

Klobuchar says she doesn't agree with some Obama supporters who say it's time for Clinton to drop out. She says that Clinton has run a strong campaign and should remain in the race.
Thanks again. :D

Even those poll numbers show Hillary lagging continuously.
One poll shows Hillary lagging continuously? Which one?

PA will be close and Obama may pull it out.
It may be close and Hillary may clobber him. We shall see in a couple of weeks?

If that occurs Clinton really should bow out for the sake of the party. she's willing to let her blind ambition cripple the party.
Here is the problem.....because you detest Hillary, you suggest that she has "blind ambition", while ignoring the reality of a democratic contest.

She has every right to stay in until the bitter end. Who knows what will happen in the meantime?

My concern about Sen. Clinton's approach to the nomination process (i.e., the "Plus 1" strategy) is that it is not simply deceptive, it's mathematically and logically incorrect given the present delegate and popular vote counts.

The most recent explanations offered by the Clinton campaign for her continual insistence that the "race is not over" have shifted with each primary and caucus. First it was "Texas and Ohio starts the race all over." Sen. Obama wins more delegates from Texas, and extends his lead (when adding in the Mississippi results.)

Now it's "Pennsylvania, stupid."

Sen. Clinton insists that "there's no such thing as a 'pledged delegate,' and that the supers should be free to vote on any basis they chose. Unless, apparently, that super happens to be Gov. Bill Richardson. Then it's about "loyalty." Which is what the pledged delegates are supposed to be about. I don't think I'm alone in my confusion here.

Then there's the bait and switch tactic of comparing the nomination process to the general election, coupled with the suggestion that Sen. Obama cannot win the "big" or "important" states. This is code for stating that Sen. Clinton's supporters will not vote for any other Democrat in the general election. Considering what happened in 2000, there is no chance that any real democrat (i.e., those who believe in the party's values) will vote for Sen. McCain when given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican. I'd suggest this assertion on Sen. Clinton's part is deliberately misleading.

I believe that the real Clinton strategy is to extend the race and drum-up controversy around Sen. Obama. This is not about '12; it's about '08. If she can hold out until the convention and hope to unearth some dirt (or create some wholesale) on Sen. Obama, perhaps the supers will reconsider supporting her. All of this, of course, under the guise of "electability."

This strategy is ripping the Democratic party in two. Whether it ultimately wrests defeat from the jaws of victory in the general remains to be seen.

My concern about Sen. Clinton's approach to the nomination process (i.e., the "Plus 1" strategy) is that it is not simply deceptive, it's mathematically and logically incorrect given the present delegate and popular vote counts.

The most recent explanations offered by the Clinton campaign for her continual insistence that the "race is not over" have shifted with each primary and caucus. First it was "Texas and Ohio starts the race all over." Sen. Obama wins more delegates from Texas, and extends his lead (when adding in the Mississippi results.)

Now it's "Pennsylvania, stupid."

Sen. Clinton insists that "there's no such thing as a 'pledged delegate,' and that the supers should be free to vote on any basis they chose. Unless, apparently, that super happens to be Gov. Bill Richardson. Then it's about "loyalty." Which is what the pledged delegates are supposed to be about. I don't think I'm alone in my confusion here.

Then there's the bait and switch tactic of comparing the nomination process to the general election, coupled with the suggestion that Sen. Obama cannot win the "big" or "important" states. This is code for stating that Sen. Clinton's supporters will not vote for any other Democrat in the general election. Considering what happened in 2000, there is no chance that any real democrat (i.e., those who believe in the party's values) will vote for Sen. McCain when given the choice between a Democrat and a Republican. I'd suggest this assertion on Sen. Clinton's part is deliberately misleading.

I believe that the real Clinton strategy is to extend the race and drum-up controversy around Sen. Obama. This is not about '12; it's about '08. If she can hold out until the convention and hope to unearth some dirt (or create some wholesale) on Sen. Obama, perhaps the supers will reconsider supporting her. All of this, of course, under the guise of "electability."

This strategy is ripping the Democratic party in two. Whether it ultimately wrests defeat from the jaws of victory in the general remains to be seen.

This happens with any Generational "shift". The people from Hillary's camp are sensing that they are losing their grip, that they had to fit to take from people like Humphrey and Johnson and such. Now they are the insiders, and the outsiders(the new Dems, so to speak) are trying to grab power. It won't tear the party apart, but it's not going to help expand the party in the short term. Unless she drops out after Penn. That's the Party's only hope for a real signifigant gain.

At the time, Kyoto probably wouldn't have been ratified even if Bush wanted us to. It was more the ":upyours: off, we refuse to do anything about global warming" attitude of this administation which turned Kyoto into a joke.

Ok so that resolution that passed under BILL CLINTON with a vote of 95-0 had nothing to do with it not being ratified?

She is obviously stumbling a bit but for you to suggest that she is a "pathalogical liar" is a bit of overkill.

*dies of laughter*

This is funny shit.

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

As of right now, Obama has the advantage in the general over hillary.

She is obviously stumbling a bit but for you to suggest that she is a "pathalogical liar" is a bit of overkill.

Was that CH's response to the latest Clinton lie?

LOL

She's got a pack of whoppers going back to Watergate which point to her dishonesty problem.

Enough with baldfaced liars in the White House!

