NationStates Jolt Archive

The dems are already attacking McCain. So is she to some degree. There is no reason to believe her attacks would be significantly more effective than those already being made. You've made a non-argument.



Yet you suggest the supers should use the polls, while ignoring their context, in order to override the results of all of the contests so far.

To point 1: Hillary is not attacking McCain like she would if she were the clear nominee. Given the two different styles of the Obama camp and the Clinton camp, I think it's clear that the arguments of Obama would not all be the same as the arguments from Clinton.

To point 2: I have argued no such thing. All that I've said about the supers regarding poll numbers is that the polls are close enough the Clinton should not yet be ruled out. I never said that they clearly favor her or that the supers should vote for her because she's ahead in the polls.

Hillary's only mistake (well, not only, but you know what I mean) was underestimating Obama. She paid for it pretty harshly right in the beginning. This is not a mistake that I think she would repeat. On the other hand, Obama has been running full tilt this whole campaign, and things are still pretty even. Like I said, after the initial burst, Clinton has done better than Obama and had more momentum.

Given that she only started doing even remotely well when she started getting Republican support (basically at the moment she lost frontrunner status) I'd say that's a pretty hollow argument. You require us to ignore the context for Hillary and make up context for Obama. That's not really an argument.

As to the Clinton lead in the polls, I think I addressed that, though it may not have been clear enough. Let me know if you'd like me to reiterate.

You didn't. Again, she is being supported by Republicans right now and Obama supporters have no reason to upset with her. This is not currently true of Obama. However, you flip the entire contest with party insiders in the year of change and watch her sink like a rock in helium.

To Pirated Corsairs:

Perhaps you weren't blindsided by Obama, but a lot of people were. I agree that the Clinton camp should have been prepared, but they were not. As I've stated, this is not a mistake I think they will make twice.
Nope. Once was enough.

So much for ready to lead from day one. Her campaign has been a fiasco. They didn't know the rules even though they made them. They only stayed in it by changing the rules. There strongest argument doesn't count 4 states doesn't count the other candidate's supporters from a fifth state and weights 2 illegal contests over the four they didn't count. They've been caught threatening supers and party leaders both publically and privately. And so far, for the most part, no one has harped on these points. In the general, she's made it utterly clear that she can't competently set up a run for the Dem candidate in a year she started as the presumptive nominee.

And all of this ignores that she's been caught circulating scandalous rumors about Obama. McCain is well-liked by both the media and the populous, much like Obama, and he is running a campaign of rising above petty politics and she is embroiled in it. She would be shredded.

Damn, some good responses. Unfortunately, I don't have time to reply to them just now.

I will be back tomorrow morning, and I will hop back on some of these arguments. In the mean time, start thinking up some more good stuff.

I'm having a blast. Thank you to all.



*Thumbs up*

Damn, some good responses. Unfortunately, I don't have time to reply to them just now.

I will be back tomorrow morning, and I will hop back on some of these arguments. In the mean time, start thinking up some more good stuff.

I'm having a blast. Thank you to all.



*Thumbs up*

I so wish all of my opponents in arguments would be like you. :p

(Devil's advocate or not)

To point 1: Hillary is not attacking McCain like she would if she were the clear nominee. Given the two different styles of the Obama camp and the Clinton camp, I think it's clear that the arguments of Obama would not all be the same as the arguments from Clinton.

But they would be the same as the Democratic party which is already attacking McCain in full force. There is something wrong with a candidate that is trying harder to damage her party than the presumptive Republican nominee, but if you'd like to continue harping that as a good thing, go for it.

Meanwhile, as you say she isn't full-force attacking McCain, something she should do regardless of the nominee. If Clinton doesn't manage to fix her errors of the end the campaign and help Obama win, then her first name will be a swear word for eight years and you can rest assured of that. An argument for the Clinton attack machine lends to Obama. Because if it is truly that effective and is currently attacking Obama and will turn to McCain even IF Obama is the nominee, then it's a double threat in the strength of Obama's candidacy.


To point 2: I have argued no such thing. All that I've said about the supers regarding poll numbers is that the polls are close enough the Clinton should not yet be ruled out. I never said that they clearly favor her or that the supers should vote for her because she's ahead in the polls.

You've argued she's the stronger candidate and supported that with the polls. You're flipping on that? Additionally, if the polls are close enough, then why should the supers flip over the results of every legal contest? She lost. Why should the party insiders bother to give it to her after she proved a weak candidate in the primaries?

Damn, some good responses. Unfortunately, I don't have time to reply to them just now.

I will be back tomorrow morning, and I will hop back on some of these arguments. In the mean time, start thinking up some more good stuff.

I'm having a blast. Thank you to all.



*Thumbs up*

You're doing a good job. Like I said, if you're actually playing Devil's Advocate then you should be careful about consistency. It's very difficult to keep an argument straight you don't believe in, necessarily, and as such you might want to either note arguments or post numbers so you can keep a good track on your attack. Overall, though, I'm impressed.

Careful, you're getting a bit inflammatory here. ;)

If you look at the recent polls that have Clinton heavily (or at the very least, slightly) favored over McCain, you can see that she can't be that polarizing. She is apparently winning some swing votes, and with all of McCain's backtracking and his swiftly losing independents, she has a good chance at winning a lot of them. She could not be posting the kind of numbers that she is, regardless of the campaign situation, if she had no appeal to Republicans or Independents.

Any candidate running virtually unopposed is going to have fairly high numbers. And, right now, the Republicans are largely supporting Clinton over Obama to try and push the Democratic race even longer.

What happens to those numbers if the Republican attack machine gets turned on her?

Hopefully this is true, as Obama would be better than McCain. But, as we've been over, I believe Clinton to be the better candidate. It may not take the best candidate to beat McCain in November, but we should put the stronger candidate (Clinton) out there, just in case.

This type of argument doesn't work well for an Independent voter. It could certainly work for the party faithful. To them, the point is to get a Democrat in office.

But for an Independent like me, "Get our party in office" isn't a compelling argument. And I don't see Clinton as a particularly good candidate.

I think you're speculating a bit too much. It's a given that the Republicans will bring out new attacks against Clinton, just as they will against Obama. There is nothing to indicate that she could not handle such attacks. Obama has run a pretty clean campaign; I'll give him that. But let's not pretend that there were no attack ads run by his side. Hillary has so far done well enough to stay in it, and even to overcome to some extent the lead that Obama built up right off the bat.

Obama didn't build up a lead "right off the bat." There was still a very unclear race - with Clinton counted as the frontrunner, up until after Super Tuesday. Even then, his lead wasn't particularly clear. It was the numerous contests he won after that which put him over the top - contests he won by actually having grassroots campaigns in all contests, instead of just the "important ones".

I don't think squandering an inevitable win speaks to her electability.

On the other hand, Obama has not handled his criticisms very well, taking relatively significant hits in popularity after some of his failings were aired. This should go in Clinton's column, if you ask me.

I actually think he's handled them quite well, especially given that most of the "failings" were BS attacks. He's even done well after people stopped attacking Clinton and have turned their attention almost solely to him.

It will interesting to see if the Super Delegates do to Obama what SCOTUS did to Al Gore. If it goes to Hillary because of them, the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat party elite will be black eye that won't easily fade.

So you think the Republicans aren't going to ratchet it up in the general election agains Obama? You think this is all they can muster? Regardless of which nominee wins the candidacy, the Republicans are going to put up more of a fight.

Of course they will. But they are currently attacking him while praising her and he's still running fairly even with her. Do you think they'd continue praising her if she was the nominee?

Secondly, if it was nearness to the election that hurt Obama, how is he going to fare well in the general? That's going to be a constant stream of attacks, many of which will happen right before the election. If nearness to the election is a weakness for Obama, he has some serious concerns.

Nearness to the election is a weakness for everyone. It's not specific to Obama.

Nobody is going to be ignoring primary results. Obama clearly has the delegate lead; however, he has not sealed it. This leaves the door open for the superdelegates to vote as they see fit. I'm making the case that what they should see fit is to vote for Hillary. There is still a chance for either candidate to win this contest fairly, even though the odds do certainly favor Obama right now.

He has sealed the lead in the pledged delegates. If the superdelegates overrule them, it will be overruling the results of the actual primary contests.

That's within the rules, but I don't think it would fare well for the party.

Hillary's only mistake (well, not only, but you know what I mean) was underestimating Obama.

So she would have been right to act like the presumptive nominee and choose not to campaign in many states if he wasn't in the race?

I don't buy it.

Obama has built up grassroots campaigns in many states - and will likely give McCain a run for his money in states that Clinton would have ignored in a general election. Clinton doesn't have that, and wouldn't if Obama wasn't in the race - because she didn't bother building strong campaigns in many areas.

Like I said, after the initial burst, Clinton has done better than Obama and had more momentum.

Again, I don't buy it. She's only done fairly consistently better recently, when Obama has turned his attention to the general. She had a few slight wins that she tried to turn into momentum, but it didn't really happen for her.

Obama had the initial win in Iowa. Then a great showing in Super Tuesday. Then something like 11 contests in a row that Clinton didn't even really contest. I don't think you can make the argument that Clinton has developed more momentum.

We can.

Truth be told, Obama blind-sided everybody except Illinoisans (?). It's no surprise that Clinton didn't know what to expect from him, especially given his lack of experience politically in general. After the initial momentum that he picked up, things calmed down for him quite a bit. Hillary was caught off guard at the beginning, and she probably shouldn't have been, but we all know what we can expect from McCain, and Hillary has proven that she can run an effective campaign even after being put in an early hole by a relative unknown.

We should not make the mistake of attributing Obama's rise to prominence to a defect in Hillary Clinton. Instead, we should see it for what it was, which is a particular strength of Obama's, namely rhetoric.

I'll say this, if you're not savvy enough to find out about your opponents when it's this important, you are very poor at whatever sport your participating in. In this case, the sport is politics and if she was blindsided, and I believe she was, then she is not nearly as good as you claim.

The Bulls: We're much better than the Knicks.
The Press: You just got your ass kicked by the Knicks. In what world should that make us send you to the championship. Not only did you get your ass kicked, you got your ass kicked so badly that only a change in the rules by the refs and then support by those same refs would save you.

You're doing a good job. Like I said, if you're actually playing Devil's Advocate then you should be careful about consistency. It's very difficult to keep an argument straight you don't believe in, necessarily, and as such you might want to either note arguments or post numbers so you can keep a good track on your attack. Overall, though, I'm impressed.

Indeed. If I hadn't seen the original post, I'd have no idea he's playing Devil's Advocate at all.

=)

Indeed. If I hadn't seen the original post, I'd have no idea he's playing Devil's Advocate at all.

=)

Plus, he's arguing WELL. He's not playing victim, he's actually talking to us.

Hillary has so far done well enough to stay in it, and even to overcome to some extent the lead that Obama built up right off the bat.
If by "right off the bat" you mean "starting at the Iowa primaries." Clinton was the presumed favorite and Obama was the underdog. He plowed over Clinton and would have won long ago were he not black and Clinton playing some bullshit sexism cards. Not only that, but what scandals came up has not slowed down his campaign nor has what wins Clinton has garnered stopped her from hemorrhaging support to Obama.

Indeed. If I hadn't seen the original post, I'd have no idea he's playing Devil's Advocate at all.

=)

I saw him say it and then I kind of forgot he had. That's why I worded the way I did. I didn't want to assume he didn't believe any of it. That would be rude (until I have evidence of contradiction).

I saw him say it and then I kind of forgot he had.

That means he's GOOD. :p

I want a response to this from Shal or CH or some other Clinton supporter who vows to vote McSame.
I stated much earlier that I would vote for Nader before I voted for Obama. McCain is obviously not an option I would pursue.

It is more and more apparent that Democratic supporters are killing themselves. I truly hope that the party learns from this debacle this year and move their party forward in a more progressive manner to enable them a shot at the Presidency in 2012.

