NationStates Jolt Archive

It isn't a matter of taking their ball and going home....it is a matter that Obama has the ball and won't allow the others to play.

Do you think it is possible Obama made a deal with the Clinton's by offering them a job like Secretary of "something" or Ambassador to "someplace" and that deal may get "leaked" during to convention to appease the Clinton supporters?

Do you think it is possible Obama made a deal with the Clinton's by offering them a job like Secretary of "something" or Ambassador to "someplace" and that deal may get "leaked" during to convention to appease the Clinton supporters?

*Crosses fingers* Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan...

Do you think it is possible Obama made a deal with the Clinton's by offering them a job like Secretary of "something" or Ambassador to "someplace" and that deal may get "leaked" during to convention to appease the Clinton supporters?

Of course. In fact, I've long considered it a foregone conclusion that she's going to be in his Cabinet in some capacity. Perhaps Secretary of State.

Look kids, both Obama and Clinton are responsible for the split in the Democratic Party. Both of them vilified each other during the primary. That is the way the game is played. Now that Obama has the nomination (almost) it is time to kiss and make up. I think you will see that in the speeches at the convention especially Bill and Hillary's speech. I think you will see Hillary out on the trail plugging away for Obama and it might not be to late to bring her supporters back into the fold with her help. I don't think Bill will have much of a roll to play in this campaign.

*Crosses fingers* Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan, Please let it be The Sudan...

It's Sudan, not the Sudan. Just like it's Brazil, not The Brazil.

Do you think it is possible Obama made a deal with the Clinton's by offering them a job like Secretary of "something" or Ambassador to "someplace" and that deal may get "leaked" during to convention to appease the Clinton supporters?
Somehow....I don't think a cabinet post is in the cards. I may be wrong but I don't know how much that will appeal to the Clinton supporters unless Clinton is completely thrilled with such an offering. Just guessing here.

Looks like the Republicans are playing up the dissing of Clinton (and millions of voters). Can't imagine why.... /snarky reply.

You know what? I wasn't picked as Obama's running mate.

Clearly he's dissing me!

It's Sudan, not the Sudan. Just like it's Brazil, not The Brazil.

Sorry, I could have sworn I saw it as The Sudan in other places.

Of course. In fact, I've long considered it a foregone conclusion that she's going to be in his Cabinet in some capacity. Perhaps Secretary of State.

Secretary of State might be a good position for her. I think she could handle that if they find a job for Bill and he keeps his mouth shut in public concerning foreign affairs. Might put him as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I think he could do a good job there and it would keep him out of international affairs.

I'll call you blind, idiotic, and bitter, if you really believe that Clinton would have been a good choice for VP for Obama. What would you have him do? After all the vitrol spewed during the primaries, selecting Clinton as his VP would have been a death sentence. After the campaign run by the Clinton camp, there should be no surprise that she was not nominated. Her campaign created the divisiveness; she can lie in the bed she's made.

Indeed. Biden made a comment or two about Obama when running against him and the Republicans are playing that up.

Clinton spewed vitriol for months, including painting her loss as being due to sexism. Imagine the fodder that would give the Republicans. Not only all of her own comments, but also the "Look, they're making sure the woman still takes the backseat...." angle.

Secretary of State might be a good position for her. I think she could handle that if they find a job for Bill and he keeps his mouth shut in public concerning foreign affairs. Might put him as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I think he could do a good job there and it would keep him out of international affairs.

I've talked to people who think Clinton should probably be in Health and Human Services.

Secretary of State might be a good position for her. I think she could handle that if they find a job for Bill and he keeps his mouth shut in public concerning foreign affairs. Might put him as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I think he could do a good job there and it would keep him out of international affairs.

Since health care was her 'signature issue' it seems entirely likely that she'll be given a key leadership roll in revising health care. Which is fitting and appropriate. If the campaign was about getting the issues addressed, then the merging platforms and utilization of strengths is enough. If it was about ego, there is no satisfying. Clinton supporters have to decide if it was about personality or getting things done. For all the accusations of Obama's cult of personality, if they throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it isn't their first choice they've demonstrated that cult more concretely than a large crowd or catchy YouTube video ever could.

Indeed. Biden made a comment or two about Obama when running against him and the Republicans are playing that up.

Clinton spewed vitriol for months, including painting her loss as being due to sexism. Imagine the fodder that would give the Republicans. Not only all of her own comments, but also the "Look, they're making sure the woman still takes the backseat...." angle.

I think the main consideration in not picking Hillary is Bill. If Hillary were VP I have little doubt that Bill would be unable to contain himself and do or say something that would be a complete embarrassment for the Obama administration. Both Bill and Hillary have a big ego and that would be a problem for Obama. If he gives them both a lesser job in the administration he might be able to keep Bill contained and Hillary content.

Sorry, I could have sworn I saw it as The Sudan in other places.

I'm sure you have, but that doesn't mean it's correct. You also see plural nouns formed with 's, but that's not right either.

Sorry, I could have sworn I saw it as The Sudan in other places.

I imagine you have. It's just a pet peeve of mine. You see the same thing with Ukraine/The Ukraine.

I'm sure you have, but that doesn't mean it's correct. You also see plural nouns formed with 's, but that's not right either.

I know, I wasn't trying to claim it was right, just explaining the mistake. :p

Wow, a small thread I started only a few days ago has blossomed into a mutli-merged mayhem fest. Hooray for me. On a serious note, things are just starting to get fun on the MSM stage. We've got people buzzing and throwing around their weight. This is when the race becomes fun.

If Obama sits back and keeps absorbing hits, it's going to be 2000/2004 all over again.

Ah, and here comes Biden!

THEY MEAN TO WIN WIMBLEDON!




As to Biden, I'm with those who've pointed out that the Veep is also President of the Senate. Seems to me you don't want someone without legislative experience (and lots of it) in that chair if you want to give your agenda a decent shot at getting through Congress.

And to those who are just going to nay-say ANY choice because they're so far up their party's ass they can't tell where they stop and the Elephant starts, is "so much for change" really all you've got? Really?

Yup, that's what it boils down to.

<Modedit self-indulgent rant>
Somehow....you have painted this picture for me. /shudder

Don't be so modest, anyone can see that you painted it yourself.

Don't be so modest, anyone can see that you painted it yourself.

>.>

<.<

*Signs orders to have Trostia jailed and experimented upon for not acknowledging Great Leader Heikoku 2's presence in the thread in the post.*

>.>

<.<

Are you done licking your wounds yet? I'm pretty sure you'd still rather see Obama-Biden win over McCain-xxx? Or do you think vindictiveness is better than supporting someone with supporting someone who adheres most closely to your chosen candidate? Like others have pointed out here, Obama could not have picked the "right" person for most people here. This is different for you. There was only one person who would fit for you.
My feelings are all over the place right now. I don't like what I am seeing from the Democrat supporters this time around, and I really do like Nader's platform over Obama's.