She's got a pack of whoppers going back to Watergate which point to her dishonesty problem.

Enough with baldfaced liars in the White House!

And I bet that the Republican Party will use every single one of them.

And I bet that the Republican Party will use every single one of them.

Heh. That comes across correct in a way you may not have intended. Indeed, the GOP will lie their ass off as both they and the Clintons have been for the last 16 years....

Heh. That comes across correct in a way you may not have intended. Indeed, the GOP will lie their ass off as both they and the Clintons have been for the last 16 years....

HAHA!!

Eh. That's pretty wild speculation (and from Maureen Dowd), and a pretty big slur. Not that it couldn't be true, but I wouldn't latch onto it so quickly. I'm pretty sure she's stocked up on name recognition as it is, anyway.
I'm sure you meant, "even from ... Dowd". You are right about the name recognition. She has plenty of it and not in a good way.

Let's face it, only the faithful party hacks can bring themselves to speak in favor of Clinton, anymore. She might as well throw in the towel and try to fool the people of New York again. They seem to enjoy that.

Heh. That comes across correct in a way you may not have intended. Indeed, the GOP will lie their ass off as both they and the Clintons have been for the last 16 years....
I hope you aren't implying that the Democratic party, sans Clinton, is the party of truth and enlightenment...

Obama Raises $40M, Doubling Clinton (http://www.wgal.com/politics/15787966/detail.html)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama raked in $40 million in March, leaving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her $20 million in the fundraising dust and stuffing his campaign treasury so he can outspend her in the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

His haul in new donations also buttressed his argument to Democratic superdelegates that he has built a vast network of donors and volunteers that they wouldn't want to lose by denying him the nomination.

Here we are again. Obama continues to show that his team has the capability to raise a ton of money.

Ok so that resolution that passed under BILL CLINTON with a vote of 95-0 had nothing to do with it not being ratified?

Where did I say Bill Clinton was perfect?

When Bill Clinton was president, there was less evidence of global warming and it wasnt' a public issue so politicians ignored it, and it wasn't quite the huge international issue it is now

However, Bush's policy of ignoring climate change after it has become the elephant in the room is setting an extremely bad example for climate change intiatives.

On the topic of the current election:

I wouldn't call her a "pathological liar." Both she, Obama, and McCain are politicians. All politicians lie, or at least exaggerate or add a dramatic flair. While she was definately heavilly exaggerating the Bosnia story, i think she actually got misinformed this time, as she'd tend to be more careful after getting pinned down by snip- I mean, by the snper story.

I hope you aren't implying that the Democratic party, sans Clinton, is the party of truth and enlightenment...

Hell no.

Take your pick:

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.[25] In 1990, The New York Times reported his election as the Harvard Law Review's "first black president in its 104-year history".[26] He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.[27] On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.[27] As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.[28]

As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[33] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[34] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[34]

The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[58]


In the first month of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, Obama worked with Russ Feingold (D–WI) to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act", which was signed into law in September 2007.[64] He joined Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[65]

Take your pick.I disagree in that he is not a really a person who would be a good President, the only thing I need to say for myself is that he has not shown himself a person willing to compromise.

Okay, let me clarify this for you, because I believe that you don't know where I am coming from.....the total number of delegates including Michigan and Florida is 4415 (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/). The total number of delegates available for Michigan and Florida is 368 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#Nullified_primaries), which is 1/12 of the total number of delegates.
You clearly have no idea how delegates are apportioned. They favor "Democratic" states over "republican" states. So, Democratic states get more. weight in terms of delegates, while Republican states get less. This can be compared to the EC, which is based on population. Also, please note that delegates are not apportioned equally by population. One delegate in California has more voters for it than one in New Hampshire.

She is obviously stumbling a bit but for you to suggest that she is a "pathalogical liar" is a bit of overkill.
It's a recent spate in a long history of lies and deceit.

Yeah, you posted a link to this article:

McCain Builds Big Lead In Virginia (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/03/mccain-builds-big-lead-in-virg.html)

All that points to is what I have been saying all along, which is that Virginia is going to stay red. Thanks for the ammunition. :D
Are you going to continue to ignore the fact that polls now do not matter. The poll does show that Obama is better off to flip it. Remember that undecided voters are never stated in a poll. In that poll, they number 7%.

It may be close and Hillary may clobber him. We shall see in a couple of weeks?
It's gonna be close.

She has every right to stay in until the bitter end. Who knows what will happen in the meantime?
At the expense of the party fracturing in two to create a 1912 redux?

Bill Clinton won a lot of "red states" so stop spewing that BS.

Obama Raises $40M, Doubling Clinton (http://www.wgal.com/politics/15787966/detail.html)

Here we are again. Obama continues to show that his team has the capability to raise a ton of money.
More proof he helps the party.

Voter Doubts About Honesty Costing Clinton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080405/pl_cq_politics/politics2698315)

Okay, this is a weird side note that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but this whole time CH's weird use of question marks has fascinated me. Then I worked with Canadians again and realized he's actually punctuating his Canadian accent, they kind of sound like they're asking questions when they're making statements. Still strange.


It may be close and Hillary may clobber him. We shall see in a couple of weeks?