I suggest doing away with caucuses and having a one day 50 State primary election instead of dragging this nonsense over 6 to 8 months.

Get rid of the superdelegates, and only allow card carrying Democrats to elect their leader.

Most votes wins.

I stated much earlier that I would vote for Nader before I voted for Obama. McCain is obviously not an option I would pursue.

It is more and more apparent that Democratic supporters are killing themselves. I truly hope that the party learns from this debacle this year and move their party forward in a more progressive manner to enable them a shot at the Presidency in 2012.

I suggest doing away with caucuses and having a one day 50 State primary election instead of dragging this nonsense over 6 to 8 months.

Get rid of the superdelegates, and only allow card carrying Democrats to elect their leader.

Most votes wins.

1- Without superdelegates, this thing would have been over back in Oregon. With Obama nominated.

2- You claim the Democrats are "killing themselves". Prove it. Or admit that here you are, making baseless claims, acting as if Obama already lost the White House, when the fact remains he's got much more chance there than Hillary or McCain.

3- Most votes would ALSO carry the election for Obama.

I stated much earlier that I would vote for Nader before I voted for Obama. McCain is obviously not an option I would pursue.

It is more and more apparent that Democratic supporters are killing themselves. I truly hope that the party learns from this debacle this year and move their party forward in a more progressive manner to enable them a shot at the Presidency in 2012.

I suggest doing away with caucuses and having a one day 50 State primary election instead of dragging this nonsense over 6 to 8 months.

Get rid of the superdelegates, and only allow card carrying Democrats to elect their leader.

Most votes wins.

In theory, I like the idea, but that would tend, I think, to favor establishment candidates so strongly that anybody who wasn't the inevitable insider at the beginning would have no chance.
However, I agree that the calendar should be compressed: Given these two issues I would favor a small string of 4 or 5 early primaries in early January, which would consist of smaller states (the states either being on a rotation or drawn by a lot from a list of eligible states). After this, there would be a series of 4 or 5 "Super Tuesdays" with no more than 2 weeks or so between each.

I'm not set on this, but from what I can see so far it might be the best solution.

It is more and more apparent that Democratic supporters are killing themselves. I truly hope that the party learns from this debacle this year and move their party forward in a more progressive manner to enable them a shot at the Presidency in 2012.

You do realize that you are part of the party "killing itself," correct? You're killing the party by not voting for it, for refusing to accept what doesn't go your way, for acting as if your candidate of choice is God's Own and the only way to win. You are the ones causing a rift. You are the people who will cost us the Presidency in the fall. You are the same who will bitch at the Democratic party in 2010 when McCain has murdered more Americans and reduced your civil liberties. It is you, my friend, not Obama, not his campaign, not his supporters, not RHC, not RHC's campaign: it is you. Realize that this buck passing of blaming the RNC or Obama or mean people or whoever the fuck you want to will not, I repeat, will not, change the outcome of this. From this point on, I accuse you and any other Clinton supporter willing to vote Republican over hubris, traitors to the Democratic Party. You have brought this house of cards upon yourself, and expect the repercussions to last for more than you can imagine. You are all Republicans in sheep's clothing, masquerading under the name of the Great Clintons (tm) to forge your machine politics. Once you take this outfit off, maybe ten or twenty years down the road, you'll laugh. Hee hee, ha ha, I voted Republican in 2008. Let me tell you this: the blood of the innocents who will die will be on your voting hands. Accept this supposed injustice now, or feel the guilt and shame for the rest of your lives. Think I'm wrong? I'm not. No. John McCain will win the Presidential Election in 2008, and the blame will lay at the feet of Clinton supporters. I wish you luck in your endeavors as a Republican, I hear they have great parties.

Mistake not the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

You do realize that you are part of the party "killing itself," correct? You're killing the party by not voting for it, for refusing to accept what doesn't go your way, for acting as if your candidate of choice is God's Own and the only way to win. You are the ones causing a rift. You are the people who will cost us the Presidency in the fall. You are the same who will bitch at the Democratic party in 2010 when McCain has murdered more Americans and reduced your civil liberties. It is you, my friend, not Obama, not his campaign, not his supporters, not RHC, not RHC's campaign: it is you. Realize that this buck passing of blaming the RNC or Obama or mean people or whoever the fuck you want to will not, I repeat, will not, change the outcome of this. From this point on, I accuse you and any other Clinton supporter willing to vote Republican over hubris, traitors to the Democratic Party. You have brought this house of cards upon yourself, and expect the repercussions to last for more than you can imagine. You are all Republicans in sheep's clothing, masquerading under the name of the Great Clintons (tm) to forge your machine politics. Once you take this outfit off, maybe ten or twenty years down the road, you'll laugh. Hee hee, ha ha, I voted Republican in 2008. Let me tell you this: the blood of the innocents who will die will be on your voting hands. Accept this supposed injustice now, or feel the guilt and shame for the rest of your lives. Think I'm wrong? I'm not. No. John McCain will win the Presidential Election in 2008, and the blame will lay at the feet of Clinton supporters. I wish you luck in your endeavors as a Republican, I hear they have great parties.

Mistake not the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

Relax, McCain will not carry the White House.

Though I don't disagree with you if he does.

In theory, I like the idea, but that would tend, I think, to favor establishment candidates so strongly that anybody who wasn't the inevitable insider at the beginning would have no chance.
However, I agree that the calendar should be compressed: Given these two issues I would favor a small string of 4 or 5 early primaries in early January, which would consist of smaller states (the states either being on a rotation or drawn by a lot from a list of eligible states). After this, there would be a series of 4 or 5 "Super Tuesdays" with no more than 2 weeks or so between each.

I'm not set on this, but from what I can see so far it might be the best solution.

His theory is more than favorable to insiders. It also favors HUGE states. This would give any information about the ability of candidates to withstand the process, it wouldn't vet candidates and it would give them a chance to rise up and fundraise. None of these things would tested by the process the way it is now. Also, he ignores that registering as a democrat doesn't force you to vote democrat in the general. As a Republican, one could EASILY register as a Dem anyway. Additionally, you get a more radical candidate than the Republicans would. They would capture the center and GOODBYE Dems.

If it were a process of ranking candidates you might get a better result in the process he suggests, but with just a plain vote, it's HIGHLY unlikely any outsider would EVER have a chance, which is really a shame.

You do realize that you are part of the party "killing itself," correct?
He's Canadian, he can't even vote in our election. (the "Canuck" is a dead give away.)

What about time zone primaries?

once a month a group of states within a timezone votes in teh primary and then from there they plan for the next group of states in teh next timezone over.

start west and head east or vice versa.

What about time zone primaries?

once a month a group of states within a timezone votes in teh primary and then from there they plan for the next group of states in teh next timezone over.

start west and head east or vice versa.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/National-atlas-timezones-2006.gif

Check the red lines and the state lines...

1- Without superdelegates, this thing would have been over back in Oregon. With Obama nominated.

probably earlier, given that he has always led in delegates

probably earlier, given that he has always led in delegates

True enough, but I'm even cutting them some slack because I'm THAT nice.

What about time zone primaries?

once a month a group of states within a timezone votes in teh primary and then from there they plan for the next group of states in teh next timezone over.

start west and head east or vice versa.

California would dominate PST; Texas, Ohio, and Michigan would dominate M/CST; Florida, New York, New Jersey dominates EST.

Look, it's not that the system isn't clunky, but it wasn't thrown together willy nilly either. The primaries are spread out to give the candidates a chance to introduce themselves to voters and for voters to get to know them in a way that 'mass' primaries don't allow for. Representing a nation this large is a more complex thing than just counting heads. How do you insure that rural concerns are met? That small population states aren't steamrolled? California is 13% of the population, do we get to set the tone for the nation? Sure, we should have a say since we represent so many people, but that can come at the cost of a state not set up the way we are or with a populace that doesn't have the same priorities.

It's imperfect, and has been. California hasn't had a 'real' primary since I've been aware until this year, and even then Edwards dropped out before we got a say. But for the most part you don't want to just trade problems but address them without causing the ones the system was designed to fix.

Relax, McCain will not carry the White House.

Though I don't disagree with you if he does.

I won't be surprised if he does though. Especially now.

He's Canadian, he can't even vote in our election. (the "Canuck" is a dead give away.)

General you, i.e. Clinton supporter. Technically, CH doesn't fall under my melodramatic rant, I know. But being theatrical is fun. :D :p

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote,

This has repeatedly been shown to be false. :headbang:

but is going to lose the nomination.

I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

What does openly compromising your ethincs in the pursuit a falsehood say about you?

[sidebar]
What kind of employment does a B.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for these days?

Lots of stuff, like most liberal arts degrees.
http://www.uwf.edu/govt/alumni/jjcareers2002.htm

What does a M.A. in Poly Sci qualify one for? More grad school? After you do your post-doc work and still can't find a teaching job -- what then?

More specific stuff: http://www.apsanet.org/section_412.cfm

Alright, since clearly our two resident Clinton supporters seem to be blatantly ignoring any fair and/or valid points levied against them and are reducing this "debate" to nothing more than constant repititions of indefensible positions, I am going to attempt to play Devil's Advocate.

-snip-

Bravo!

It will interesting to see if the Super Delegates do to Obama what SCOTUS did to Al Gore. If it goes to Hillary because of them, the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrat party elite will be black eye that won't easily fade.

Indeed so.

1- Without superdelegates, this thing would have been over back in Oregon. With Obama nominated.
Not true. You only took part of my premise and ran with it. When you include the totality of my suggested improvements to the Democratic nomination process, there would not be an "over back in Oregon" option.

2- You claim the Democrats are "killing themselves". Prove it. Or admit that here you are, making baseless claims, acting as if Obama already lost the White House, when the fact remains he's got much more chance there than Hillary or McCain.
Read the news articles, check the polls, and you will see why and how the Dems are killing themselves. I am not making this up, but I did make some predictions earlier about some things that are showing up in the present.

3- Most votes would ALSO carry the election for Obama.
When you change the whole dynamics of the nomination process your supposition here is only an opinion.

Bravo!

To be more specific, the guy argues for a point of view he does not have better than the two people here that HAVE that point of view.

Not true. You only took part of my premise and ran with it. When you include the totality of my suggested improvements to the Democratic nomination process, there would not be an "over back in Oregon" option.


Read the news articles, check the polls, and you will see why and how the Dems are killing themselves. I am not making this up, but I did make some predictions earlier about some things that are showing up in the present.


When you change the whole dynamics of the nomination process your supposition here is only an opinion.

1- Okay.

2- Obama is doing better than McCain by all polls, and Hillary's doing worse than Obama by most. Unless your predictions included "hag tries to whine her way into stealing the nomination", they didn't have much going for them.

3- Maybe so, but it doesn't mean Clinton would be any more ahead.

2- Obama is doing better than McCain by all polls, and Hillary's doing worse than Obama by most. Unless your predictions included "hag tries to whine her way into stealing the nomination", they didn't have much going for them.
I don't agree with your assessment:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13739538&postcount=292

EDIT:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080602DailySpecial_w7aolmlka.gif

3- Maybe so, but it doesn't mean Clinton would be any more ahead.
It is a question that will never be answered based on this years nomination process.

I don't agree with your assessment:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13739538&postcount=292

I don't agree with yours...

Could someone post all the links pointing out Obama's advantage plus all of Jocabia's pretty good points about the fact that Obama's being attacked by two people while Clinton gets PRAISED by two? I really don't feel like doing this indulging job just to see the links somehow dismissed or even not answered by someone that claimed my 7th Question move was too "hateful" without explaining why.

I don't agree with your assessment:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13739538&postcount=292

EDIT:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080602DailySpecial_w7aolmlka.gif


It is a question that will never be answered based on this years nomination process.

You didn't notice that Obama is beating McCain in that poll as well? What is complicated about 272?