4 years ago, I was very gungho for Kerry and fought against all the Republican hit men.

Speaking of vindictiveness, there has been plenty from both camps but the Obama supporters have certainly been the most vitrolic.

I find myself NOT identifying with the Obamalites, or Obama's BS campaign. He talks about change but he is using an old deck of cards. He talks about crossing the aisle to embrace Republicans while dousing Clinton with gasoline. That just doesn't jive.

Also worrisome about Obama is his "Pakistan battlefield". That really got me to pay more attention to where he was headed. I don't like it one bit.

And there is also the other scenario that was brought forward earlier in that it would be better to have a weak 4 year term by McCain followed by 8 years of Democrats, rather than a weak 4 year run by Obama followed by 8 years of Republicans.

I think Obama has the gift of gab but has very little of substance. I think the people of States such as Ohio are starting to realize that and that is why McCain is now polling better there then Obama.

"Bitter" is not better.

Speaking of vindictiveness, there has been plenty from both camps but the Obama supporters have certainly been the most vitrolic.

Some Obama supporters have been vitriolic towards Clinton. In fact, a lot of people - Obama supporters or not - tend to do that.

Clinton supporters, on the other hand, have been quite often vitriolic towards Obama supporters.

Besides, the "vitriol" you refer to usually comes after half a thread or so of you trolling for it.

I find myself NOT identifying with the Obamalites, or Obama's BS campaign. He talks about change but he is using an old deck of cards. He talks about crossing the aisle to embrace Republicans while dousing Clinton with gasoline. That just doesn't jive.

What gasoline? Does "not choosing X as a running mate" always equate to "dousing with gasoline"?

Does he have to become bffs with her to satisfy you?

Also worrisome about Obama is his "Pakistan battlefield". That really got me to pay more attention to where he was headed. I don't like it one bit.

Yeah, the same stuff Clinton said, except you wouldn't acknowledge it. We've heard this before.

You know what? I wasn't picked as Obama's running mate.

Clearly he's dissing me!

Right! Now I feel dissed. Damn that arrogant, elitist, muslim, christian, foreigner, who lived in Indonesia with Osama!!!! Who would think that the party nominee would actually get to choose the running mate he felt was best? I mean, if this thread is about Obama-Biden vs. McCain ( ) then let's turn it into another wankfest for CH and Hillary. Can't we argue about something we've argued before too many times? Why doesn't it make sense to feel bad for poor little Hillary. Although it falls withing the context of the discussion do we really need to go through the same arguments again? Really?

Heik, wishing death and calling Hillary names is childish at this point. It does nothing to progress the discussion here. It will result in more yuh-huh, nuh-uh, crap. The only name I'll call her is "not acceptable." All the talk about "she wasn't vetted..." Who the FFFFFFFF needs to dig deeper into what we already know? She's been vetted by everyone, including oppositional research.

I've talked to people who think Clinton should probably be in Health and Human Services.

I can agree to that.

Am I the only one who gotten a dirty image when they read that?

This makes it clear why you went to circle number-two on the Dante quiz.

Heikoku, CanuckHeaven, I have deleted your self-indulgent, off-topic posts, while trying to leave the relevant ones in.

Should there be any more, it won't be just the posts that go.

Heikoku, you have a yellow-card warning for your "not wishing death" post. While you're entitled to your opinion, your method of expressing it, in the context of repeated advice from other players to tone it down, amounts to trolling.

Demipublicents, Liuzzo, your posts were within bounds, but I'd prefer that you didn't become collateral damage. Don't get involved.

*tiptoes around landmines*

I'd like to see Hillary as Sec of Health & Human Services, myself...health care was the one area in which I prefered Clinton over Obama.

i don't know anything about biden, other then i know his name gets mentioned in the corporate brainwashing a lot. but i don't listen to the corporate brainwashing because, while it might not ALWAYS be lying, its so completely spun and then so seldom mentioning anything of even the remotest usefulness.

what i do thing about obama, or any other democrate, or any other less right wing candidate for public office who has to pick a running mate, is that they need to start picking seconds whome those who don't like them would like even less.

if kennidy had picked someone like, i'm trying to think of who was arround then, say angela davis, (gene debs would have been great, except i don't know if he was still arround then) or even adalai stevenson, would he have gotten shot? (hube the cube was available, but i don't think he would have been any better then johnson)

i still really think obama should have picked someone like kussenich, gravel, or edwards, or even maxene waters if he could have talked her into it, or jerry brown if he had been available, and i still hope he nominates jerry brown for attourny general, since that's the sort of thing brown seems would rather do these day and he'd be a good pick for that too.

Heikoku, CanuckHeaven, I have deleted your self-indulgent, off-topic posts, while trying to leave the relevant ones in.

Should there be any more, it won't be just the posts that go.

Heikoku, you have a yellow-card warning for your "not wishing death" post. While you're entitled to your opinion, your method of expressing it, in the context of repeated advice from other players to tone it down, amounts to trolling.

Demipublicents, Liuzzo, your posts were within bounds, but I'd prefer that you didn't become collateral damage. Don't get involved.

Thank you kindly.

*tiptoes around landmines*

I'd like to see Hillary as Sec of Health & Human Services, myself...health care was the one area in which I prefered Clinton over Obama.

Agreed. I think that would be perfect for her. Her biggest priority was healthcare and social welfare so it would be a great fit. I think Hillary Clinton has great value to this country, but not in the role of VP.

I think Hillary Clinton has great value to this country

Maybe as a case study of how not to run a political campaign...?

Maybe as a case study of how not to run a political campaign...?

hey now she did a great job of throwing away her lead in the primaries . . .wait that's not the goal???? o . . .oh man!

hey now she did a great job of throwing away her lead in the primaries . . .wait that's not the goal???? o . . .oh man!

I wonder if at some point Clinton's name to running a campaign will become like Hitler's to running a country.

"Let's do X."
"Clinton did that too!"
"You're right, let's not do X."

Maybe as a case study of how not to run a political campaign...?

Guiliani and Thompson would be far better choices for such a study.

Bidan was my choice for President. I love the guy. Hes got balls, tons of experiance, a level head, and has sponsored some damn good legistlation.


I am quite happy.

Guiliani and Thompson would be far better choices for such a study.

Nah. Both of those faded into semi-obscurity. Hillary managed to get the full hatred of half her party (besides just about all Republicans and all Independents).

You have to admit it worked. She lost. :)

No, it didn't. She won Oklahoma, where you've been trotting around in that thing.

Maybe as a case study of how not to run a political campaign...?

Others have ran campaigns similar to hers and won. Most recently GWB. She is still a smart, tough, and determined woman. She holds value to this country.

She holds value to this country.