Okay, on topic-lets establish right now what constitutes 'clobbering him.' You said she'd 'fly' on Super Tuesday and after the fact decided that 'fly on Super Tuesday' actually meant 'manage a tie in what was supposed to be her knock out punch.' She was ahead as much as 20 some points in Pennsylvania two short weeks ago, the kind of win margin she really needs to turn this thing around. Now she's at eleven points at best and losing by two points at worst. So-what's clobbering? An Ohio style win? Arkansas? Ten points? Fifteen? Lets establish what 'clobbering' is right now, I don't want to see a 500 vote victory paraded around as 'clobbering' in three weeks.

I disagree in that he is not a really a person who would be a good President, the only thing I need to say for myself is that he has not shown himself a person willing to compromise.

Wow. What is it with idiots who can't provide a coherent argument nor provide any evidence to support it?

I suppose any of the bipartisan legislature he's helped pass hasn't been "compromised" enought for you? :rolleyes:

Okay, on topic-lets establish right now what constitutes 'clobbering him.' You said she'd 'fly' on Super Tuesday and after the fact decided that 'fly on Super Tuesday' actually meant 'manage a tie in what was supposed to be her knock out punch.' She was ahead as much as 20 some points in Pennsylvania two short weeks ago, the kind of win margin she really needs to turn this thing around. Now she's at eleven points at best and losing by two points at worst. So-what's clobbering? An Ohio style win? Arkansas? Ten points? Fifteen? Lets establish what 'clobbering' is right now, I don't want to see a 500 vote victory paraded around as 'clobbering' in three weeks.

what, "CH knows one when he sees one" isn't good enough for you?

And I bet that the Republican Party will use every single one of them.
And yet after all of that Republican propaganda, Americans saw fit to re-elect George Bush. Go figure. :p

I hope you aren't implying that the Democratic party, sans Clinton, is the party of truth and enlightenment...

Compared to the Republican Party, anything is truth and enlightenment.

I disagree in that he is not a really a person who would be a good President, the only thing I need to say for myself is that he has not shown himself a person willing to compromise.

And you came to this conclusion how?

Compared to the Republican Party, anything is truth and enlightenment.

:headbang:

Compared to the Republican Party, anything is truth and enlightenment.
Sadly, you have a much higher opinion of the Democratic party than they deserve. But then you live in Brazil, so who cares?

There's so little distinction between an incumbent R and an incumbent D, that one can't distinguish between them on something that should be as telling as a voting record.

Sadly, you have a much higher opinion of the Democratic party than they deserve. But then you live in Brazil, so who cares?

There's so little distinction between an incumbent R and an incumbent D, that one can't distinguish between them on something that should be as telling as a voting record.

Let me make it clear: I don't find the Democratic party to be all that good. However, no free random wars is as good as it fucking gets, from your politicians.

Let me make it clear: I don't find the Democratic party to be all that good. However, no free random wars is as good as it fucking gets, from your politicians.
But you only have to look back about 45 years to find the Democratic party doing essentially the same thing, except on a much bigger and much more costly scale. The faces change, but the rhetoric remains the same.

And I have to admit, shooting at foreign terrorists is much better than having our army shoot at our citizens.

But you only have to look back about 45 years to find the Democratic party doing essentially the same thing, except on a much bigger and much more costly scale. The faces change, but the rhetoric remains the same.

And I have to admit, shooting at foreign terrorists is much better than having our army shoot at our citizens.

You mean the joes in Iraq that became terrorists after being SHOT AT? Having their houses and infrastructure destroyed by the unnecessary bloodshed and so on?

*dies of laughter*

This is funny shit.

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

As of right now, Obama has the advantage in the general over hillary.

This is exactly what I was trying to say to CH. Hillary is lagging behind in a large numbers of polls. It's not one poll that is showing her behind, it
s the daily tracking poll and RCP. Everywhere you look she is losing. Once Obama is the nominee there will be a clearer picture of him vs. McCain. Hillary's negatives are the highest they have been since she and Bill left the Whitehouse. This is exactly why Hillary is not electable. There are too many people who do not like her. Finally, as for the polls I provided him being out of date... Sure if you wait long enough to respond then everything will be out of date. Even the one article he cherrypicked, out of the many I supplied him, goes to show that Hillary is weaker in VA than Obama. The Obama McCain matchups in that state at the current time are not particularly relevant seeing that we don't vote until November. This is just more of CH trying to nitpick where he can shed some doubt while denying the preponderance of the evidence. Isolating any one of the links I gave him is silly. The information in its entirety is why Hillary is going down.

And yet after all of that Republican propaganda, Americans saw fit to re-elect George Bush. Go figure. :p
Thanks for proving our point.

Compared to the Republican Party, anything is truth and enlightenment.
Well at least you finally make clear that you suffer from RAES. You should move to central New Jersey, we pretty much only have democrats. The nearest city has Democrat A, B, and C running for mayor or town council.

Let me make it clear: I don't find the Democratic party to be all that good. However, no free random wars is as good as it fucking gets, from your politicians.
Forgetting Viet Nam are we?

Was that CH's response to the latest Clinton lie?

LOL

She's got a pack of whoppers going back to Watergate which point to her dishonesty problem.

Enough with baldfaced liars in the White House!