Was there anything new in the last twelve or so pages? (Pages, I point out, that are proper forty-post pages) I mean, seriously, I was pouring through most of it and got to about page fifty-four before I finally gave up because it was the same thing over and over and OVER!

Do we really have nothing else to say?

Do we really have nothing else to say?

I, for one, am killing time until I can say "ding-dong" when Clinton concedes.

Was there anything new in the last twelve or so pages? (Pages, I point out, that are proper forty-post pages) I mean, seriously, I was pouring through most of it and got to about page fifty-four before I finally gave up because it was the same thing over and over and OVER!

Do we really have nothing else to say?

Nah, not really. Obama supporters are a bunch of meanies who are tearing the party apart somehow, polls rambled together over the last month show a marginal lead for Clinton so certainly that means that Obama will win, if you squint and ignore a portion of the electorate Clinton is winning some version of her fictional metric, rinse repeat.

All that's left to discuss is if she can put the pin back. Consensus says no. The only difference is who pulled the pin. Apparently some thing Obama did by running a better campaign.

Oh, predictions - I'm saying 80 supers between now and Wednesday night. I think the waterfall is coming. It'll only take 25 or so, but I'm guessing it's going to be enough to make it clear that there will be no change by waiting for the Denver convention.

Anyone else want to hazard a guess?

Also, did anyone see the Bill Clinton rant? Holy crap, that guy has a temper. He just freaked out and somehow the fact that he is getting reamed by the media that has ALWAYS reamed him is Obama's fault.

Oh, predictions - I'm saying 80 supers between now and Wednesday night. I think the waterfall is coming. It'll only take 25 or so, but I'm guessing it's going to be enough to make it clear that there will be no change by waiting for the Denver convention.

Anyone else want to hazard a guess?

Also, did anyone see the Bill Clinton rant? Holy crap, that guy has a temper. He just freaked out and somehow the fact that he is getting reamed by the media that has ALWAYS reamed him is Obama's fault.

Well, to be fair, he wouldn't be getting reamed right now about this specific event if Obama wasn't winning the nomination.

Of course he'd probably get reamed for something else, but meh.

Well, to be fair, he wouldn't be getting reamed right now about this specific event if Obama wasn't winning the nomination.

Of course he'd probably get reamed for something else, but meh.

This was about HIM and his activities after the Presidency. It wasn't related to the run for office by Hillary. They MAY be related, but there certainly isn't any evidence they are.

This was about HIM and his activities after the Presidency. It wasn't related to the run for office by Hillary. They MAY be related, but there certainly isn't any evidence they are.

Oooooh.

In that case, he's definitely wrong. Bad move, Clinton.

The moment she withdraws, I'm endorsing McCain and moving to the other side of the aisle. Furthermore, I'm calling on all Clinton backers to revolt and fight Obama's candidacy.

Damn it my foot hurts. I'm going to start lopping of toes until I completely rid myself of this painful foot. Damn you foot!

I have no intentions of unifying behind a party that is going to ignore the popular vote total and nominate a candidate just because he has a feel-good fairy tale story propelling his candidacy. I intend to vigorously oppose Barack Obama's candidacy in November, and I hope that many Clinton supporters will follow me into outright revolt against our party.

1. Hillary is not ahead in any metric. Having to include some but exclude others is shady bullshit math.

2. I'm sick and tired of you and other Hillary supporters spouting this "feel good story" Obama bullshit. People who support Obama are not doing so for a feel good story. Hillary and Barack have voted the same 95% of the time. You still refuse to answer questions like... What does Barack Obama do that makes you angry and think that he will not support Democratic ideals? How would supporting McCain help bring more Democratic reforms?

You do not know me, and you do not have any right to level such a comment about me. As far as I am concerned, there has been a gross miscarriage of democracy. I of course cannot support any candidate who comes in on such grounds.

+sniffle sniffle+ "I just can't accept it. Tell me it was all a dream. wahhhhhhhhhhhh, snort, wahhhh, fart, wahhhhh, I think I soiled my knickers."

Now we see why Clinton ran such a miserable campaign. She had morons for campaign workers...

One got herself locked in a car (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606) and couldn't get OUT.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Fortunately, the police that arrived were able to describe to her how to use the manual mechanism to unlock the door.

If there was ever a reason to charge people for the efforts of responding rescuers, this is it. Maybe a little time with the owner's manual would have been beneficial.

How about all the death that just yanking our troops out of Iraq will cause? I don't hear you saying much about THAT death.

How about a little fire scarecrow?

Both Hillary and Barack support the withdrawel of troops from Iraq. Neither one of the has said they will pull them out immediately, thereby creating a more dangerous environment. The only person who did say this was Paul. So once again you are arguing against yourself.

Now we see why Clinton ran such a miserable campaign. She had morons for campaign workers...

One got herself locked in a car (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606) and couldn't get OUT.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Fortunately, the police that arrived were able to describe to her how to use the manual mechanism to unlock the door.

If there was ever a reason to charge people for the efforts of responding rescuers, this is it. Maybe a little time with the owner's manual would have been beneficial.

Horrifying story, but I don't see any connection to Clinton.

How about a little fire scarecrow?

Both Hillary and Barack support the withdrawel of troops from Iraq. Neither one of the has said they will pull them out immediately, thereby creating a more dangerous environment. The only person who did say this was Paul. So once again you are arguing against yourself.

It's Pelosi and Reid who have said they want an immediate pullout.

Well, for one, my local McCain supporters have asked for it, while my local Obama supporters have taken an arrogant, elitist tone and lorded their wins over me. I think if you were in my position, you'd feel a little differently.

Yeah, I'd definately vote against my self interest, and the good of the country, if some of opposing supporters are mean. :headbang: I can see why they might be mean to you. You're not a gracious winner or a loser. It kind of makes you hard to be around. Kudos to them.

1. Hillary is not ahead in any metric. Having to include some but exclude others is shady bullshit math.

Not to mention unethical and unconstitutional.

2. I'm sick and tired of you and other Hillary supporters spouting this "feel good story" Obama bullshit. People who support Obama are not doing so for a feel good story. Hillary and Barack have voted the same 95% of the time. You still refuse to answer questions like... What does Barack Obama do that makes you angry and think that he will not support Democratic ideals? How would supporting McCain help bring more Democratic reforms?

Hear Hear

This is what I was ranting about last week. We get all the slings and arrows, we're deluded, we're starcrossed, we're suckers, we're stupid, 'we're sexist, we're part of a vast conspiracy to steal an election by frowning on rule changes midgame, we're meanies. But they're the ones being slandered? Good grief.

Isn't it funny when the one who is shooting all the bullets claims to be the victim?

Simply put. Clinton won the popular vote, but is going to lose the nomination. I find the idea to be reprehensible. Odious. Scandalous. I intend to resist his candidacy regardless of the temporary cost to my own beliefs and values.

Yeah, you are are a simple person... She only wins the popular vote by her math. Also, the cost will not be temporary. I have a feeling you'll be kicking yourself in the ass soon after. Finally,the Presidency and the nominations are not determined by popular vote anyhow. President is EV and the nom are delegates.

Now we see why Clinton ran such a miserable campaign. She had morons for campaign workers...

One got herself locked in a car (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606) and couldn't get OUT.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Fortunately, the police that arrived were able to describe to her how to use the manual mechanism to unlock the door.

If there was ever a reason to charge people for the efforts of responding rescuers, this is it. Maybe a little time with the owner's manual would have been beneficial.

She did not realize that you can just pull up on the lock? *dies of laughter*

Was she blonde?

Isn't it funny when the one who is shooting all the bullets claims to be the victim?

It's funny, but not amusing.

Yeah, I'd definately vote against my self interest, and the good of the country, if some of opposing supporters are mean. :headbang: I can see why they might be mean to you. You're not a gracious winner or a loser. It kind of makes you hard to be around. Kudos to them.

Please use the multi-quote feature.

It's Pelosi and Reid who have said they want an immediate pullout.

Right, but neither of them are Barack Obama. Your point here was to just take a shot at Pelosi and Reid?

Please use the multi-quote feature.

sorry, I thought I only responded to Shal.

Hear ye, hear ye! New polls!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/06/gallup-obama-cl.html?csp=34

Kinda puts a damper on that whole "Hillary's more electable", er... (Theory? Hypothesis? Idea? Thought? Statement?) ...opinion.

Hear ye, hear ye! New polls!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/06/gallup-obama-cl.html?csp=34

Kinda puts a damper on that whole "Hillary's more electable", er... (Theory? Hypothesis? Idea? Thought? Statement?) ...opinion.
Pretty slim margins, six months to go until the elections, post-convention boosts for both candidates, generally unreliable polls compared to actual primary votes... I'd say there's some room for discussion about how any one of the three candidates can claim to be a front-runner.

Pretty slim margins, six months to go until the elections, post-convention boosts for both candidates, generally unreliable polls compared to actual primary votes... I'd say there's some room for discussion about how any one of the three candidates can claim to be a front-runner.

Which is kinda a good thing, six months out. Makes for an interesting election year.

Which is kinda a good thing, six months out. Makes for an interesting election year.
I've given up hope that I'll wake up and there will be real candidates running for President.

But if this is the best that either party can offer, with a little Bob Barr on the side, I'm a little worried about what the federal government might become. Where it seems to be headed is towards being a bastion of mediocrity, populated by demagogues.

Which is kinda a good thing, six months out. Makes for an interesting election year.

Who are you, the media? :p

I just want a Democrat to win and the world to be safe again from Republicans.

Who are you, the media? :p

I just want a Democrat to win and the world to be safe again from Republicans.

And speaking of demagogues...

But if this is the best that either party can offer, with a little Bob Barr on the side, I'm a little worried about what the federal government might become. Where it seems to be headed is towards being a bastion of mediocrity, populated by demagogues.

It already is.

The federal bureaucracy is entirely populated by complete and utter morons.

We consultants have to remind them to breathe, and feed them with small spoons, and change their nappies.

I'm not kidding when I say this.

And speaking of demagogues...

You have no idea what Bush looks like to the rest of the world.

Breaking NewsAP: Officials say Hillary Clinton will acknowledge tonight that Barack Obama has the delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination

HURRAY!!!

You have no idea what Bush looks like to the rest of the world.

Bush=/=party

Breaking NewsAP: Officials say Hillary Clinton will acknowledge tonight that Barack Obama has the delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination

HURRAY!!!

SHE'S OUT! SHE'S OUT! GODS, FINALLY, THAT UN-PERSON IS OUT! FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST! THANKS GOD ALMIGHTY WE'RE FREE AT LAST!

Bush=/=party

McCain = Bush.

Given that she only started doing even remotely well when she started getting Republican support (basically at the moment she lost frontrunner status) I'd say that's a pretty hollow argument. You require us to ignore the context for Hillary and make up context for Obama. That's not really an argument.

She started doing well right after Obama reeled off those 11 wins in a row (in primarily states that favored him demographically. If you spread those wins out over the course of the primary instead of having them all back to back, they're less impressive). Like I've said, she underestimated him, and it has turned out to be a mistake. But to say she only started doing well once Republicans started supporting her is not quite true. As a matter of fact, even right now, excepting a few random pundits, the Republicans are still pretty ambivalent towards her. It's not like they're running ads praising her or working on her campaign.

You didn't. Again, she is being supported by Republicans right now and Obama supporters have no reason to upset with her. This is not currently true of Obama. However, you flip the entire contest with party insiders in the year of change and watch her sink like a rock in helium.

Alright, what I've said, apparently not clearly enough, is that Clinton is leading in the polls currently, and I'll grant you that she is under more favorable conditions than Obama. But she can't do more than lead him. So while it is true that she is being campaigned against less, it is also true that she is ahead. At worst, this comes to a wash. (Actually, at best it probably comes out to a wash as well.) Given the current scenario, she should be expected to be ahead, and she is indeed ahead. You can't ask for more than that.

Nope. Once was enough.