The US are THAT lacking in freak shows? :(

First, I'd like to make a point that I liked Rudy Guiliani. If he were still on the ticket when it came to vote in NJ I would have voted for him. Instead I voted for John McCain because I am registered as a Republican. This campaign season was wonderful for me because the two people I wanted most to be nominated were. After stumping and collecting money (also contributing) for both of their campaigns during the primary season I settled of Barack Obama. I soured on McCain after he clung to GWB, (a man he hates) starting speaking in absolutes, and pandered so harshly to the religious right that he deplored as agents of intolerance a short time ago.

Next, I'll state my case for the connection between Rudy and John. The current VP pick for the Democrats made a very pointed statement about Rudy during the debates. "Rudy always mentions three things in every sentence...a noun, a verb, and 9-11." As a fan of Rudy i had to laugh. I thought it was funny more so because it was true. It's not just what the candidate says, but what their campaign says about them as well. All things said by the campaign get the blessing of the candidate. If you believe they go off and speak on their own you are strongly deluded.

McCain's 9/11 is his time as a POW. I highlighted an article a little while back from military.com which was written by another POW and friend of John's. He stated many of the same reasons that I echo in not voting for John. He put McCain's stay at the "Hanoi Hilton" in perspective. He showed how his experience was not the worst, the best, or too uncommon from the others who were there. The connection between Rudy and John is that for McCain it's always "he's a war hero. He's was a POW. He was tortured." All of these things are true, but they cannot be used as a free pass on all issues. Every time McCain's character is questioned you hear some version of what I said above. It's the campaign's knowledge of the goldfish memory of the American voting public. Most people are comfortable with the sound bytes and will vote upon that. Even Sean Hanitty was destroyed by the patsy Alan Colmes when all he could say in response to McCain's affair was...POW, Torture, POW, Torture.

Finally, I usually am not a fan of Maureen Dowd. This op-ed she wrote is just wonderful. She put truth down on the paper and did it without sounding like a spoiled brat (how I usually feel about her).

My mom did not approve of men who cheated on their wives. She called them “long-tailed rats.”

During the 2000 race, she listened to news reports about John McCain confessing to dalliances that caused his first marriage to fall apart after he came back from his stint as a P.O.W. in Vietnam.

I figured, given her stringent moral standards, that her great affection for McCain would be dimmed.

“So,” I asked her, “what do you think of that?”

“A man who lives in a box for five years can do whatever he wants,” she replied matter-of-factly.

I was startled, but it brought home to me what a powerful get-out-of-jail-free card McCain had earned by not getting out of jail free.

His brutal hiatus in the Hanoi Hilton is one of the most stirring narratives ever told on the presidential trail — a trail full of heroic war stories. It created an enormous credit line of good will with the American people. It also allowed McCain, the errant son of the admiral who was the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific during Vietnam — his jailers dubbed McCain the “Crown Prince” — to give himself some credit.

“He has been preoccupied with escaping the shadow of his father and establishing his own image and identity in the eyes of others,” read a psychiatric evaluation in his medical files. “He feels his experiences and performance as a P.O.W. have finally permitted this to happen.”

The ordeal also gave a more sympathetic cast to his carousing. As Robert Timberg wrote in “John McCain: An American Odyssey,” “What is true is that a number of P.O.W.’s, in those first few years after their release, often acted erratically, their lives pockmarked by drastic mood swings and uncharacteristic behavior before achieving a more mellow equilibrium.” Timberg said Hemingway’s line that people were stronger in the broken places was not always right.

So it’s hard to believe that John McCain is now in danger of exceeding his credit limit on the equivalent of an American Express black card. His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength — and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his P.O.W. experience — by flashing the P.O.W. card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements.

The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, the pastor who married Jenna Bush and who is part of a new Christian-based political action committee supporting Obama, recently criticized the joke McCain made at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally encouraging Cindy to enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest. The McCain spokesman Brian Rogers brought out the bottomless excuse, responding with asperity that McCain’s character had been “tested and forged in ways few can fathom.”

When the Obama crowd was miffed to learn that McCain was in a motorcade rather than in a “cone of silence” while Obama was being questioned by Rick Warren, Nicolle Wallace of the McCain camp retorted, “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.”

When Obama chaffed McCain for forgetting how many houses he owns, Rogers huffed, “This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison.”

As Sam Stein notes in The Huffington Post: “The senator has even brought his military record into discussion of his music tastes. Explaining that his favorite song was ‘Dancing Queen’ by Abba, he offered that his knowledge of music ‘stopped evolving when his plane intercepted a surface-to-air missile.’ ‘Dancing Queen,’ however, was produced in 1975, eight years after McCain’s plane was shot down.”

The Kerry Swift-boat attacks in 2004 struck down the off-limits signs that were traditionally on a candidate’s military service. Many Democrats are willing to repay the favor, and Republicans clearly no longer see war medals as sacrosanct.

In a radio interview last week, Representative Terry Everett, an Alabama Republican, let loose with a barrage at the Democrat John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who is the head of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, calling him “cut-and-run John Murtha” and an “idiot.”

“And don’t talk to me about him being an ex-marine,” Everett said. “Lord, that was 40 years ago. A lot of stuff can happen in 40 years.”

The real danger to the McCain crew in overusing the P.O.W. line so much that it’s a punch line is that it will give Obama an opening for critical questions:

While McCain’s experience was heroic, did it create a worldview incapable of anticipating the limits to U.S. military power in Iraq? Did he fail to absorb the lessons of Vietnam, so that he is doomed to always want to refight it? Did his captivity inform a search-and-destroy, shoot-first-ask-questions-later, “We are all Georgians,” mentality?

The US are THAT lacking in freak shows? :(

I get it. You don't want to say anything positive about Hillary. I do not share your view of her as the devil.

I get it. You don't want to say anything positive about Hillary. I do not share your view of her as the devil.

Perhaps, when her fan-club stops acting like an entitled princess, as they started to under HER orders, I'll be a bit more patient towards her.

Perhaps.

Nah. Both of those faded into semi-obscurity. Hillary managed to get the full hatred of half her party (besides just about all Republicans and all Independents).

True, but if you are looking for a study in non-starters then those two are grand examples.

Obama should've picked McCain as his running mate & McCain should've taken Obama.

Perhaps, when her fan-club stops acting like an entitled princess, as they started to under HER orders, I'll be a bit more patient towards her.

Perhaps.

People will still not let things go for a long time. This is human nature. If you wish to move forward you must move beyond petty differences. You must look forward to the "what can be done" instead of the "what has been done." Remembering and learning from the past is fine, but not being able to move past it is not productive.

People will still not let things go for a long time. This is human nature. If you wish to move forward you must move beyond petty differences. You must look forward to the "what can be done" instead of the "what has been done." Remembering and learning from the past is fine, but not being able to move past it is not productive.