No, it's just her "stumbling." :rolleyes:

You clearly have no idea how delegates are apportioned. They favor "Democratic" states over "republican" states. So, Democratic states get more. weight in terms of delegates, while Republican states get less. This can be compared to the EC, which is based on population. Also, please note that delegates are not apportioned equally by population. One delegate in California has more voters for it than one in New Hampshire.


It's a recent spate in a long history of lies and deceit.


Are you going to continue to ignore the fact that polls now do not matter. The poll does show that Obama is better off to flip it. Remember that undecided voters are never stated in a poll. In that poll, they number 7%.


It's gonna be close.


At the expense of the party fracturing in two to create a 1912 redux?

Bill Clinton won a lot of "red states" so stop spewing that BS.


More proof he helps the party.

Voter Doubts About Honesty Costing Clinton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080405/pl_cq_politics/politics2698315)

Thanks for taking care of my work for me while I was away :p

Well at least you finally make clear that you suffer from RAES. You should move to central New Jersey, we pretty much only have democrats. The nearest city has Democrat A, B, and C running for mayor or town council.


You think New Jersey has a lot of Democrats, try central Massachusetts... I've met maybe ten conservatives so far this year. Out of hundreds of people.

I presonally prefer the Democratic party to the Republican - I'm socially liberal, and the Democrats are center-left on social issues, and I'm a weird mixture of center-right and center-left economics. which places me somewhat closer to the Democrats economically, too.

Thanks for taking care of my work for me while I was away :p
We must all work together to defeat CH. :)

You think New Jersey has a lot of Democrats, try central Massachusetts... I've met maybe ten conservatives so far this year. Out of hundreds of people.

I presonally prefer the Democratic party to the Republican - I'm socially liberal, and the Democrats are center-left on social issues, and I'm a weird mixture of center-right and center-left economics. which places me somewhat closer to the Democrats economically, too.
I'm an independent that favors Democrats. When election time rolls around, I will look into all candidates and see which I want for local positions regardless of party. For president, I'm already decided: Obama, McCain, Socialist. (if one isn't there, I go to the next...if one I lose interest in, same)

I'm a weird mix too
Like I'd be considered left-wing, but I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, very conservative on gay marriage and related, moderate/center-right on abortion, and so on.

Tiny update:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html

ABCNews’ Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.

“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”



Could add a little twist to things, yeh? :p

Tiny update:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html



Could add a little twist to things, yeh? :p
I swear I read a week or two ago she was strongly rebuffing even the idea of it and how she wasn't a politician.

I swear I read a week or two ago she was strongly rebuffing even the idea of it and how she wasn't a politician.

Ditto. It was out of the question, according to the cable news channels. Might still be, given that the article seems a bit sketchy, but it would make things interesting, I think.

We must all work together to defeat CH. :)


I'm an independent that favors Democrats. When election time rolls around, I will look into all candidates and see which I want for local positions regardless of party. For president, I'm already decided: Obama, McCain, Socialist. (if one isn't there, I go to the next...if one I lose interest in, same)

I'm a weird mix too
Like I'd be considered left-wing, but I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, very conservative on gay marriage and related, moderate/center-right on abortion, and so on.

I'm for the second amendment so that I can arm myself to counter all the gun nuts down south ;)

You mean the joes in Iraq that became terrorists after being SHOT AT? Having their houses and infrastructure destroyed by the unnecessary bloodshed and so on?
Picking the low-hanging fruit again, I see. What about the Democratic propensity for unnecessary war?

And then there's the little idiom about people that live in glass houses. Aren't there still a number of unaccounted for citizens that disappeared under a former government?

Picking the low-hanging fruit again, I see. What about the Democratic propensity for unnecessary war?



Both sides love unnecissary war. It has to do with increasing power.

America has been in two, arguablly three "necissary" wars since our revolution.

Civil War (this one I guess is argueable as well): Presided over by a Republican back when they were liberal
World War II: Democrat


Debatable:
World War I: Democrat, but too much a facist to count for either party.

Both sides love unnecissary war. It has to do with increasing power.

America has been in two, arguablly three "necissary" wars since our revolution.

Civil War (this one I guess is argueable as well): Presided over by a Republican back when they were liberal
World War II: Democrat


Debatable:
World War I: Democrat, but too much a facist to count for either party.
No argument here. Every single war, conflict, police action, etc, has done nothing but increase federal power.

We must all work together to defeat CH. :)

You know, he truly believes this really is like that. That it's him against all of us and that's why it appears he's losing, not because the facts don't actually support his fantastical claims. You're totally playing into his ego.

The reality is that any "working together" is coincidental. It's simply because there is really only one valid conclusion when looking at all the data.

Are you going to continue to ignore the fact that polls now do not matter.
Perhaps you need to pass that message to others, including the poster who linked to the poll I commented on? Some think that they are gospel.

The poll does show that Obama is better off to flip it.
Make up your mind about the relevance of polls. :p

Remember that undecided voters are never stated in a poll.
They aren't? That is news to me.

In that poll, they number 7%.
Yet Obama was 11% behind. Your point?

It's gonna be close.
Time will tell.

At the expense of the party fracturing in two to create a 1912 redux?
However, 62% of Dems don't think that either candidate should quit right now. Go figure?

Bill Clinton won a lot of "red states" so stop spewing that BS.
As I pointed out numerous times, Bill Clinton was able to win a number of red states because there was also two strong conservatives running and they split the vote, allowing him to win. Obama and Hillary don't have that luxury this election.