So much for ready to lead from day one. Her campaign has been a fiasco. They didn't know the rules even though they made them. They only stayed in it by changing the rules. There strongest argument doesn't count 4 states doesn't count the other candidate's supporters from a fifth state and weights 2 illegal contests over the four they didn't count. They've been caught threatening supers and party leaders both publically and privately. And so far, for the most part, no one has harped on these points. In the general, she's made it utterly clear that she can't competently set up a run for the Dem candidate in a year she started as the presumptive nominee.

First, her "ready to lead from day one" campaign is pretty unrelated to the initial proficiency of Obama's campaign, and you know it. That was a campaign that was supposed to highlight her experience, albeit in a sensational way. This has nothing to do with Obama's campaign, and we can both agree, I'm sure, that she does indeed have more experience than Obama.

Secondly, perhaps the popular vote issue is the one most at the forefront, but I do not believe it to be her strongest argument. For my views on the popular vote, you can go back to my first post on 147 or so.

Thirdly, I don't know anything about threatening supers, so you'll have to enlighten me there. Even assuming it is true, I seriously doubt it was her "threatening supers" or that she would condone this in any way by any of her campaign staffers.

Fourth, you're again equating this close campaign to her incompetence rather than Obama's rhetorical affluence. Surely the fact that she was favored and lost the lead is disappointing (well, not to you), but this does not mean that her campaign was completely incompetent. Just look at the last month or so. She has done well, despite her underdog status, and she is still in the race, albeit by a long shot.

And all of this ignores that she's been caught circulating scandalous rumors about Obama. McCain is well-liked by both the media and the populous, much like Obama, and he is running a campaign of rising above petty politics and she is embroiled in it. She would be shredded.

Clinton's campaign has hit harder than Obama's, sure. Have they crossed the line a couple times? Absolutely. But a tough campaign will surely not be a weakness against McCain, especially when voters are going to be looking for a leader who's tough and willing to stand up for America. McCain has this quality by default due to his service, but Obama has none of it. Clinton is the Democratic candidate who can win over the country's confidence when it comes to dealing with our enemies and not appeasing them and putting the country in more danger.

She would run an effective campaign against McCain, and her slip-up in the beginning of the primary should not completely rule her out amongst the supers or the voting populace. Obama is a strong candidate and deserves praise, but I still maintain that Hillary will be the stronger one in November against the GOP.




*Good morning to all. I hope everyone had a lovely evening last night. I sure did since THE PENGUINS BEAT THE RED WINGS AFTER 3 OTs.*

Breaking NewsAP: Officials say Hillary Clinton will acknowledge tonight that Barack Obama has the delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination

HURRAY!!!

NOOOOO! Hang in there, Hill-Dawg! Stay strong!

Jack, I'll never let go! (A little Titanic humor, eh? I like to stay topical.)

SHE'S OUT! SHE'S OUT! GODS, FINALLY, THAT UN-PERSON IS OUT! FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST! THANKS GOD ALMIGHTY WE'RE FREE AT LAST!

That's a bit excessive.

That's a bit excessive.

But not much, right? :p

Edit: Fine, I'll edit it. Kindly edit the quote along. But after the crap everyone here put up with, gods, am I happy to see the hag go.

DING-DONG, THE WITCH IS DEAD! :D

*Looks for some Munchkins to start a choir.*

*shoots off fireworks and plays the Stars and Stripes Forever*

McCain = Bush.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

But not much, right? :p

Edit: Fine, I'll edit it. Kindly edit the quote along. But after the crap everyone here put up with, gods, am I happy to see the hag go.

It's tempered a bit by the fact that I really REALLY don't like her.

*shoots off fireworks and plays the Stars and Stripes Forever*

Corny, can you edit the quote? I altered the post to prevent problems...

Oh brother :rolleyes:

He promises more war, he promises more cowboy diplomacy, and he promises more neocon judges. So, anything I'm missing here?

I've given up hope that I'll wake up and there will be real candidates running for President.

But if this is the best that either party can offer, with a little Bob Barr on the side, I'm a little worried about what the federal government might become. Where it seems to be headed is towards being a bastion of mediocrity, populated by demagogues.

Who is a "real candidate" to you?

Corny, can you edit the quote? I altered the post to prevent problems...

No :D

He promises more war, he promises more cowboy diplomacy, and he promises more neocon judges. So, anything I'm missing here?

1/3 ain't bad.

Well, in many ways, good.

If nothing else, this tedium of a thread will be over and the actual discussion can start.

The last line of Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, if not describing the primary season, is fitting:

It's been emotional.

No :D

Come on, now, I've been banned once...

Last Chance...

HILLARY'S ONE CHANCE AT REDEMPTION

By CHARLES HURT

June 3, 2008 --

TROY, Mich. - If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to restore her tattered reputation and repair the party she has shattered, there is only one place for her to be tonight: St. Paul, Minn.

That is where Barack Obama will kick off his general-election campaign tonight.

He chose the convention center in St. Paul because it is the very hall where Republicans will officially nominate John McCain later this summer.

A surprise appearance and endorsement by Clinton - who is scheduled to hold her own event in Manhattan - would allow Democrats to mark that territory in history as the heart of a new and perfect unity for the party.

The election-night festivities would begin as usual with Obama mounting the stage before 20,000 wildly cheering voters.

He would start his victory speech and then pause. After a dramatic silence, he would say he wants to introduce a very, very special guest.

Already buzzing with giddiness, the puzzled crowd whispers and speculates.

The curtains spread, and to the tune of "I Will Survive," a face unimaginable yet so familiar appears. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her granite smile, steady wave - even her cheery yellow pantsuit - would in an instant become so brave and honest and selfless.

She would endorse Obama in biblical terms and embrace him - literally - with both arms. Obama would bury her in the genuine gracious praise that comes so naturally from him.

And just when the drama could not possibly heighten, the curtains would part again and out would walk her husband and her daughter, along with Michelle Obama and their two girls.

In that instant, everyone would forget all there has been in this campaign to dislike about Bill and remember why they once loved him.

A warm family embrace would underscore just how much Hillary gave up to be there, in the name of something much bigger than herself.

It's been a long and nasty fight, and Hillary has just one card left. But it's an ace. Will she play it?

churt@nypost.com
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06032008/news/columnists/hillarys_one_chance_at_redemption_113777.htm

If she continues on beyond Friday (at the latest), her name will be anathema far and wide.

If she train wrecks the party with her selfishness by the hostage scenario outlined earlier by CTOAN, or even worse manages to get the nomination when she's lost both the popular vote (here's a good run down of why her math is just plain wrong:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/the_people_have_spoken.html?hpid=topnews) and pledged delegates, expect to see a third party replace the DNP in 2012.

Hillary Clinton not prepared to admit Barack Obama has beaten her in race for Democratic nomination, her campaign chairman told CNN.

Um ok...Chairman? HE HAS BEATEN HER!!

1/3 ain't bad.

He wants to talk tough with Iran, he wants to keep going in Iraq, and he outright said he'd appoint neocon judges.

Also, please edit that post...

Come on, now, I've been banned once...

THere's nothing to ban you on there dude :)

He wants to talk tough with Iran, he wants to keep going in Iraq, and he outright said he'd appoint neocon judges.

Also, please edit that post...

As I said...

1 out of 3 ain't bad and NO!!!

In theory, I like the idea, but that would tend, I think, to favor establishment candidates so strongly that anybody who wasn't the inevitable insider at the beginning would have no chance.
However, I agree that the calendar should be compressed: Given these two issues I would favor a small string of 4 or 5 early primaries in early January, which would consist of smaller states (the states either being on a rotation or drawn by a lot from a list of eligible states). After this, there would be a series of 4 or 5 "Super Tuesdays" with no more than 2 weeks or so between each.

I'm not set on this, but from what I can see so far it might be the best solution.

I think compression is a good idea. I don't know if they should all be "Super Tuesday" style days, given the difficulties in campaigning everywhere before such a vote. Of course, if you made sure that there was time to visit all states in a given Tuesday before the fact... Compress it, and plan it in such a way that no state gets undue influence.

Of course, you'd have to get all the states to agree. (LOL)

As for only holding closed primaries, I am absolutely opposed. Until the Democrats and Republicans get rid of all the laws that give them an absolute stranglehold on US politics (fat chance), I don't see why they shouldn't be treated as public entities. Add to that the fact that they spend taxpayer dollars on their primaries rather than paying out of private funds, and I find it to be absolutely appalling that they're ever allowed to hold closed primaries.

THere's nothing to ban you on there dude :)

Hope you're right, but considering that people took even YOUR nicest posts and claimed flamebaiting...

As I said...

1 out of 3 ain't bad and NO!!!

Uhm, McCain outright SAID all the three.

She started doing well right after Obama reeled off those 11 wins in a row (in primarily states that favored him demographically.

By "well", do we mean "She won sometimes, but rarely by the expected margins"?

First, her "ready to lead from day one" campaign is pretty unrelated to the initial proficiency of Obama's campaign, and you know it. That was a campaign that was supposed to highlight her experience, albeit in a sensational way. This has nothing to do with Obama's campaign, and we can both agree, I'm sure, that she does indeed have more experience than Obama.

You guys might agree, but I don't. She may have different experience, but I wouldn't say more. In fact, since I don't really count being a governor or president's wife as political experience in and of itself, it could be said that Obama actually has more such experience than her. I don't think the fact that much of it was on the state, rather than national, level discounts it.

And I think his community organizing and constitutional law backgrounds are invaluable experience as well.

Fourth, you're again equating this close campaign to her incompetence rather than Obama's rhetorical affluence.

Damn straight. She did not run a winning campaign. She assumed she would win and didn't bother even getting started in many states until Obama was out ahead. Would she have won if she'd attempted to start the type of grassroots organization he has? Very possibly. That was a mistake on the part of her campaign.

There are many other things as well. Whole articles have been written on the problems in Clinton's campaign.

That said, I really think it's rather silly to continue acting as if all Obama has is rhetoric.

Surely the fact that she was favored and lost the lead is disappointing (well, not to you), but this does not mean that her campaign was completely incompetent. Just look at the last month or so. She has done well, despite her underdog status, and she is still in the race, albeit by a long shot.

She's been essentially running unopposed in the last month or so. You can't really chalk that up to any skill on her part or that of her campaign, especially not when a great deal of her support is now coming from playing a bogus sexism card and pandering to racists.

By "well", do we mean "She won sometimes, but rarely by the expected margins"?

All that matters is wins, baby. I think sometimes she did worse than expected; sometimes she did better. Again, polls a few weeks or months out are only sporadically reliable.

You guys might agree, but I don't. She may have different experience, but I wouldn't say more. In fact, since I don't really count being a governor or president's wife as political experience in and of itself, it could be said that Obama actually has more such experience than her. I don't think the fact that much of it was on the state, rather than national, level discounts it.

And I think his community organizing and constitutional law backgrounds are invaluable experience as well.

Wait, so being a state senator counts, but actually being in the White House doesn't? Being First Lady required a lot of planning, campaigning, decision-making, etc. I don't think that being a state senator brings more responsibility than being First Lady does. I'm sure that if you were First Lady, you'd be pretty stressed.

Damn straight. She did not run a winning campaign. She assumed she would win and didn't bother even getting started in many states until Obama was out ahead. Would she have won if she'd attempted to start the type of grassroots organization he has? Very possibly. That was a mistake on the part of her campaign.

What states did she not bother campaigning in until Obama was ahead? Clinton had things in her favor that Obama overcame. That's it; that's all there is to it. This shows, as I've acknowledged, that Obama was a strong candidate, but the Clinton camp couldn't do anything about Obama's grassroots campaign. And do you think she wasn't trying to raise money at the same time Obama was? I don't think that was the case. Rather, she has not been as successful raising money because she doesn't have the same gift for rhetoric that Obama does. (And before you jump all over the "Obama is nothing more than rhetoric," read ahead.)

That said, I really think it's rather silly to continue acting as if all Obama has is rhetoric.