Well, the crap she pulled did cost me a nation.

At any rate, let's discuss who McCain's TBA will be? And, perhaps, pray it's Romney? :p

Well, the crap she pulled did cost me a nation.
WOW she must be a powerful lady if she can cost you a nation. :tongue:

At any rate, let's discuss who McCain's TBA will be? And, perhaps, pray it's Romney? :p
I don't think it will matter too much who McCain picks as VP, probably one that can keep the rightists on board, because he is going to win anyways.

The Dems have imploded, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I don't think it will matter too much who McCain picks as VP, probably one that can keep the rightists on board, because he is going to win anyways.

The Dems have imploded, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Prove it now or lose the argument. You have NO proof of that beyond your wishful thinking. The Dems WOULD have imploded and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory if they gave into the psychotic delusions of that hag and crammed her down the throats of the MAJORITY that stopped being able to stand her after she was such a bitch.

Small question. After the flamebaiting you've been giving in these forums, over, and over, and over, and over, AND OVER, when Obama wins, will you admit you were wrong? I WILL collect it. Or you'll simply start trolling about him being "too young", "too inexperienced" and, maybe, in a more earnest moment on your part, "having too much melanin on his skin" to be President?

WOW she must be a powerful lady if she can cost you a nation. :tongue:


I don't think it will matter too much who McCain picks as VP, probably one that can keep the rightists on board, because he is going to win anyways.

The Dems have imploded, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Prove it now or lose the argument. You have NO proof of that beyond your wishful thinking. The Dems WOULD have imploded and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory if they gave into the psychotic delusions of that hag and crammed her down the throats of the MAJORITY that stopped being able to stand her after she was such a bitch.

If anything will cause the Democrats to implode or be defeated, it will be small-minded bickering.

Can't you take a hint from each of your respective leaders and unite behind a Democratic Party ticket which is best for the future of the United States and the world?

If anything will cause the Democrats to implode or be defeated, it will be small-minded bickering.

Can't you take a hint from each of your respective leaders and unite behind a Democratic Party ticket which is best for the future of the United States and the world?

He's Canadian, I'm Brazilian, and what the heck do her supporters want? Us to hire one of the Village People to give Hillary an enjoyable evening?

She will NOT be on the ticket, mainly because of the way she acted in the campaign. That's her fault, and hers ALONE. If she had not acted like an entitled bitch throughout the campaign, she might be VP. Now, they should go ahead and pick between the policeman, the indian or the construction worker and get the hell over it.

I don't think it will matter too much who McCain picks as VP, probably one that can keep the rightists on board, because he is going to win anyways.

The Dems have imploded, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Do you have some evidence to support this assertion?

If anything will cause the Democrats to implode or be defeated, it will be small-minded bickering.

Can't you take a hint from each of your respective leaders and unite behind a Democratic Party ticket which is best for the future of the United States and the world?

The simple answer is no. I haven't seen you in a while TCT. I miss the civil disagreement and thought provoking questions you provide.

He's Canadian, I'm Brazilian

*snip anti-Hillary rant*

I'm quite aware of each of your nationalities. But I assume that you both spend so much time bickering about the U.S. presidential race because you have at least some interest in who the next President of the United States is.

All I am saying is that that interest ought to motivate CanuckHeaven to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and that interest ought to motivate you to stop belittling and smearing Hillary Clinton and instead focus on getting Obama elected.

She will NOT be on the ticket, mainly because of the way she acted in the campaign. That's her fault, and hers ALONE. If she had not acted like an entitled bitch throughout the campaign, she might be VP. Now, they should go ahead and pick between the policeman, the indian or the construction worker and get the hell over it.


OMG DNT U UNDERSTAND TAHT IT WAS SEXISMZ?!?1!?!?!?!?!11!? TAT IS Y HILLARY LOST!!!111!1!!!!1...one


Do you have some evidence to support this assertion?

No. He never does.


All I am saying is that that interest ought to motivate CanuckHeaven to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and that interest ought to motivate you to stop belittling and smearing Hillary Clinton and instead focus on getting Obama elected.



No. CH is far too concerned with being right and proving to everyone he was right to ever back the candidate that curb-stomped his messiah, and H2 is simply too fed up with all his baseless accusations and trolling to ever be civil.


Personally I now wait with baited breath for who McCain picks. He has to pick carefully because he walks a tight rope. If he picks someone too far right, it helps him with the crazy righty Christian facists, but hurts him with moderates who already think he's Bush III, or close to it. If he picks someone even remotally moderate, hes going to turn all the crazy right wing organizations against him.

One of his choices is pro-choice. It will amuse me to no end if he chooses him, and I will revel in the infighting and laugh at the shrill screams of all the anti-choices groups who are outraged he choose someone who supports a woman's right to her body as his right hand man.

(is still holding out hope for schweitzer)

did you guys catch his speech tonight?

did you guys catch his speech tonight?

No, I missed it. I was head first in a bottle of rum and watching a Law and Order marathon (original one, not all that offshoot BS).


Is there a link of the vid online someone can post?

WOW she must be a powerful lady if she can cost you a nation. :tongue:


I don't think it will matter too much who McCain picks as VP, probably one that can keep the rightists on board, because he is going to win anyways.

The Dems have imploded, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well, let's hope that this prediction has the same basis as every other prediction you've offered. Let's hope that McCain soars in November..

Well, let's hope that this prediction has the same basis as every other prediction you've offered. Let's hope that McCain soars in November..

Dude... there are some things you don't say, even in jest....

Dude... there are some things you don't say, even in jest....

Well, given that "soaring" is defined as underperforming and managing to lose but only slightly according to same predicter, I truly do hope he "soars".

I was very moved by the Clinton speech today. Honestly, I wish she would have found her voice much earlier. I hope to see her on his cabinet. Clearly, she made Obama a better candidate, and he her.

Well, given that "soaring" is defined as underperforming and managing to lose but only slightly according to same predicter, I truly do hope he "soars".

I was very moved by the Clinton speech today. Honestly, I wish she would have found her voice much earlier. I hope to see her on his cabinet. Clearly, she made Obama a better candidate, and he her.

We might still see Clinton '12? I didn't see the speech yet (being at work), but I've heard good things.

Do you have some evidence to support this assertion?

Never, never has, never will.

No. CH is far too concerned with being right and proving to everyone he was right to ever back the candidate that curb-stomped his messiah, and H2 is simply too fed up with all his baseless accusations and trolling to ever be civil.

Civil, I am. I have to be civil, I don't have to be nice. Aside from that, right on.

All I am saying is that that interest ought to motivate CanuckHeaven to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and that interest ought to motivate you to stop belittling and smearing Hillary Clinton and instead focus on getting Obama elected.