Aren't there still a number of unaccounted for citizens that disappeared under a former government?

My country or yours? o_O

We must all work together to defeat CH. :)
It is not about defeating me. It is about picking a candidate that can beat McCain. That would be Clinton.

I'm an independent that favors Democrats. When election time rolls around, I will look into all candidates and see which I want for local positions regardless of party. For president, I'm already decided: Obama, McCain, Socialist. (if one isn't there, I go to the next...if one I lose interest in, same)
If you favour McCain as second choice, why the hell would suggest that you favour Democrats?

It is not about defeating me. It is about picking a candidate that can beat McCain. That would be Clinton.



Recent polls disagree.

I would like to mention that the word "terror" has been mentioned 286 times in this thread

(Note nothing meant by this simply interesting statistic)

Edit: As I apparently was not clear that I did not word this correctly the first time (poor word choice and accidental early submital) that it became interesting to me (and perhaps) others really how big of an impact "terror" has on the voting process but less then I would have actually thought with how much "terror" is portrayed in the media

Either way interesting (to me at least)

It is not about defeating me. It is about picking a candidate that can beat McCain. That would be Clinton.

Which you keep claiming against all evidence. All evidence when taken in total suggests either they both can or only he can.

One wonders if she cannot beat Obama, why anyone would believe she'd be better suited to defeat McCain.

I would like to mention that the word "terror" has been mentioned 286 times in this thread

(Note nothing meant by this simply random statistic)

So stop spamming

Obama has been very effective at campaigning to the people. Whereever he goes, his poll numbers shoot up. This will not change in the General Election. People are mesmerized by him. Hillary wins states that she has a strong history with(NY, Arkansas) or were contested on days with many other states, thus limiting Obama's chances to speak to the people. The DNC has adopted a 50 State Stratagey...why should that change for the Presidential Election? 270 Electoral Votes is 270 electoral votes...whether its Florida and Ohio or a bunch of Mountain West States. Obama is redrawing the map. If Obama wins more delegates from Penn(Very possible), Hillary is done.

Both sides love unnecissary war. It has to do with increasing power.

America has been in two, arguablly three "necissary" wars since our revolution.

Civil War (this one I guess is argueable as well): Presided over by a Republican back when they were liberal

Considering that the Union didn't even start this one.

It is not about defeating me. It is about picking a candidate that can beat McCain. That would be Clinton.

Prove it.

If you favour McCain as second choice, why the hell would suggest that you favour Democrats?

:headbang:

My country or yours? o_O
I'd like to see some credible evidence that political dissidents are disappearing in the U.S. We usually just fake suicides, a la Vince Foster... Or audit them, or just get their FBI files.

Nope, I think this is a problem in Brazil.

And you've still avoided the issue that members of the Democratic party are responsible for bigger and more expensive wars. I'm sure we could have spent all that extra money killing mosquitoes for you, back in the '60s, and you wouldn't have all the problems you do, now.

Tiny update:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/dan-senor-condo.html



Could add a little twist to things, yeh? :p
Condi is the ultimate Useful Jew of the GOP, if the black community falls for that I will eat my hat.

Condi is the ultimate Useful Jew of the GOP, if the black community falls for that I will eat my hat.

Is Condi Jewish?

Is Condi Jewish?
It's a term.

It's a term.

Um the word you are looking for is a phrase.

I'd like to see some credible evidence that political dissidents are disappearing in the U.S. We usually just fake suicides, a la Vince Foster... Or audit them, or just get their FBI files.

Nope, I think this is a problem in Brazil.

And you've still avoided the issue that members of the Democratic party are responsible for bigger and more expensive wars. I'm sure we could have spent all that extra money killing mosquitoes for you, back in the '60s, and you wouldn't have all the problems you do, now.

Myrmi, the last time there were politically-motivated disappearances, at least government-sponsored ones, it was under a dictatorship that the US sponsored, from 43 to 23 years ago, 1964-1984.

Brazil may have SEVERAL problems, and crime may even cause MORE disappearances than politically-motivated ones would, but you may be getting your countries mixed up there.

Although some right-wing (see a pattern?) politicians in our Northeastern region DO sometimes have political enemies offed, but this isn't a government thing, nor is it that frequent. That and in all but one of the times it was well-investigated, the "one" time being in about '96.

As for expensive, Democrats started Vietnam back when they were CONSERVATIVE.

As for the '60s, you spent more than enough money sponsoring the coup here. A coup which was re-proposed by the Washington Times. Conservatives. Again. CLAIMING to favor democracy.

Obama has been very effective at campaigning to the people. Whereever he goes, his poll numbers shoot up. This will not change in the General Election. People are mesmerized by him.
The spell will dissapate and people will recognize him for what he is and that is a politician with a good speech writer. The Republican party will expose the soft underbelly in the general election.

Hillary wins states that she has a strong history with(NY, Arkansas) or were contested on days with many other states, thus limiting Obama's chances to speak to the people.
Hillary has a strong enough presence in enough states to comfortably win the general election. It might not be pretty but it will be effective.

The DNC has adopted a 50 State Stratagey...why should that change for the Presidential Election?
As I stated before, it is admirable to have a "50 State Strategy", but if you end up eroding the base and lose the election, then the policy is a failure.