I certainly don't think that Obama is nothing but rhetoric, but I'm sure we can both acknowledge that it is a strength of his. I think it's his greatest strength, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks so. But this is not to say that he's an empty shell beyond that.

She's been essentially running unopposed in the last month or so. You can't really chalk that up to any skill on her part or that of her campaign, especially not when a great deal of her support is now coming from playing a bogus sexism card and pandering to racists.

Man, I'm really having to talk about this a lot. She did not start to succeed only when running unopposed. (I still wouldn't say she's completely unopposed, but she is certainly being campaigned against less.) She started succeeding well before this thing was heavily in Obama's favor. Again, she gained momentum after Obama's initial push, and she's been holding steady or slowly gaining ever since.

Who is a "real candidate" to you?
I'd like to see someone with solid executive experience. Like a Jack Welch or Lee Iacocca -- not them, but someone like them.

The most important quality is that a good candidate would want to reduce the role of government. Notice that I didn't say 'eliminate'.

There are a lot of other qualities I'd like to see, but I won't waste my time, or yours, with them. It's not likely that we'll ever get anyone that isn't a professional politician to run for any federal office, anyway.

Well, Mrs. Clinton, I'm as surprised as anyone to realize this, but I'm sorry to see you go. I read the news that you were accepting that Barack Obama is the nominee and I was a little sad. The battle was epic. It was very close. And both you and Mr. Obama energized voters like no candidates before you. It was something this country desperately needed and, for that, I thank you.

I offer this advice. Admit Mr. Obama won. Admitting defeat is not weakness and is not folly, it's strength. It's every bit as important as admitting you're wrong when you are. We've seen where refusing to admit you're wrong leads. We've seen what resolutely staying the course against all advice "accomplishes". This time. Change course. Admit defeat and show people the strength we've come to expect.

Bad news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc

Bad news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc

I won't say I told you so, because I believe she'll be a fucking bitch to the very end.

Bad news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc

well, we'll see. I've heard this morning that she was going to step down. but if the AP article is right... :confused:

well, we'll see. I've heard this morning that she was going to step down. but if the AP article is right... :confused:

This morning, it was the AP article saying she was stepping out - now the news has her campaign saying the AP story is false...

Now we see why Clinton ran such a miserable campaign. She had morons for campaign workers...

One got herself locked in a car (http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=89d59491-3910-45c2-9643-3a2fd9347606) and couldn't get OUT.

A woman called Orem police Friday afternoon needing help because her battery died and she was locked inside her car.

When police arrived, they found the woman sitting in the car, unable to get herself out. She couldn’t hear the officers instructions through the rolled-up windows so she motioned to them to call her on her cell phone, according to police.

Fortunately, the police that arrived were able to describe to her how to use the manual mechanism to unlock the door.

If there was ever a reason to charge people for the efforts of responding rescuers, this is it. Maybe a little time with the owner's manual would have been beneficial.
I actually know someone who that happened to. That dude was about as dumb as they come. I was a little meaner back then and if it had been me that found him I would have walked away laughing my ass off. But at the time, I was kind of a dick...
Bad news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc
Well, the steady trickle is at least picking up, three have endorsed since I loaded RCP:
He urged other superdelegates to follow his lead and announce their support on Tuesday so the Democratic Party could have a clear nominee by the end of the day. A number of other superdelegates began throwing their support behind Obama.

The sad reality is that it really isn't over until Clinton decides it's over. (I've argued that even that won't make it over, and I still hold on to that, but for the moment lets give a begrudging benefit of the doubt) It doesn't matter what the wall writing says, what the math says, what the party says, tea leaves-whatever can be read. She's the one who has to end it.

Because the party is soooo mean, and so against her, that they indulge someone essentially holding them hostage. Seriously, if a non-establishment candidate had been in the same position you'd actually see what it's like for a party to shove someone out.

The sad reality is that it really isn't over until Clinton decides it's over. (I've argued that even that won't make it over, and I still hold on to that, but for the moment lets give a begrudging benefit of the doubt) It doesn't matter what the wall writing says, what the math says, what the party says, tea leaves-whatever can be read. She's the one who has to end it.

Because the party is soooo mean, and so against her, that they indulge someone essentially holding them hostage. Seriously, if a non-establishment candidate had been in the same position you'd actually see what it's like for a party to shove someone out.

Even if she concedes the delegate count:

1. She won't close her campaign - just in case Obama gets shot in the head.
2. Her supporters will maintain that a secret cabal led by <insert name here> forced her to give in.
3. Diebold rigged the balloting
4. It was a Republican conspiracy to nominate a black man so that the Democrats would lose in the general election
5. Keith Olbermann is actually channeling Rush Limbaugh

The sad reality is that it really isn't over until Clinton decides it's over. (I've argued that even that won't make it over, and I still hold on to that, but for the moment lets give a begrudging benefit of the doubt) It doesn't matter what the wall writing says, what the math says, what the party says, tea leaves-whatever can be read. She's the one who has to end it.

Because the party is soooo mean, and so against her, that they indulge someone essentially holding them hostage. Seriously, if a non-establishment candidate had been in the same position you'd actually see what it's like for a party to shove someone out.

So, after spending 8 years being held hostage by a crazy monkey, the world is now being held hostage by a crazy monkey AND a crazy shrew?

So, after spending 8 years being held hostage by a crazy monkey, the world is now being held hostage by a crazy monkey AND a crazy shrew?

Let's not forget the eight years of someone with a vaginal cigar fetish...

Keith Olbermann is actually channeling Rush Limbaugh

Generally speaking, and speaking from a position as a decent occultist, someone needs to be dead to be channeled.

Let's not forget the eight years of someone with a vaginal cigar fetish...

Bill can get HIS jollies WITHOUT anyone dying.

Bill can get HIS jollies WITHOUT anyone dying.

You forgot Somalia, Haiti, and the "pharmaceutical plant" in the Sudan, and the illegal bombing (without UN permission) of Serbia...

Generally speaking, and speaking from a position as a decent occultist, someone needs to be dead to be channeled.

Does 'dead inside' count?

You forgot Somalia, Haiti, and the "pharmaceutical plant" in the Sudan, and the illegal bombing (without UN permission) of Serbia...

Fair enough. It's high time the White House was inhabited by someone WITHOUT blood in his hands. Excluding, thus, Bill, Hillary, and, yes, McCain.

Does 'dead inside' count?

Actually it'd theoretically make it impossible. You channel someone's soul, which isn't possible if their soul - their "inside" - is dead.

Let's not forget the eight years of someone with a vaginal cigar fetish...

I honestly don't care if the president gets off watching monkey porn while masturbating in a tub of mayonnaise with someone clapping crash cymbals on his nut sack. I do not elect presidents or rate them as leaders based on their sexual proclivities.

I honestly don't care if the president gets off watching monkey porn while masturbating in a tub of mayonnaise with someone clapping crash cymbals on his nut sack. I do not elect presidents or rate them as leaders based on their sexual proclivities.

Well, the monkey porn part is a bit worrying due to the fact that it goes beyond consent. But yeah, replace "monkey porn" with "fat adult bulimia patient porn" and you have it right.

I honestly don't care if the president gets off watching monkey porn while masturbating in a tub of mayonnaise with someone clapping crash cymbals on his nut sack. I do not elect presidents or rate them as leaders based on their sexual proclivities.

Considering the large number of illegal bombings he conducted, I'd say it affected his judgment.

Well, the monkey porn part is a bit worrying due to the fact that it goes beyond consent. But yeah, replace "monkey porn" with "fat adult bulimia patient porn" and you have it right.

I meant "porn for monkeys," which would just be monkeys doin' it. And really, you try and stop monkeys from doin' it, I think that would count as consent...

Considering the large number of illegal bombings he conducted, I'd say it affected his judgment.

So, what affected Bush's?

I meant "porn for monkeys," which would just be monkeys doin' it. And really, you try and stop monkeys from doin' it, I think that would count as consent...

And now, for some pics of rat porn, while we wait for Hillary to destroy the Democratic Party...

Considering the large number of illegal bombings he conducted, I'd say it affected his judgment.

You know, it might be possible to get your Stretch Armstrong so strung out that he stays that way...

So, what affected Bush's?

I think he had a knock on the head a long, long time ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's is "absolutely not" prepared to concede the race for the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, her campaign chairman said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton trails Obama by 159 delegates and is 201 delegates shy of capturing the nomination.

Terry McAuliffe rejected as "100 percent" incorrect an Associated Press report that Clinton is preparing to acknowledge that Obama has the delegates to win the nomination Tuesday night as the five-month Democratic primary process comes to a close.

Obama "doesn't have the numbers today, and until someone has the numbers the race goes on," McAuliffe told CNN.

And now, for some pics of rat porn, while we wait for Hillary to destroy the Democratic Party...

She won't succeed.

But:

"And now, for something completely different..."

So, after spending 8 years being held hostage by a crazy monkey, the world is now being held hostage by a crazy monkey AND a crazy shrew?

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

Wait, so being a state senator counts, but actually being in the White House doesn't?

Yes. One is an elected position with the responsibilities therein.

The other is something you get because your husband was elected president. I don't claim that my husband being a computer programmer gives me programming experience, despite the fact that I do hear about his programs and even help him sometimes.

Being First Lady required a lot of planning, campaigning, decision-making, etc. I don't think that being a state senator brings more responsibility than being First Lady does. I'm sure that if you were First Lady, you'd be pretty stressed.

Perhaps. I'm stressed by being a scientist. It requires lots of planning and decision making. Sometimes even campaigning. But I wouldn't claim that it somehow counted as experience if I were to run for political office - particularly not if my opponent actually had more experience in that arena than I.

What states did she not bother campaigning in until Obama was ahead?

She didn't put much effort into Iowa. She put very little effort into Super Tuesday states that weren't the large states (ie. the ones "that count"). She pretty much didn't even bother as Obama racked up 11 wins in a row after Super Tuesday. In fact, she ignored some of those contests to the extent that she wouldn't even call to congratulate him on his wins.

Clinton had things in her favor that Obama overcame.

Yes, by actually campaigning. Clinton assumed she would win, so she didn't put in the effort until it was too late. While she was busy being the presumptive nominee, he was actually setting up grassroots structures all over the country - even in *gasp* "red states".

That's it; that's all there is to it. This shows, as I've acknowledged, that Obama was a strong candidate, but the Clinton camp couldn't do anything about Obama's grassroots campaign.

Sure they could have. They could have attempted to start similar campaigns. That they didn't and that the grassroots campaigning surprised them was a mistake on their part. They tried to stick with a "big states are all that matters strategy" up until the end. It was, in part, that strategy that sunk them.

And based on the current lines coming from the campaign, they plan a "only some states matter" general campaign as well if she gets the nomination. You say she won't repeat the same mistakes in the general as she did in the primary, but it looks to me like they plan on sticking with the same failed strategy.

And do you think she wasn't trying to raise money at the same time Obama was?

Of course she was. From different sources, but she was. But that isn't the grassroots campaigning I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual organizations - generally on a volunteer basis - that Obama has set up in nearly every state in the country.

And fund raising is an interesting thing to bring up. Obama has brought in record funds by getting relatively small donations from record numbers of people. He's brought in monetary support that most campaigns have only dreamed of, while largely ignoring the typical sources of funding. Seems to me that fund raising goes in Obama's column.

I certainly don't think that Obama is nothing but rhetoric, but I'm sure we can both acknowledge that it is a strength of his. I think it's his greatest strength, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks so. But this is not to say that he's an empty shell beyond that.

I think rhetoric is a strength of most politicians. It's how they get where they are.

But I think Obama's wins are far more due to what he has to say than how he says it.

Man, I'm really having to talk about this a lot. She did not start to succeed only when running unopposed.

You specifically mentioned the last month or so and that is what I responded to. She lost leads in Penn and Indiana, so I don't count those as being particularly successful.