CH already said he'd only support Obama if Hillary was on the ticket, whether because of his color or of her having a vagina I don't know. I have nothing to lose.

Let's hope that McCain soars in November..

Zing..

We might still see Clinton '12? I didn't see the speech yet (being at work), but I've heard good things.

Well, given that after 8 years of Obama, she'll be quite old herself and many other people will have risen to prominence by then, I'm hoping and thinking Clinton 'never.

Well, the crap she pulled did cost me a nation.


Dude, for the last fucking time-she didn't cost you a nation, you cost you a nation. Take some fucking responsibility for your own fucking bullshit and stop dragging every election thread into your own little whine fest. For fucks sake, it's old.

All I am saying is that that interest ought to motivate CanuckHeaven to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and that interest ought to motivate you to stop belittling and smearing Hillary Clinton and instead focus on getting Obama elected.

Others have said it before, but frankly if you've read every one of CH's political posts since the Democratic campaign ended he's just bitter and angry that Hillary was neither the Presidential nor the Vice Presidential candidate. And his bitterness is the kind who'd be willing to see the United States sink under John Dubya McCain just to spite Obama supporters.

Dude, for the last fucking time-she didn't cost you a nation, you cost you a nation. Take some fucking responsibility for your own fucking bullshit and stop dragging every election thread into your own little whine fest. For fucks sake, it's old.

It's not actionable. That's all I need right now.

Plus, as I said, were her supporters not trained to do what they did to me, that 2 by the side of my name would not be there.

Others have said it before, but frankly if you've read every one of CH's political posts since the Democratic campaign ended he's just bitter and angry that Hillary was neither the Presidential nor the Vice Presidential candidate. And his bitterness is the kind who'd be willing to see the United States sink under John Dubya McCain just to spite Obama supporters.

Not only the US, the world too. And quite frankly, I think no olive branch but seeing Obama eaten by giant cockroaches while Hillary gets a crown and becomes Queen of the US would suffice for him.

It's not actionable. That's all I need right now.

Plus, as I said, were her supporters not trained to do what they did to me, that 2 by the side of my name would not be there.

I keep hoping that some day you'll grow up, but if you can't can you at least choose to keep the childishness to your close family and friends. Frankly, I've got a dozen neices and nephews most in the single digits and I've not seen any of them being so completely incapable of rationally taking responsibility for their own actions.

YOU got deated. YOU got deated because you think YOU should be allowed to behave as YOU like. The purpose of that deat was to teach YOU that YOU are required to follow the rules here. If YOU don't learn that YOU are responsible for YOUR rules breaking then YOU will likely find yourself with a 3, and then a 4, and then no name at all.

And THAT has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. It will have everything to do with that after months, you STILL can't deal with YOUR behavior like an adult.

and then no name at all.

Hey now...

But yeah, it's a fucking drag. I'm tired of having to pick through election threads like a bony chicken wing to get around indulgent ridiculous posts.

Snip.

Well, I wasn't banned a day in this account yet, and, as I am saying, I am, currently, playing by the rules, am I not?

I'm being an asshole about it, sometimes, granted, but I'm playing by the rules. You'll also notice, I hope, that I only bring that up in threads where CH appears and does his trolling.

Besides, if Clinton gets to play victim, porquois pas moi?

Well, given that after 8 years of Obama, she'll be quite old herself and many other people will have risen to prominence by then, I'm hoping and thinking Clinton 'never.

Ooh? You think we'll get two terms of Obama?

The good news just keeps on coming, eh?

Ooh? You think we'll get two terms of Obama?

The good news just keeps on coming, eh?

Unless he fucks up big, I do think so. Hell, Bush all but raped a 4-year old on national television and he got little to no contest to the second nomination.

Well, I wasn't banned a day in this account yet, and, as I am saying, I am, currently, playing by the rules, am I not?

I'm being an asshole about it, sometimes, granted, but I'm playing by the rules. You'll also notice, I hope, that I only bring that up in threads where CH appears to troll.

Besides, if Clinton gets to play victim, porquois pas moi?

And the circle of childishness is complete. No, wait, first you have to tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue.

The bar for adult behavior exists regardless of the behavior of other adults. You're held to that standard whether others violate said standard. "Johnny did it first" didn't work when you were seven. How about we move forward be pretending you're fully in control of your faculties? What do you think?

And the circle of childishness is complete. No, wait, first you have to tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue.

The bar for adult behavior exists regardless of the behavior of other adults. You're held to that standard whether others violate said standard. "Johnny did it first" didn't work when you were seven. How about we move forward be pretending you're fully in control of your faculties? What do you think?

0.5 - "I'm rubber and you're glue" would be a fun expression to try to translate to Portuguese. I know its meaning, but I don't think there's an equivalent ready to use. Mmm.

1- Still, childish behavior per se isn't a moddable offense. And I don't think someone who acts in an unreasonable way should expect a reasonable reaction. Also, does "whether" work without the "or not"? I'm not criticizing it, just seeing if it does - it helps me to know the seedier details of the English language, after all.

2- I'm not in full control of my faculties. But, if that's any consolation, I don't think anyone else is, either. Maybe the Buddha, but...

3- Right now, I'm thinking "I'd like to have a brownie". Mmm. I should learn how to bake one.

It's not actionable. That's all I need right now.

Plus, as I said, were her supporters not trained to do what they did to me, that 2 by the side of my name would not be there.

You should probably cry more about how the big mean Clinton supporters forced you against your will to flame the crap out of them like an obnoxious 5 year old. I'd argue your flaming was done quite consensually.

You should probably cry more about how the big mean Clinton supporters forced you against your will to flame the crap out of them like an obnoxious 5 year old.

Nah. I'm good right now, but thanks for the offer. Got a good brownie recipe?

0.5 - "I'm rubber and you're glue" would be a fun expression to try to translate to Portuguese. I know its meaning, but I don't think there's an equivalent ready to use. Mmm.

1- Still, childish behavior per se isn't a moddable offense. And I don't think someone who acts in an unreasonable way should expect a reasonable reaction.

2- I'm not in full control of my faculties. But, if that's any consolation, I don't think anyone else is, either. Maybe the Buddha, but...

3- Right now, I'm thinking "I'd like to have a brownie". Mmm. I should learn how to bake one.

Well, there you go. So long as you won't get modded then you should be proud of your behavior. I mean, you wouldn't want to be a respected debator, would you? If your goal is to be viewed as petty and silly, then I suggest continuing to blame your behavior on someone who wasn't even present when you consciously and intentionally violated the rules.

So, first, it's Clinton's fault. Now CH is responsible for your behavior. So is there anyone else you want to blame for your behavior?

Well, there you go. So long as you won't get modded then you should be proud of your behavior. I mean, you wouldn't want to be a respected debator, would you? If your goal is to be viewed as petty and silly, then I suggest continuing to blame your behavior on someone who wasn't even present when you consciously and intentionally violated the rules.