270 Electoral Votes is 270 electoral votes...whether its Florida and Ohio or a bunch of Mountain West States. Obama is redrawing the map.
Obama is "redrawing the map", how so?

Current polls suggest that Clinton has a better chance than Obama at winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (http://www.electoral-vote.com) (a total of 68 electoral votes). How many "Mountain West States" would Obama have to win to equal that number? And just how well is Obama polling in those "Mountain West States" against McCain? How about in the 30's?

If Obama wins more delegates from Penn(Very possible),
I don't think so, and I hope not.

Hillary is done.
When she says she is done.

The spell will dissapate and people will recognize him for what he is and that is a politician with a good speech writer. The Republican party will expose the soft underbelly in the general election.

You know what will be easier? Getting people to vote against Hillary. When 40% of the electorat hates you, you have an uphill battle. Thats 40% of the electorate garunteed for McCain, especially moderate Republicans and Independens.


Hillary has a strong enough presence in enough states to comfortably win the general election. It might not be pretty but it will be effective.

McCain has just as strong a pressence, and will win the moderate Republicans and Independens.

As I stated before, it is admirable to have a "50 State Strategy", but if you end up eroding the base and lose the election, then the policy is a failure.

You mean like what Clinton will do?

Current polls suggest that Clinton has a better chance than Obama at winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (http://www.electoral-vote.com) (a total of 68 electoral votes). How many "Mountain West States" would Obama have to win to equal that number? And just how well is Obama polling in those "Mountain West States" against McCain? How about in the 30's?

I disagree. My gut says those polls are wrong. ;)


When she says she is done.

Which she wont say shes done until she has brought the house down, only to then run again in 2012 and say "I told you so!!!", hoping average Joe voter forgets her scorched earth destroy those who didnt nominate me strategy that gave the election to McCain.

As for expensive, Democrats started Vietnam back when they were CONSERVATIVE.


I would beg you to define what CONSERVATIVE meant during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. These are the same administrations that created the "Great Society" give-away, influenced as they were by the "New Frontier" proposaled give-away.

Nope, Democrats were the same then as they are now... Maybe a little more conscious of national security and a little more likely to make a deal to govern, rather than obstruct, but they were basically the same as now -- give away money to buy votes.

I would beg you to define what CONSERVATIVE meant during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. These are the same administrations that created the "Great Society" give-away, influenced as they were by the "New Frontier" proposaled give-away.

Nope, Democrats were the same then as they are now... Maybe a little more conscious of national security and a little more likely to make a deal to govern, rather than obstruct, but they were basically the same as now -- give away money to buy votes.

Well, pre-1970s they were "give away money to buy voters as long as they werent black".


Thats the key difference.

I would beg you to define what CONSERVATIVE meant during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. These are the same administrations that created the "Great Society" give-away, influenced as they were by the "New Frontier" proposaled give-away.

Nope, Democrats were the same then as they are now... Maybe a little more conscious of national security and a little more likely to make a deal to govern, rather than obstruct, but they were basically the same as now -- give away money to buy votes.

And Bush's special tax rebate this year is pure coincidence.

Maybe a little more conscious of national security

Funny definition of "conscious" you've got there. They got in a war that screwed the US a hundred times over. And yes, they were conservative by several accounts. Including sponsoring coups, of which my country was a victim.

And which several conservatives have shown themselves as eager to repeat.


SIDEBAR A:
Axis of Evil Expands to Lula

* The “axis of evil” is proving to be a remarkably elastic concept, with rightists prominent in the U.S. media using Lula’s election to promote anxieties about a united bloc of supposedly agressive leftist nations in Latin America.
* While the centrist media’s take on Brazil’s new president is that he must adhere to “pro-market” policis, Luis Ignacio “Lula” da Silva is also obligated, in the eyes of more right-leaning papers and commentators, to disprove accusations that he is part of a Latin “axis of evil” (Constantine Menges, Washington Times, 8/7/02).
* Desert News (Salt Lake City) columnist Delroy Murdoch (10/6/02) labeled Lula “an anti-American radical with an appetite for atom bombs.” Brazil may have long abandoned its nuclear-arms program and has signed an international treaty banning the development of such weapons inside its borders, but hard-line rightists like Murdoch and Menges have tried to stir up worries that Lula will somehow develop atomic “weapons of mass destruction.”
* Meanwhile, the rightist Pittsburgh Tribune Review furiously blasted CIA chief George Tenet for “neglect and perfidy,” presumably for allowing Brazil’s democratic process to unfold without interference (10/20/02).
* The Castroite charge was repeated by the Chicago Tribune (10/8/02), which editorialized that Lula is “a labor firebrand who claims Castro and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez among his buddies.” Going even further, Orlando Sentinel columnist Myriam Marquez (10/29/02) proclaimed that “Lula and Chavez worship Cuba’s Fidel Castro.”
* But the notion of Castro somehow influencing Lula’s programmatic direction even seeped into the New York Times (Larry Rohter article 10/31/02). The distinction between Lula’s unwavering opposition to Cuba’s 40-year embargo by the U.S. and emulating Castro’s economic and political structures appears to be too subtle for a substantial slice of the U.S. media.


http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Feb2003/bybee0203.html

Edwards '12....