She ran virtually unopposed in the contests after that, as Obama turned his attention to the general.

(I still wouldn't say she's completely unopposed, but she is certainly being campaigned against less.) She started succeeding well before this thing was heavily in Obama's favor. Again, she gained momentum after Obama's initial push, and she's been holding steady or slowly gaining ever since.

If by "initial push", you mean the lead up to Super Tuesday, Super Tuesday itself, and 11 contests after that, maybe.

But, for the most part, she was just plain holding steady until Obama turned his attention to the general.

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

Even assuming what you said to be true, it also happens to be an attitude I didn't have prior to seeing Hillary act as if she had the birthright to the nomination and prior to meeting you. Should I go on with this line of thought?

Bad news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_dc
More bad news....

The peace loving :p Democratic nominee in waiting who promised Americans "a war we need to win", is beating the war drums.

Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39423.html)

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

"Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office," Obama said. "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons."
Obama = Bush like

After all, it is Obama who loves those Republicans.....

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword

More bad news....

The peace loving :p Democratic nominee in waiting who promised Americans "a war we need to win", is beating the war drums.

Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39423.html)

Obama = Bush like

After all, it is Obama who loves those Republicans.....

Even IAEA thinks that Iran is not pursuing a peaceful nuclear program - and they aren't even Americans or running for office.

What's your point? Iran was so mad at the IAEA, that now they're planning to limit cooperation with the IAEA.

More bad news....

The peace loving :p Democratic nominee in waiting who promised Americans "a war we need to win", is beating the war drums.

Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39423.html)




Obama = Bush like

After all, it is Obama who loves those Republicans.....

You actually take Obama pointing out that the lack of TALKS to them caused this to mean he's like Bush? Really, are you trying to hold on to ANYTHING to keep your side of the argument alive now? What's next? "Both Bush and Obama have penises"?

You actually take Obama pointing out that the lack of TALKS to them caused this to mean he's like Bush? Really, are you trying to hold on to ANYTHING to keep your side of the argument alive now? What's next? "Both Bush and Obama have penises"?

Bush gave up drinking alcohol...

Obama won't have a 'shot and a beer' with the guys...

they both wear ties...

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

The evidence that you write Hillary's talking points is continuing to mount.

Bush gave up drinking alcohol...

Obama won't have a 'shot and a beer' with the guys...

they both wear ties...

Mammals, both of them. Bipeds, too. And both eat.

The evidence that you write Hillary's talking points is continuing to mount.

not another person whose form of argument is "your posts are talking points"...

Bush gave up drinking alcohol...

Obama won't have a 'shot and a beer' with the guys...

they both wear ties...

They both married women! OMG They're twins!

More bad news....

The peace loving :p Democratic nominee in waiting who promised Americans "a war we need to win", is beating the war drums.

Both McCain, Obama exaggerating Iran's nuclear program (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39423.html)




Obama = Bush like

After all, it is Obama who loves those Republicans.....



Has he come out yet and threatened to obliderate Iran? As in, exterminate every man, women, and child?

Seriously, give up. You lost a long time ago. Im sorry you are just now realizing it.

Has he come out yet and threatened to obliderate Iran? As in, exterminate every man, women, and child?

Seriously, give up. You lost a long time ago. Im sorry you are just now realizing it.

No candidate has threatened to exterminate every man, woman, and child. Nor to obliterate Iran.

The most Bush has said is that "all options are on the table, including the military option".

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has made all kinds of threats to Israel.

Seriously, give up. You lost a long time ago. I'm sorry you are just now realizing it.

He is?

not another person whose form of argument is "your posts are talking points"...

No, thats not my arguement. However, if you have read all the posts from this poster, I swear to God they just copy/paste Hillary's speeches. The reseblence is uncanny.

I can point to a direct quote of Hillary threatening to obliderate Iran.

I don't see one from Bush or McCain.

No candidate has threatened to exterminate every man, woman, and child. Nor to obliterate Iran.

The most Bush has said is that "all options are on the table, including the military option".

Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has made all kinds of threats to Israel.

I can point to a direct quote of Hillary threatening to obliderate Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb7nwoQVkQE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIVfbylUU-M&NR=1

Man, YouTube has ANYTHING.

Man, the AP really wants this to be over- (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jun/03/ap_tally__obama_effectively_clinches_nomination.html)
Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
...
The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.
I know that predicting this is kind of like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow, but they couldn't wait a couple of hours to pull that trigger? Sheesh...

Man, the AP really wants this to be over- (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jun/03/ap_tally__obama_effectively_clinches_nomination.html)

I know that predicting this is kind of like predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow, but they couldn't wait a couple of hours to pull that trigger? Sheesh...

Ha-ha, you went after mine. :p

(Childish mood...)

I don't see one from Bush or McCain.

Show me where the hell I said either of them said that.


Stop making up arguements to fight in your head. Your chasing ghosts.



EDIT: Ill explain whats happening to you, since you appear to be lost.


CH took some lame predictable cheap shot at Obama because hes sad his beloved got trounced.

I pointed out that if anyone in the Dem race is saber rattling at Iran, it isnt Obama, and implied Hillary was by using the same language as her.

You said no candidate has threatened to obliderate Iran.

I said Hillary has.

You then brought Bush and McCain up out of left field.

Show me where the hell I said either of them said that.

Stop making up arguements to fight in your head. Your chasing ghosts.

I'm not making up arguments - I'm making sure you're not saying it's something the Republicans are saying.

Uhm, McCain outright SAID all the three.

Talking tough about Iran is nothing new. Clinton has done the samething. Granted she is not the nominee but still. You cannot keep the gloves on forever. Sooner or later, they do have to come off.

As to the Judges, I know full well but wether he does or not is a totally different thing. What if Obama said something along the lines of, "I will only appoint liberal judges to the bench" would you be just as outraged?

As I said, 1 out of 3 is not bad. Keep trying Heikoku.

Which is a strawman, as Ive never once even implied such.

I'm not arguing - I'm just making sure you won't be able to assert that it's a Republican idea.

You could help by saying, "Republicans have never said they want to exterminate every man, woman, and child in Iran".

I'm not making up arguments - I'm making sure you're not saying it's something the Republicans are saying.

Which is a strawman, as Ive never once even implied such.

Bill can get HIS jollies WITHOUT anyone dying.

Are you trying to tell me the Billy boy never killed anyone? *Dies of fucking laughter*

I'm not arguing - I'm just making sure you won't be able to assert that it's a Republican idea.

You could help by saying, "Republicans have never said they want to exterminate every man, woman, and child in Iran".

Which I never asserted. Again, this is all out of left field.

Talking tough about Iran is nothing new. Clinton has done the samething. Granted she is not the nominee but still. You cannot keep the gloves on forever. Sooner or later, they do have to come off.

As to the Judges, I know full well but wether he does or not is a totally different thing. What if Obama said something along the lines of, "I will only appoint liberal judges to the bench" would you be just as outraged?

As I said, 1 out of 3 is not bad. Keep trying Heikoku.

The point remains that McCain is a worse candidate, and that he, yes, follows Bush in many ideas. Also, I wouldn't, but that's because liberal judges don't HARM people.

Which I never asserted. Again, this is all out of left field.

The implication I gathered was "everyone but Obama".

Are you trying to tell me the Billy boy never killed anyone? *Dies of fucking laughter*

Through 5-year long invasions and to avenge daddy, nope.

Otherwise, ask them.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

:headbang:

Clinton is a moron for not realizing that she has lost fair and square.

That is EXACTLY the elitist attitude that harms Obama in the fall.

You really need to stop with conspiracies Shal.

You actually take Obama pointing out that the lack of TALKS to them caused this to mean he's like Bush? Really, are you trying to hold on to ANYTHING to keep your side of the argument alive now? What's next? "Both Bush and Obama have penises"?

You forgot about the IAEA Heik. Don't let this fact get in the way of a good anti-republican rant.

The implication I gathered was "everyone but Obama".

Your paranoia is not any concern of mine. I have made it clear it was a shot at Hillary.


McCain has asked for 100 years in Iraq. I dont think hes threatened to obliderate anyone (yet) though.

Through 5-year long invasions and to avenge daddy, nope.

Otherwise, ask them.

No, just through bombing the shit out of Serbia without UN permission, in violation of international law, including a trainload of civilians on their way home from work... farmers driving their tractors down the road...

you know...

You really need to stop with conspiracies Shal.

Typical Obama supporter elitism! Im voting for McCain now! Just to spite you meany heads!

You forgot about the IAEA Heik. Don't let this fact get in the way of a good anti-republican rant.

Do me a favor and check what posts I was answering. I was questioning CH's point. At no moment did I deny Iran is building nukes for whatever, I did deny not talking is helping.

Are you trying to tell me the Billy boy never killed anyone? *Dies of fucking laughter*
It'd be nice if you backed that little quip up with, oh I don't know, examples? If you're referring to Vince Foster, there were six different investigations into his death, all of which declared it a suicide, and he was severly clinically depressed in the months preceding it.
Also, I wouldn't, but that's because liberal judges don't HARM people.
They do make unclear and dubiously-based rulings, however, that only lead to more lawsuits. Regardless, judges should be appointed based on their experience and ability to make sound judgemens, not on what amounts to their judicial party (loose constructionist" or "originalist").

No, just through bombing the shit out of Serbia without UN permission, in violation of international law, including a trainload of civilians on their way home from work... farmers driving their tractors down the road...

you know...

Sorta besides the point, as, right now, the choices are between a candidate that didn't do either but voted for one of them, and a candidate that neither did, nor voted for, either one.

Has he come out yet and threatened to obliderate Iran? As in, exterminate every man, women, and child?

Seriously, give up. You lost a long time ago. Im sorry you are just now realizing it.
Actually, it is the Democratic party that has lost.

All I am doing is warning you of what you get IF Obama wins the White House.

Nevermind....he won't win the general anyways. Just watch him in the run up to the election though.....he will look more and more like a Republican before he is finished.

Kinda reminds me of Animal Farm....

The point remains that McCain is a worse candidate, and that he, yes, follows Bush in many ideas. Also, I wouldn't, but that's because liberal judges don't HARM people.

That just goes how hypocritical you are. Buh bye.

Through 5-year long invasions and to avenge daddy, nope.

Otherwise, ask them.

YOu really have zero fucking clue do you?

That just goes how hypocritical you are. Buh bye.

When have liberal judges kept adults from marrying each other?

It'd be nice if you backed that little quip up with, oh I don't know, examples? If you're referring to Vince Foster, there were six different investigations into his death, all of which declared it a suicide, and he was severly clinically depressed in the months preceding it.

Jesus. Doesn't anyone look at history?

Serbia
Haiti
Somalia
Sudan
Iraq

There are some examples!

No, just through bombing the shit out of Serbia without UN permission, in violation of international law, including a trainload of civilians on their way home from work... farmers driving their tractors down the road...

you know...
Um...NATO carried out the bombings in Serbia in order to help a country secure its independence. Three of the five members of the UN Security Council are NATO members. And accidents do happen in war, as tragic as they are -- that's life.

Actually, it is the Democratic party that has lost.

All I am doing is warning you of what you get IF Obama wins the White House.

A decent president?

Nevermind....he won't win the general anyways. Just watch him in the run up to the election though.....he will look more and more like a Republican before he is finished.

Id ask for proof, but I know what Id get from you. Slanted articles and polls that ignore all contradicting evidence.

Kinda reminds me of Animal Farm....

*insert random Orwell reference to appear smart*

Um...NATO carried out the bombings in Serbia in order to help a country secure its independence. Three of the five members of the UN Security Council are NATO members. And accidents do happen in war, as tragic as they are -- that's life.

NATO=/=UN

As much as I agree with what we did, it was still without a UN Resolution and as such, to some people, illegal.

YOu really have zero fucking clue do you?

Clue or no clue, I have a POINT. Do you?