So, first, it's Clinton's fault. Now CH is responsible for your behavior. So is there anyone else you want to blame for your behavior?

Yeah, my parents. They raised me poorly, resulting in the dysfunctional little ball of misguided bitterness and hatred you've come to know and love. :D

But I digress. Let me ask you something: Your reaction - that of a reasonable person as it may or not be - is, to some extent, being dictated by my actions, are they not? I mean, though I did not flamebait per se, you are irritated at what you perceive as childish behavior or other things, right?

And I usually DO want to be a respected debater. Heck, I think/hope I usually AM. But, with certain subjects and under certain conditions, not being modded ends up having to suffice. Under said circumstances, yes, I become a douche and an asshole (though still within the rules), if only because there's no arguing with some people. It's that simple.

[/threadjack]

I've given up. I made my request, he stated his intentions. There's no where to go from there except to use forum tools to make the sifting easier on me.

It's not actionable. That's all I need right now.

Plus, as I said, were her supporters not trained to do what they did to me, that 2 by the side of my name would not be there.

Dude, for fuck's sake, shut up for a second and listen to yourself!

YOU are responsible for your actions. Not someone else. Not Clinton supporters. YOU. YOU chose to overreact. You chose to say the things that got your nation deleted. You may have been provoked to feel anger, but you chose to act on that anger.

See the key element here? It's all you. You can blame Clinton supporters all you want, but YOU were the one responsible.

Now can we please stop with your whining and get back to something resembling debate?

Dude, for fuck's sake, shut up for a second and listen to yourself!

YOU are responsible for your actions. Not someone else. Not Clinton supporters. YOU. YOU chose to overreact. You chose to say the things that got your nation deleted. You may have been provoked to feel anger, but you chose to act on that anger.

See the key element here? It's all you. You can blame Clinton supporters all you want, but YOU were the one responsible.

Now can we please stop with your whining and get back to something resembling debate?

Heikoku is missing the biggest irony of all: He's reduced to whining and bitching about the conspiracy of others. Just like Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

were her supporters not trained to do what they did to me

Trained?

Trained?

Not only is it their fault but they actually get together to practice having him banned.

Not only is it their fault but they actually get together to practice having him banned.

That phrase gave me a mental image of a Hillary Clinton flamewar Internet training camp, much like those videos of Al Qaeda training camps.

That phrase gave me a mental image of a Hillary Clinton flamewar Internet training camp, much like those videos of Al Qaeda training camps.

Now you did it. You let Hil'Qaeda know that you found out about them. Now they're gonna stage a suicide attack on you, Vince Foster style.

Is there a link of the vid online someone can post?

yes, though cnn missed the beginning of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TrExnz0Yow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETRMThbrvJ0

update:
sweet, somebody got a better feed up on the ol' tubes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8iatxuU3OU

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton introduced herself as a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday as she called on her party to rally behind her former rival.

"Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines. This is a fight for the future. And it's a fight we must win together," she said.

Leading up to her address, there was a lot of speculation about what she would say and whether she would make a strong enough call for unity. But she made a very strident case for Obama's candidacy.

"No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president," Clinton said. Her speech, which was the last of the night, followed a line up of other Democrats who used their time at the podium to attack President Bush's record and McCain's policies.

Appearing strong and energized, Clinton thanked her voters for supporting her historic campaign as a female candidate and reached out to those wary of Obama by telling them they weren't in this for her, but for her cause. That cause, she said, is the same thing that Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party are fighting for.

Many analysts said the speech would end speculation that Clinton has not fully embraced Obama as her party's candidate.

Clinton mentioned Obama by name more than twice as many times as she mentioned the party as a whole.

"I thought she was a class act," said political analyst David Gergen, who worked in the Clinton administration. "I think it could well be said that nothing has so become her campaign as the way she has ended it here tonight."

Clinton also praised Obama's newly tapped vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. The former first lady called Biden "pragmatic, tough and wise."

Clinton was met with a standing ovation from an enthusiastic audience. Only a few pockets of the standing-room only convention center weren't on their feet cheering for her. Observers said she had the biggest reception of the evening.

The vid: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCText

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?

The vid: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCText

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?

*Imitating MLK*

Useful at last! Useful at last! Thanks God almighty, she's useful at last!

Now all we need is for her supporters to take a hint, if not from reality, from Hillary itself.

(Yes, the choice of pronoun was that one.)

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?

did you see the clinton delegate on the verge of breaking down completely that they talked to on cnn right after her speech?



also,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/pantsuits.jpg
personally, i'd have gone with the red. don't get me wrong, i'm down with solidarity with those unjustly held captive by the bush admin. but it doesn't quite work in pantsuit form.

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?

...really? Come on now. How can it not be just politics, after they spent the past few months tearing each other to shreds?

Of course, perhaps it's a Big Government New World Order Conspiracy to get John McCain elected so we can invade Iran. >.>

Of course, perhaps it's a Big Government New World Order Conspiracy to get John McCain elected so we can invade Iran. >.>
If the conspirators have any power, it won't matter who the president is. <_<;

Not only the US, the world too.
That is only supposition on your part. Unless of course you have proof?


And quite frankly, I think no olive branch but seeing Obama eaten by giant cockroaches while Hillary gets a crown and becomes Queen of the US would suffice for him.
Perhaps this article will help you come to grips with part of the problem for Democrats as I see it. Read the whole article, and then perhaps you can ease up on your incessant anti-Hillary tirade?

WHY is Hillary Clinton not Barack Obama's running mate (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/she_done_him_right_126276.htm)?

Especially this quote:

Obama supporters and party leaders continue to insult Hillary voters - and then seem shocked when so many of them say they're going to vote Republican this year.

WHY is Hillary Clinton not Barack Obama's running mate (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08272008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/she_done_him_right_126276.htm)?

Because she spent the entire campaign badmouthing him and acting like a victim who was entitled to be a candidate, that's why she's not his running mate, and because her supporters, oriented by her, acted the same way and called US, Obama supporters, sexists, elitists, and EVERYTHING UNDER THE MOTHERFUCKING SUN! I GOT FLAMED BY YOU AND SHALRIROCHIA IN THIS VERY FORUM! AND YOU EXPECT ME TO PLAY ANY NICER TO YOU THAN IT WOULD BE MODDABLE? WITH YOU TROLLING BECAUSE YOUR MESSIAH LOST? WHY THE HELL WOULD I?

Now that I answered the title of the article written by that moron of a writer, of such a "credible" source as the New York Post no less, shall we move the fuck on? I'll give you some very nicely edited pics of Hillary if it makes you shut up.

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?
It is just politics. Clinton did what she HAD to do, she had no real viable options.

She could have pulled a Ted Kennedy but she chose not to, to her credit.