Edwards '12....

Edwards' political career, as in becoming President, is essentially over.

It won't be out of spite. It will be for the better candidate, which McCain is by far.

I have yet to see much of a logical explanation for why one would support Obama, but be more willing to vote for McCain over Clinton.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues -- and where they do differ, McCain is far worse on the issue.

And yes. McCain is much better candidate than Billary.

How is that?

To be honest, I'd take another four years of Bush over Hillary. At least we know what craziness we're in for. With her, I shudder to think how this country would be.


That is just inane. What exactly about Clinton justifies this irrational fear? She is far more liberal than McCain.

I find it curious that when McCain or Obama "reach across the aisle" with a position that appeals to independents and members of the opposition party they are lauded for their statesmanship and moderation. When Clinton does the same thing, it is discounted as proof she is phony and as political manuevering.

December 1998 when Bill Clinton used the WMD excuse to bomb the shit out of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox.

Come now. You are just being silly.

1. The FOUR DAYS of STRATEGIC BOMBING in December 1988 hardly compares to the FIVE-YEAR-PLUS ongoing WAR we are in now.

2. Operation Desert Fox was in support of UN sanctions and UN weapons inspectors.

3. Iraq posed a real threat of WMDs in 1988, but not in 2003. We now have every reason to believe that one of the primary reasons Saddam lacked WMDs in 2003 is because of the earlier actions taken against Iraq, such as the December 1988 strikes.

So you are basically turning reality on its head in claiming that the same justifications for Operation Desert Fox justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.:headbang:

Billary is just as much a threat to the world as McCain is.

Bullshit. Prove it.

You are a nut if you think McCain is thirsty for blood and a fucking stooge.

McCain is much more hawkish on foreign policy than Senator Clinton. McCain is a fucking stooge as evidence by his sucking up to the Bush administration on numerous issues, including the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts.

I hope that does happen in the end.

So yet another poster who pontificates about how Senator Clinton's continuing candidacy should stop, but who actually opposes the Democratic Party itself. Why should we Democrats listen to you?

I'm an independent that favors Democrats. When election time rolls around, I will look into all candidates and see which I want for local positions regardless of party. For president, I'm already decided: Obama, McCain, Socialist. (if one isn't there, I go to the next...if one I lose interest in, same)

I'm a weird mix too
Like I'd be considered left-wing, but I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter, very conservative on gay marriage and related, moderate/center-right on abortion, and so on.

You are a very weird mix. It is hard to see how someone who makes McCain his second choice can be considered to "favor Democrats."

On what exact issues is McCain and the Socialist Party both preferrable to Clinton if she is nominated?

I would beg you to define what CONSERVATIVE meant during the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. These are the same administrations that created the "Great Society" give-away, influenced as they were by the "New Frontier" proposaled give-away.

Nope, Democrats were the same then as they are now... Maybe a little more conscious of national security and a little more likely to make a deal to govern, rather than obstruct, but they were basically the same as now -- give away money to buy votes.

So, when it comes to defining Republicans and conservatives, we should ignore the last 40 to 48 years of history? :rolleyes::p

Let alone that we should treat Democrats like they are stuck in 1964.

Even if we took this advice, shouldn't the conclusion be that one should vote for Kennedy & Johnson rather than Nixon & Goldwater? ;)

:gundge: As an outsider who has no right to vote in this election I think Mcain will win.
Ok first off not necessarially my choice but....... Let's think about this for a minute an old man, a Woman, and a black man(biracial whatever same dif). If we go with the US mantality as a whole, you know the knotheads who elected Bush not once but twice! These, mostly southern bigots, people would never vote for a woman or a black man so really if the ancientJohn Mcain can just live till election day he'll win. Now whether he's better than the others.... let's just say he's got to be better than Bush, than again my 5 year ild son could of out witted him. This brings me to my last point, most importantley Texas will finally have it's village IDIOT back and I'm not slitting Texas, it's a great state and I wouldn't let on bad apple spoil the barrel but on a side note he almost spoiled the whole barrel when it comes to that big old one called The united states of america.

:gundge: As an outsider who has no right to vote in this election I think Mcain will win.
Ok first off not necessarially my choice but....... Let's think about this for a minute an old man, a Woman, and a black man(biracial whatever same dif). If we go with the US mantality as a whole, you know the knotheads who elected Bush not once but twice! These, mostly southern bigots, people would never vote for a woman or a black man so really if the ancientJohn Mcain can just live till election day he'll win. Now whether he's better than the others.... let's just say he's got to be better than Bush, than again my 5 year ild son could of out witted him. This brings me to my last point, most importantley Texas will finally have it's village IDIOT back and I'm not slitting Texas, it's a great state and I wouldn't let on bad apple spoil the barrel but on a side note he almost spoiled the whole barrel when it comes to that big old one called The united states of america.


To be fair, your 5 year old son could also probably have typed that more coherantly than you did.

I have yet to see much of a logical explanation for why one would support Obama, but be more willing to vote for McCain over Clinton.

Clinton and Obama are nigh identical on the issues -- and where they do differ, McCain is far worse on the issue.