*insert random Orwell reference to appear smart*

Hm, I wonder... is there a version of Godwin's Law for Orwell? If not, there really should be.

It'd be nice if you backed that little quip up with, oh I don't know, examples? If you're referring to Vince Foster, there were six different investigations into his death, all of which declared it a suicide, and he was severly clinically depressed in the months preceding it.

Vamosa, your ignorance of history is truly astonishing.

Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia in violation of UN treaty - he didn't even ask for permission (something Democrats didn't criticize him for, but criticized Bush for).

After bombing the crap out of the place for a while, including killing civilians on a commuter train, and killing farmers riding tractors, the UN gave permission afterwards (much like the UN giving Bush permission to clean up the Iraq mess afterwards).

Clinton also bombed a "baby milk factory". He lost troops in Somalia because his staff micromanaged the operation from the grounds of a golf course.

Shall I go on?

Actually, it is the Democratic party that has lost.

All I am doing is warning you of what you get IF Obama wins the White House.

Nevermind....he won't win the general anyways. Just watch him in the run up to the election though.....he will look more and more like a Republican before he is finished.

Kinda reminds me of Animal Farm....

Let me get this straight: You spend six months rooting for the ultimate insider and then compare, sans evidence, Obama to the animals in "Animal Farm"?

Do you have a point?

Nevermind....he won't win the general anyways. Just watch him in the run up to the election though.....he will look more and more like a Republican before he is finished.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

He wins even if there are no toss up states!

Hm, I wonder... is there a version of Godwin's Law for Orwell? If not, there really should be.

I tried to create the concept of "Reductio ad Orwelliam", but...

Clue or no clue, I have a POINT. Do you?

Actually..no you do not have a point. It gets lost in the vitrol. One out of three in your list is not bad.

Your paranoia is not any concern of mine. I have made it clear it was a shot at Hillary.

McCain has asked for 100 years in Iraq. I dont think hes threatened to obliderate anyone (yet) though.

No, but he did sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Clinton also bombed a "baby milk factory"
You stepped off the deep end here.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

He wins even if there are no toss up states!

"Even if"??? You must have misunderstood: by "no toss-ups" they mean that every state is forcibly assigned to one or the other, even if the averaged polls put the margin at 0.01% or something equally ridiculously below margin of error.
This is the more usable map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5)

You stepped off the deep end here.....

It was an asprine factory that was destroyed by billy boy clinton.

Jesus. Doesn't anyone look at history?

Serbia
Haiti
Somalia
Sudan
Iraq

There are some examples!

Serbia -- Already detailed above
Iraq -- The US was targeting weapons proliferation by a corrupt, hostile regime
Somalia -- The UN ratified a US-led coalition to establish peace in a vicious civil war there
Sudan -- The country was seized via military coup by a vicious dictator, and Clinton took appropriate measures to weaken his regime
Haiti -- Clinton supported the reinstallation of Aristide, a democratically-elected leader who was overthrown by a military coup

Do you have a point?

After dealing with him this whole primary season I can safely say yes, but its not a good one and not supported at all.

Actually..no you do not have a point. It gets lost in the vitrol. One out of three in your list is not bad.

1- McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq.

2- McCain has shown himself to be way more warlike than Obama regarding Iran.

3- McCain has promised to appoint conservative judges.

These things make him similar to Bush, too similar for the tastes of anyone sane.

That was my point.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

He wins even if there are no toss up states!

Your margins in the battleground states are pretty small. Ohio is about 1.3 percent for Obama, with a number of undecideds. New Mexico is dead even, but they give it to Obama. Wisconsin is +2.0 for Obama.

The margins are small. The polls are virtually a dead heat.

1- McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq.

Which we need to. Ok now that that has been shown to be true, that does not equal more war.

2- McCain has shown himself to be way more warlike than Obama regarding Iran.

So you oppose actually dealing with them from a position of strength (something their culture appreciates) but from a position of weakness?

3- McCain has promised to appoint conservative judges.

And wether he does or not is a different story.

These things make him similar to Bush, too similar for the tastes of anyone sane.

That was my point.

And fails!

Your margins in the battleground states are pretty small. Ohio is about 1.3 percent for Obama, with a number of undecideds. New Mexico is dead even, but they give it to Obama. Wisconsin is +2.0 for Obama.

The margins are small. The polls are virtually a dead heat.

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.

NATO=/=UN

As much as I agree with what we did, it was still without a UN Resolution and as such, to some people, illegal.

Nevertheless, Clinton had international backing, and if you believe what he did was just, then who gives a rat's ass if he didn't have UN approval?

Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia in violation of UN treaty - he didn't even ask for permission (something Democrats didn't criticize him for, but criticized Bush for).
In order to help a country secure its independence, and he didn't act alone...Slightly different from invading a country based on false threats.

After bombing the crap out of the place for a while, including killing civilians on a commuter train, and killing farmers riding tractors, the UN gave permission afterwards (much like the UN giving Bush permission to clean up the Iraq mess afterwards).
If you want to disparage the legitimacy of a conflict because of civillian casualties, then WW2 was completely unnecessary, as was the Revolutionary War.

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.
You're supposed to know about statistics... The margins are too small to make that claim, based solely on the numbers. The fact that Obama has dominated the news cycles and has actively been campaigning give him a huge edge. When McCain gets his name out there and is covered on the six o'clock news, the numbers are very likely to change -- better or worse -- but I don't expect this deadlock to exist into November.

Which we need to. Ok now that that has been shown to be true, that does not equal more war.



So you oppose actually dealing with them from a position of strength (something their culture appreciates) but from a position of weakness?



And wether he does or not is a different story.



And fails!

1- No, you don't need to. You need to get the hell out, mainly because the war was a mistake.

2- Obama wants to deal with them from a position of strength. McCain wants to yell at them.

3- He said he would, which in and of itself is enough.

Also... YOU are voting for Obama. o_o

"Even if"??? You must have misunderstood: by "no toss-ups" they mean that every state is forcibly assigned to one or the other, even if the averaged polls put the margin at 0.01% or something equally ridiculously below margin of error.
This is the more usable map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5)

And he's still up there to.

You're supposed to know about statistics... The margins are too small to make that claim, based solely on the numbers. The fact that Obama has dominated the news cycles and has actively been campaigning give him a huge edge. When McCain gets his name out there and is covered on the six o'clock news, the numbers are very likely to change -- better or worse -- but I don't expect this deadlock to exist into November.

You do realize that both Clinton and McCain were attacking Obama with him still busy in the primaries, until recently, right?

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.

I really hate to side with either of you but at this point he's kind of right. All the polls show is that the election is open with a fairly open map. If the polls showed something like what they were for Romney dragging the polls around would be something, showing a candidate down by as much as 30 points. That still wouldn't be a garauntee of anything, Obama was down 20 points 5 months ago, but it would show an incredible up hill battle. But really all the polls show now is that neither of them get much of a headstart on the Eliminator. (eh? EH? Didn't see an American Gladiators reference comin', did ya? DID YA!?!)

It's why CH's polls are unconvincing, and we don't get to have it both ways.

Which we need to. Ok now that that has been shown to be true, that does not equal more war.
McCain supports an open-ended commitment, estimating that things will peaceful in 2013, which is a.) completely unrealistic and b.) still another trillion dollars and thousands of more American troop deaths down the road. An open-ended commitment gives no incentives for the Iraqis to become self-dependent, and ignores the main problem of the Iraq conflict: that the country needs political reconciliation, and that the conflict can't be solved by simply fighting enemies that will never simply give up one day. Furthermore, the United States cannot afford another trillion dollars of debt.

So you oppose actually dealing with them from a position of strength (something their culture appreciates) but from a position of weakness?
No, but refusing to negotiate is simply ridiculous. Negotiations with Sunni and Shia groups in Iraq are what has led to the recent downturn of violence in Iraq.


And wether he does or not is a different story.
So you support him on the basis that he's probably lying or will change his mind?

Serbia -- Already detailed above

And you ignored it.

Iraq -- The US was targeting weapons proliferation by a corrupt, hostile regime

And people don't die?

Somalia -- The UN ratified a US-led coalition to establish peace in a vicious civil war there

True to a point. The UN could do nothing though when our helicopter was shot down and Clinton botched the whole operation.

Sudan -- The country was seized via military coup by a vicious dictator, and Clinton took appropriate measures to weaken his regime

By bombing an asprine factory that had no connection at all to why it was bombed to begin with?

Haiti -- Clinton supported the reinstallation of Aristide, a democratically-elected leader who was overthrown by a military coup

Ever stop to consider why he was ousted to begin with? Look what happened under Bush! He was ousted AGAIN for the same damn reason.

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.

It's just bad statistics. Anything that far within the MoE of the poll they're using shouldn't be handed over to either side. There isn't a statistically significant difference between getting 50.00% of the vote and 50.10% when your Margin of Error is +/- 2% (don't know if that's the actual MoE, and it's likely higher, just throwing a number out there)

It's just bad statistics. Anything that far within the MoE of the poll they're using shouldn't be handed over to either side. There isn't a statistically significant difference between getting 50.00% of the vote and 50.10% when your Margin of Error is +/- 2% (don't know if that's the actual MoE, and it's likely higher, just throwing a number out there)

1. There's always the risk that the numbers change between now and Election Day.

2. A general percentage of all voters nationwide doesn't translate into electoral votes.

3. The polls have been terribly wrong several Presidential elections in a row. The only poll that counts is the actual vote.

You do realize that both Clinton and McCain were attacking Obama with him still busy in the primaries, until recently, right?
I watch the news here, do you? McCain doesn't have the same presence that Clinton or Obama does on network shows. The fact that Obama has saturated TV and print for the past few weeks can have nothing but positive results for him.

Nevertheless, Clinton had international backing, and if you believe what he did was just, then who gives a rat's ass if he didn't have UN approval?

President Bush had International backing when he went into Iraq so who cares if the UN approved of that.

In order to help a country secure its independence, and he didn't act alone...Slightly different from invading a country based on false threats.

Oy vey :rolleyes:

If you want to disparage the legitimacy of a conflict because of civillian casualties, then WW2 was completely unnecessary, as was the Revolutionary War.

:headbang:

1) We didn't start World War II. The Japanese did (with their invasion of China in 1937) in Asia and the Germans in 1939 with Poland. We got dragged into it in 1941 when Japan bombing Pearl and Germany and Italy declaring war on us.

2) We got tired of King George's authoritarian rule and their illegal taxes. Be advised that we also did all we could to resolve the problem peacefully.

And he's still up there to.

With 6 ties and 120 undecided electoral votes? Go back to Stats 100.

1. There's always the risk that the numbers change between now and Election Day.

2. A general percentage of all voters nationwide doesn't translate into electoral votes.

3. The polls have been terribly wrong several Presidential elections in a row. The only poll that counts is the actual vote.

My point is you can't hand over a vote that's 50.10% on the basis that it slightly favors one candidate over another. I don't disagree with what you're saying here, just don't get what it has to do with what I was saying.

My point is you can't hand over a vote that's 50.10% on the basis that it slightly favors one candidate over another. I don't disagree with what you're saying here, just don't get what it has to do with what I was saying.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be quibbling about MOE, even...

I watch the news here, do you? McCain doesn't have the same presence that Clinton or Obama does on network shows. The fact that Obama has saturated TV and print for the past few weeks can have nothing but positive results for him.

I think it really depends on the networks. Also, most of Obama's coverage, especially lately, has been negative, and I think its hard to argue that this helps him.


I do however agree with you over the futility of polls this early.

And you ignored it.
I already addressed it.

And people don't die?
Already addressed above again, but: If you want to disparage the legitimacy of a conflict because of civillian casualties, then WW2 was completely unnecessary, as was the Revolutionary War.

True to a point. The UN could do nothing though when our helicopter was shot down and Clinton botched the whole operation.
That's different from deliberately killing people in cold blood, as was implied by the "Clinton killed people" argument.