It is just politics. Clinton did what she HAD to do, she had no real viable options.

Yeah, given her perverse sense of entitlement and delusions of grandeur, I can't say I disagree with you there. Still, she was effective and useful.

I'm quite aware of each of your nationalities. But I assume that you both spend so much time bickering about the U.S. presidential race because you have at least some interest in who the next President of the United States is.

All I am saying is that that interest ought to motivate CanuckHeaven to support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and that interest ought to motivate you to stop belittling and smearing Hillary Clinton and instead focus on getting Obama elected.

Now the simple answer is yes. :)

Because she spent the entire campaign badmouthing him and acting like a victim who was entitled to be a candidate, that's why she's not his running mate, and because her supporters, oriented by her, acted the same way and called US, Obama supporters, sexists, elitists, and EVERYTHING UNDER THE MOTHERFUCKING SUN!
I don't think that's why. Obama took all the mudslinging on the chin during the primaries, and I think he has the strength of character to drop all that as water under the bridge if he wanted to join forces with her for the final push to the presidency.

The problem was one of appealing to the blue collar white male voters out there. The main voting demographic is the average Joe, and while Obama/Clinton takes the middle class professionals, both male and female, as well as the minority vote, it ignores the prime constituent of the American public, which is a dangerous strategy to adopt when it comes to vote-winning.

I would have preferred Obama/Clinton, personally, but Biden is there on cold, calculated statistics, and it makes sense, albeit a kind of unsatisfying sense.

I would have preferred Obama/Clinton, personally, but Biden is there on cold, calculated statistics, and it makes sense, albeit a kind of unsatisfying sense.

For me, it's satisfying in both ways. Coldly speaking, Biden gets more votes, and emotionally speaking, it's good to see Clinton duly punished.

For me, it's satisfying in both ways. Coldly speaking, Biden gets more votes, and emotionally speaking, it's good to see Clinton duly punished.
Justice being served, eh? Well, hopefully, this justice won't get in the way of progress.

Justice being served, eh? Well, hopefully, this justice won't get in the way of progress.

I don't think it will. The people that voted for Clinton and "wouldn't vote for Obama anyways" usually would not anyways regardless of how nice he plays. One such person from WV gave an interview telling she'd not vote for a man of "the other race"...

If the conspirators have any power, it won't matter who the president is. <_<;

Obama is starting to sound suspiciously like McCain, and vice-versa...

One such person from WV gave an interview telling she'd not vote for a man of "the other race"...

Ah, yes, "the other," because there can be only two. Dontcha just love US conceptions of race? They make perfect sense until you start applying critical-thinking skills. Gah!

Ah, yes, "the other," because there can be only two. Dontcha just love US conceptions of race? They make perfect sense until you start applying critical-thinking skills. Gah!

You're expecting a person that wouldn't vote for a man "of the other race" to make such distinctions. Please stop. :p

Perhaps this article will help you come to grips with part of the problem for Democrats as I see it.

"Yet Hart and Kennedy both fought on at the convention; Kennedy only conceded after failing to change party rules to his favor. It's this double standard that so enrages Hillary supporters."

and how well did that work out for the democrats, exactly?

The vid: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html#cnnSTCText

Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the DNC. I'm just curious what CH thinks of Clinton coming out so strongly in support of Obama. There was a lot of speculation that her speech might not make a very adamant call for unity. Whether it's just politics or not, Clinton has come down very forcefully on Obama's side. What do her supporters think?

Her speech was excellent. CH used to say that if Hillary asked her supporters to vote for Obama that would satisfy him. He also said that if Hillary spoke out and supported Obama herself, he would support Obama. It doesn't seem like that is going to be the case. An interesting point I'd like people to ponder. Where has Shalrochia gone? She was full fledged behind Hillary all through those debates. Now she has gone silent and hasn't returned. Any idea why people of NSG? It just seems odd that a single debate being over and she is gone. Surely we can't believe that she was just a puppet used to bolster the cause of the Hillary supporters on this board. Call me cynical, but it just seems odd.

did you see the clinton delegate on the verge of breaking down completely that they talked to on cnn right after her speech?



also,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/pantsuits.jpg
personally, i'd have gone with the red. don't get me wrong, i'm down with solidarity with those unjustly held captive by the bush admin. but it doesn't quite work in pantsuit form.

Yeah, I saw that. It was actually pathetic how she just can't let go. She was a blubbering mess. She also didn't have the best grammar, even for the region of the country from which she came. I understand being country, but she just sounded foolish. "That was a Presidential speech... (boohoohoo). Enough is enough.

Her speech was excellent. CH used to say that if Hillary asked her supporters to vote for Obama that would satisfy him. He also said that if Hillary spoke out and supported Obama herself, he would support Obama. It doesn't seem like that is going to be the case. An interesting point I'd like people to ponder. Where has Shalrochia gone? She was full fledged behind Hillary all through those debates. Now she has gone silent and hasn't returned. Any idea why people of NSG? It just seems odd that a single debate being over and she is gone. Surely we can't believe that she was just a puppet used to bolster the cause of the Hillary supporters on this board. Call me cynical, but it just seems odd.

Wait, Shalrirochia was a pain and I still resent him/her, but in her/his defense, s/he did put a statement of support for Obama as soon as the primaries were over.

If anything will cause the Democrats to implode or be defeated, it will be small-minded bickering.

Can't you take a hint from each of your respective leaders and unite behind a Democratic Party ticket which is best for the future of the United States and the world?
Perhaps as I get older, I become more cynical? I don't see that the "Democratic Party ticket", as presented, as being the "best" "for the future of the United States and the world".

I don't envisage Obama as a "transformative" type of President, and I think he has missed his calling by choosing to run this year instead of a future date.

Perhaps as I get older, I become more cynical? I don't see that the "Democratic Party ticket", as presented, as being the "best" "for the future of the United States and the world".

I don't envisage Obama as a "transformative" type of President, and I think he has missed his calling by choosing to run this year instead of a future date.

Ah, ageism, so good to meet you again. Surely you'd say the same about McCain, who is 71, or Nader, who is 75? Or it's because the ONLY right age would be Hillary's 60? Or is the problem his conspicuous lack of a vagina? Or... what else? What other excuses, CH? Too tall? Too thin? Likes to play basketball, not hockey?

Do you realize what a spectacle you're making of yourself, grasping at straws like this?

CH used to say that if Hillary asked her supporters to vote for Obama that would satisfy him. He also said that if Hillary spoke out and supported Obama herself, he would support Obama.
I did? I don't think so my friend.

An interesting point I'd like people to ponder. Where has Shalrochia gone? She was full fledged behind Hillary all through those debates. Now she has gone silent and hasn't returned. Any idea why people of NSG? It just seems odd that a single debate being over and she is gone. Surely we can't believe that she was just a puppet used to bolster the cause of the Hillary supporters on this board. Call me cynical, but it just seems odd.
I don't believe that Shal was a puppet, and I think it is more a case of HIM losing interest in the cause.