Frankly, I've made no bones about it - the presidency is about foreign policy and leadership. Mrs. Hillary "I lie about running from non-existant snipers" Clinton doesn't have the needed experience or charisma to work those. McCain and Obama do. (Living the "real expat" life overseas and time spent in the Hanoi Hilton trump attending First Lady affairs, "running " from non-existsant snipers in Bosnia, and nearly screwing up the N. Ireland peace process.)

That is just inane. What exactly about Clinton justifies this irrational fear? She is far more liberal than McCain.

I find it curious that when McCain or Obama "reach across the aisle" with a position that appeals to independents and members of the opposition party they are lauded for their statesmanship and moderation. When Clinton does the same thing, it is discounted as proof she is phony and as political manuevering.

Perception is everything. If she can't work whatever bipartisan activity she's been working (I'm not sure exactly what that would be - she's not made it an issue as far as I can tell...), then that's a tactical minus, isn't it?

1. The FOUR DAYS of STRATEGIC BOMBING in December 1988 hardly compares to the FIVE-YEAR-PLUS ongoing WAR we are in now.

2. Operation Desert Fox was in support of UN sanctions and UN weapons inspectors.

3. Iraq posed a real threat of WMDs in 1988, but not in 2003. We now have every reason to believe that one of the primary reasons Saddam lacked WMDs in 2003 is because of the earlier actions taken against Iraq, such as the December 1988 strikes.

So you are basically turning reality on its head in claiming that the same justifications for Operation Desert Fox justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.:headbang:

Desert Fox was a continuation of the FUBARed Iraq policy extending from post-GWI until now. The only good thing I can say re that one was that after that OP, Iraq's offensive WMD programs were gone. Too bad neither the Clinton admin nor the Bush II admin. could get vbtheir intel. in order. Bill Clinton is as much responsible for the fiasco in Iraq as GWBush.


McCain is much more hawkish on foreign policy than Senator Clinton. McCain is a fucking stooge as evidence by his sucking up to the Bush administration on numerous issues, including the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts.

A few things.

Clinton is Hawkish. I'd rather not have a hawk in office. B ut If we're going to have one, I see McCain as more compretent.

Perception > all yet again.

McCain's "sucking up" is seen by some of us as mere political manuvering.

Personally, I see Obama as pretty honest, McCain as fairly honest but tainted and in need of watching re the facists, and Clinton as completely dishonest and not at all trustworthy.

So yet another poster who pontificates about how Senator Clinton's continuing candidacy should stop, but who actually opposes the Democratic Party itself. Why should we Democrats listen to you?


First off, I'm not the person whom that was directed towards. However, as someone who's been a GOP leaning indy and now supports a Dem, I say listen to us because we are the vital middle, without whom neither party can win.

You are a very weird mix. It is hard to see how someone who makes McCain his second choice can be considered to "favor Democrats."

My reasonings here:
I can trust Obama, relatively speaking.
I can kind of trust McCain, and realise he's taking positions to please the "base", which I don't expect him to go whole hog on.
I do not trust Clinton at all.

You trust McCain but don't believe he'll follow his promises?

Isn't that mutually exclusive?

Finally an article that sums up most of what I have been saying and then presenting a whole new perspective on this whole nomination process.

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/)

Some selected comments:

If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257.

But Clinton does not now have 1,743 delegates. According to CNN estimates, Clinton has about 1,242 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,413. Most of that total is based on the peculiar way that delegates are apportioned in 2008. Some of it is because Obama's backers are using the same kind of tactics as George Bush's camp used in Florida in 2000.

Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida. (And let's note that in a winner-take-all system, Clinton would still be leading in delegates, 1,430 to 1,257, even without Michigan and Florida.) Under the existing system, Obama's current lead in the popular vote would nearly vanish if the results from Michigan and Florida were included in the total, and his lead in pledged delegates would melt almost to nothing. The difference in the popular vote would fall to 94,005 out of nearly 27 million cast thus far -- a difference of a mere four-tenths of 1 percentage point -- and the difference in delegates would plummet to about 30, out of the 2,024 needed to win.

The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.

Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama's supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be "fraud proof." (Obama himself, it's important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.)

And on the 2nd page:

Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html)

Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.) Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military.

In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama's delegates come from now. The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. (Idaho and Wyoming, for example, where Obama won caucuses, are not going to vote for either Clinton or Obama come fall.) Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won.

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures (as of late March) updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.
Thank you Sean Wilentz. :D

Finally an article that sums up most of what I have been saying and then presenting a whole new perspective on this whole nomination process.

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/)

Some selected comments:






And on the 2nd page:

Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html)






Thank you Sean Wilentz. :D



Once again, your arguement hinges on opinion peices that ignore some key facts.


The ultimate irony is the last paragraph, that accuses Obama of thinking of democracy in terms of "whatever benefits Barrack Obama." Says the supporter of someone who agreed to bar Florida and Michigan until she got her teeth kicked in.


Pot, Kettle, Black.

Once again, your arguement hinges on opinion peices that ignore some key facts.


The ultimate irony is the last paragraph, that accuses Obama of thinking of democracy in terms of "whatever benefits Barrack Obama." Says the supporter of someone who agreed to bar Florida and Michigan until she got her teeth kicked in.


Pot, Kettle, Black.

He's also supporting the woman who said "pledged delegates aren't pledged".

So democratic that she wants to eschew the will of the voters.