By bombing an asprine factory that had no connection at all to why it was bombed to begin with?
Mistakes do happen, though it was tragic.

Ever stop to consider why he was ousted to begin with? Look what happened under Bush! He was ousted AGAIN for the same damn reason.
And yet he was democratically elected by a majority of the populace...In a democracy, the people make the decisions as to who their leaders should be, not military coups. :rolleyes:

McCain supports an open-ended commitment, estimating that things will peaceful in 2013, which is a.) completely unrealistic

I would love for you to prove that it is unrealistic.

b.) still another trillion dollars and thousands of more American troop deaths down the road.

Again more proof?

No, but refusing to negotiate is simply ridiculous. Negotiations with Sunni and Shia groups in Iraq are what has led to the recent downturn of violence in Iraq.

Um V? Negotiations are happening.

So you support him on the basis that he's probably lying or will change his mind?

Please point to where I am supporting McCain?

2- Obama wants to deal with them from a position of strength. McCain wants to yell at them.

Indeed. I always thought the, "I'll saber rattle from thousands of miles away while pretending that your country doesn't contain human beings with concerns of their own" position revealed much more weakness.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be quibbling about MOE, even...

Oh. Good point.

With 6 ties and 120 undecided electoral votes? Go back to Stats 100.

Never took stats to begin with :D

President Bush had International backing when he went into Iraq so who cares if the UN approved of that.
The Kosovo War was about a country gaining its independence. Meanwhile, Clinton was attacked for not having UN support -- that's why I brought up the fact that he had international support.
1) We didn't start World War II. The Japanese did (with their invasion of China in 1937) in Asia and the Germans in 1939 with Poland. We got dragged into it in 1941 when Japan bombing Pearl and Germany and Italy declaring war on us.

2) We got tired of King George's authoritarian rule and their illegal taxes. Be advised that we also did all we could to resolve the problem peacefully.

And you've just made my point: that just conflicts sometimes produce unjust deaths. That's just part of war.

I think it really depends on the networks. Also, most of Obama's coverage, especially lately, has been negative, and I think its hard to argue that this helps him.

I disagree. Most of what I see is about his lead over Clinton. The in-depth analysis of candidates stopped with the first primary caucus. Then it was almost all about vote totals.

Sure, we see a little about his church now and again, but most reporters won't ask why he tolerated that kind of nonsense for twenty years. It's enough for them to report that he left his church for the selfless reason of allowing them to worship without the national spotlight on them.

That's different from deliberately killing people in cold blood, as was implied by the "Clinton killed people" argument.

By botching it, over a dozen solders were killed because they could not get any fucking support because Bill did not authorize it.

And yet he was democratically elected by a majority of the populace...In a democracy, the people make the decisions as to who their leaders should be, not military coups. :rolleyes:

And the people where not happy when Clinton re-installed Aristad.

Never took stats to begin with :D
You're scaring me... If political science grads are unable to understand the statistical principles that create the opinion polls, how can they use the data?

Please, can we take the "Clinton sux" "No clinton rulez" somewhere else?

The Kosovo War was about a country gaining its independence. Meanwhile, Clinton was attacked for not having UN support -- that's why I brought up the fact that he had international support.

In case you truly missed it, Kosovo was not independent. We went in to stop a genocide. It was not until recently that they declared independence from Serbia.

And you've just made my point: that just conflicts sometimes produce unjust deaths. That's just part of war.

The only thing I agree with.

You're scaring me... If political science grads are unable to understand the statistical principles that create the opinion polls, how can they use the data?

Im pretty sure Corny isnt a Poli Sci major, but a History one.

You're scaring me... If political science grads are unable to understand the statistical principles that create the opinion polls, how can they use the data?

Funny...I study politics not for statistical purposes but for practicle purposes. I'm not into stats.

Im pretty sure Corny isnt a Poli Sci major, but a History one.

I'm both KoL.

dear readers,
over the coarse of this long,grueling,and feisty election i have changed views a few times. but now it has become apparent to me and to most of you i'm sure that indeed Obama is the man for the job to represent. but keep in mind, who ever does win this election will have to face a crafty debater in McCain and will have to pull out all the stops if they are going to be elected presedent.

a solid race non the less.

Kakkovian Leader

Nik Yarollov

Please, can we take the "Clinton sux" "No clinton rulez" somewhere else?

That's all this thread is. Really. Don't take away it's only reason. :p

I would love for you to prove that it is unrealistic.
On the contrary, I would love for you or McCain to show why stability would occur by 2013, when we already have elevated troop levels in Iraq and violence is still occurring and terrorist recruitment is up. We aren't fighting a regular army -- terrorist recruit young men coming of adulthood each year to conduct guerrilla warfare. It's unpredictable and unstoppable. And since McCain is committed to a military solution, rather than a political one, his version of "winning the war" is impossible.

Again more proof?
In five years, we've already spent $500 billion in Iraq, and lost over 4,000 personnel. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024)that the Iraq war will have cost US taxpayers $2.4 trillion by 2017 (when counting interest), at the current time. Stiglitz, a former chief executive of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, says the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost $3 trillion by moderate estimates. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece)

Um V? Negotiations are happening.
Um? McCain says he wouldn't talk with Iran.

Please point to where I am supporting McCain?
So you're defending him for shits and giggles?

In case you truly missed it, Kosovo was not independent. We went in to stop a genocide. It was not until recently that they declared independence from Serbia.
Uh...why did the whole thing start? Because Kosovo wanted independence...

Never took stats to begin with :D

Silly History major.

On the contrary, I would love for you or McCain to show why stability would occur by 2013,

You made the assertion, prove it.

By bombing an asprine factory that had no connection at all to why it was bombed to begin with?

I'm surprised you believe the "aspirin factory" story. The evidence was never examined by any neutral body, but my bets are that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons laboratory.

So you're defending him for shits and giggles?



I haven't been following this particular dicussion so I can't say that's what he's doing, but honest debate can sometimes mean you defend the person you're against if the argument is bullshit. I've defended Clinton against some bullshit arguments, that doesn't mean that I support Clinton, and I've even defended the 100 year war thing against McCain because it's misrepresentative, and that certainly doesn't mean that I support McCain. It's just an interest in honest debate.

I'm surprised you believe the "aspirin factory" story. The evidence was never examined by any neutral body, but my bets are that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons laboratory.

Until further evidence comes out, what else is there to go on?

Until further evidence comes out, what else is there to go on?
Small evidence in favor of "chemical weapons lab" (soil samples containing unusual chemical residues); assertions, backed by zero evidence, in favor of "aspirin factory". The very least the Sudanese could have shown was a single bottle of aspirin supposedly manufactured there.

Clinton News Network is reporting that Hillary is open to being VP.

Clinton News Network is reporting that Hillary is open to being VP.

Seems a bit late for that.

Clinton News Network is reporting that Hillary is open to being VP.

I pray to God she is not on the ticket.

Clinton News Network is reporting that Hillary is open to being VP.
Well, there's been a little water over the dam since that was a realistic prospect.... It's sort of like, "The Palestinians would now be happy to accept the 1947 partition plan."

Clinton News Network is reporting that Hillary is open to being VP.

In her dreams.

In her dreams.
I think Obama has rejected that possibility with everything short of "Hell, no".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

He wins even if there are no toss up states!
Barely!!

The problem is that you need to be concerned about the toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5).

Hillary wins with room to spare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=14):

I think Clinton as his VP could help his chances of not getting shot during his presidency.

Barely!!

The problem is that you need to be concerned about the toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5).

Hillary wins with room to spare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=14):

I'll admit the toss ups concern me but not as much as Hillary's election scares me.

Barely!!

The problem is that you need to be concerned about the toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5).

Hillary wins with room to spare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=14):

What's the point in continuing with the Hillary is more electable argument anymore? Obama has the nomination.

I think Clinton as his VP could help his chances of not getting shot during his presidency.

That's because there probably won't be an Obama Presidency if she's on the ticket.

Funny...I study politics not for statistical purposes but for practicle purposes. I'm not into stats.
What is politics but opinion polls? Studying politics without worrying about the underlying fundamentals is like studying finance but not worrying about math.

What is politics but opinion polls?

What is History? The study of archeology?

Studying politics without worrying about the underlying fundamentals is like studying finance but not worrying about math.

Funny thing about finances, I'm working on the budget now :D

Barely!!

The problem is that you need to be concerned about the toss up states (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5).

Hillary wins with room to spare (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/clinton_vs_mccain/?map=14):
In the RCP totals, she has the same number of delegates as Obama. There are more toss up states when you substitute Clinton for Obama, though. In both cases, more delegates belong to toss-up states that went for Bush in 2004. I'd give the edge in toss-ups to McCain in a contest against Obama or Clinton.

Not denying it but if the general was held today, Obama would win.
What? Based on stale dated polls garnered by RCP, and then averaged?

That is the problem with RCP....it is junk science.

What is History? The study of archeology?



Funny thing about finances, I'm working on the budget now :D
If you think all there is to finance is budgeting, then you're probably sufficiently educated. Don't waste your money on a M.A. Learn how to say, "Would you like frys with that?" and take the first fast-food manager job that comes along.

Or challenge yourself with some hard classes so that you can understand the numbers you see paraded in front of you. Economics shaped history. Statistics measure it. I'd think you would want to learn a little of both.

What's the point in continuing with the Hillary is more electable argument anymore? Obama has the nomination.
Because it truly is not over and I want to remind all the Obama supporters here of their blatant mistake.

Since Hillary can't lead the ticket Hillary should be offered the VP post. It makes the most sense.

It is a huge mistake to do otherwise.

What? Based on stale dated polls garnered by RCP, and then averaged?

That is the problem with RCP....it is junk science.
How so? Every poll is stale to some extent. How long is a poll valid?

Only elections are binding and even then, people have second thoughts.

What? Based on stale dated polls garnered by RCP, and then averaged?

That is the problem with RCP....it is junk science.

You calling other polls junk science is hillarious.

Because it truly is not over and I want to remind all the Obama supporters here of their blatant mistake.

Sorry to burst your bubble but yea it is truly over.

Since Hillary can't lead the ticket Hillary should be offered the VP post. It makes the most sense.

And they will not win the White House.

It is a huge mistake to do otherwise.

It'll be a huge mistake to include her on the ballot.

Because it truly is not over and I want to remind all the Obama supporters here of their blatant mistake.

Since Hillary can't lead the ticket Hillary should be offered the VP post. It makes the most sense.

It is a huge mistake to do otherwise.

You're wrong.

Also, somewhere out there, an overweight female is performing vocalization exercises...

Because it truly is not over and I want to remind all the Obama supporters here of their blatant mistake.

No, it isn't over until she concedes.

But any other candidate in her exact position would have been pushed out long ago. So it might as well be over.

Since Hillary can't lead the ticket Hillary should be offered the VP post. It makes the most sense.

Lots of people can't lead the ticket. Should they all be offered the VP slot?

Or is there maybe a little more to choosing a VP than "They aren't the nominee"?

It is a huge mistake to do otherwise.

I'd consider it a huge mistake to put her on the ticket. I didn't like the "dream ticket" idea even before all the nonsense she's pulled. Doing it now would likely be disastrous.

Lots of people can't lead the ticket. Should they all be offered the VP slot?

Oh my God! I just figured out how to solve my unemployment problem!

I GOT TO CALL OBAMA! I DIDN'T GET THE NOMINATION EITHER!!! :D

I'd like to see someone with solid executive experience. Like a Jack Welch or Lee Iacocca -- not them, but someone like them.

The most important quality is that a good candidate would want to reduce the role of government. Notice that I didn't say 'eliminate'.

There are a lot of other qualities I'd like to see, but I won't waste my time, or yours, with them. It's not likely that we'll ever get anyone that isn't a professional politician to run for any federal office, anyway.

We can agree here. If we could throw a little "keeping corporations from running government" conservatism that would be perfect.