I don't believe that Shal was a puppet, and I think it is more a case of HIM losing interest in the cause.

Again: Given that he started supporting Obama after Obama won the nomination, the only "cause" he lost interest in was "let's screw America and the world out of spite because that black dude doesn't have a vagina". Now if only more people would lose interest in said cause...

Im seriously going to lock CH and H2 in a room until they either kiss and makeup or kill each other.

Im seriously going to lock CH and H2 in a room until they either kiss and makeup or kill each other.

I like it, it echos what seems to be actually happening.

"You're splitting the party by not supporting my candidate!"
"No, you're splitting it!"

It is just politics. Clinton did what she HAD to do, she had no real viable options.

She could have pulled a Ted Kennedy but she chose not to, to her credit.

So your mind remains unchanged, despite your candidate saying that you should support Obama because he represents her agenda the best?

I like it, it echos what seems to be actually happening.

"You're splitting the party by not supporting my candidate!"
"No, you're splitting it!"

Except one of the candidates WON and is about to be NOMINATED. Wanna guess which?

So your mind remains unchanged, despite your candidate saying that you should support Obama because he represents her agenda the best?

Because it apears that dispite my worries, Hillary isnt so bitter and vile as to destroy the entire country out of spite and just to prove shes right.

If only all her supporters werent so childish.

Ah, ageism, so good to meet you again. Surely you'd say the same about McCain, who is 71, or Nader, who is 75? Or it's because the ONLY right age would be Hillary's 60? Or is the problem his conspicuous lack of a vagina? Or... what else? What other excuses, CH? Too tall? Too thin? Likes to play basketball, not hockey?

Do you realize what a spectacle you're making of yourself, grasping at straws like this?
I don't give a shit what you say anymore sonny boy. No more ink for you.

I don't give a shit what you say anymore sonny boy. No more ink for you.

...he said, answering me to tell me he didn't give a shit. Or that he didn't care enough to answer.

Except one of the candidates WON and is about to be NOMINATED. Wanna guess which?

"Its all the Hillary supporters fault!"

Thank you for illustrating my point.

I don't give a shit what you say anymore sonny boy. No more ink for you.

Was it entirely necessary for you to post that? Can't you two just put each other on ignore and be done with it?

I don't give a shit what you say anymore sonny boy. No more ink for you.

This pretty much echos how most of us feel about one of you, or even both of you at this point.

"Its all the Hillary supporters fault!"

Thank you for illustrating my point.

Well, given what she pulled in the run-up to her LOSS, yes.

So your mind remains unchanged, despite your candidate saying that you should support Obama because he represents her agenda the best?
She stated what she HAD to say. It is all politics, and I truly believe that Nader is a better choice than Obama. Obama's politics have been more divisive then they appear to be.

I find it amusing the most vitriolic posters in this election cycle are neither Americans.

Was it entirely necessary for you to post that? Can't you two just put each other on ignore and be done with it?
I don't put people on ignore. It was necessary to let him know that I won't be replying and he can save his troll points for the next poster.

She stated what she HAD to say. It is all politics, and I truly believe that Nader is a better choice than Obama. Obama's politics have been more divisive then they appear to be.

Yeah, and Hillary's attempt to race-bait Obama, suggesting he might be assassinated, and so on, and so forth, are less divisive than they appear to be. :rolleyes:

Well, given what she pulled in the run-up to her LOSS, yes.

Don't worry though, I'm sure that the attitude of reconciliation that both sets of supporters are displaying will help preserve an image of party unity and will in no way hand the election to the Republicans.

Heh.

I don't put people on ignore. It was necessary to let him know that I won't be replying and he can save his troll points for the next poster.

You come on here every day to troll for a hag that has long ago asked you to stop speaking in her name. And you hurl accusations at me. Should I laugh or should I puke?

Don't worry though, I'm sure that the attitude of reconciliation that both sets of supporters are displaying will help preserve an image of party unity and will in no way hand the election to the Republicans.

Heh.

Hillary pulled the crap, it's her field's to stop.

Hillary pulled the crap, it's her field's to stop.

And she has. Many times. Your constant attacks on her serve no purpose anymore.

And she has. Many times. Your constant attacks on her serve no purpose anymore.

I said: Her field's.

And I myself still hate her, and I will as long as her supporters keep throwing the tantrum.

Hillary pulled the crap, it's her field's to stop.

That's the spirit! With a positive attitude like this, how can they fail?

Something about grudges, middle school and...Cleveland.

I don't put people on ignore. It was necessary to let him know that I won't be replying and he can save his troll points for the next poster.

Really ought alter that policy. Granted it doesn't work so well when people quote them verbatim, but it does cut down on seeing them.

Something about grudges, middle school and...Cleveland.

Why Cleveland?

Heikoku 2 and CanuckHeaven, both of you need to knock it off. Heikoku 2, Canuck said he wasn't going to respond to any more of your posts. That should be your hint to not egg him on. Both of you, if you can't deal with the other without pushing the forum rules, then put each other on ignore. I'm not going to hand out any warnings this time, but if I see this same exact thing again, both of you will receive warnings. Got it?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/userfiles/pantsuits.jpg
personally, i'd have gone with the red. don't get me wrong, i'm down with solidarity with those unjustly held captive by the bush admin. but it doesn't quite work in pantsuit form.

Tough call on the pantsuits. Spouse liked the orange more than I did, I thought it clashed with her lipstick. The red is nice, but she would have been at least the second blond in bright red to speak that evening, (Lily Ledbetter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear) was on earlier,) and the blues would have disappeared against the background.

Given that she didn't have a nice dark-green option, orange might have been the best choice. So much easier to be a man in this situation, nobody notices when you wear the same suit for a week.

It is all politics, and I truly believe that Nader is a better choice than Obama. Obama's politics have been more divisive then they appear to be.
Oh, there's little doubt that having Ralph Nader in the presidency, representing a third party, would be better than either Republican or Democrat leadership, regardless of who the Democrats nominate. The point is that it's too close to November to persuade fourty million people to agree with you on that, and to give your vote to the Greens is in practice an abstention.

Oh, there's little doubt that having Ralph Nader in the presidency, representing a third party, would be better than either Republican or Democrat leadership, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.

On the contrary, I think that's an interesting idea that could be argued either way. Given the enormous power of the executive branch, would it really be a good idea to hand it over to such a young party? Would they have a sufficient talent pool to fill all of the appointed positions? Also, couldn't the legislative process fall into gridlock that much more easily with the President having zero party allies in Congress?

Honestly, I have no idea, but it's a more interesting question than "who is more to blame for party disunity?"

On the contrary, I think that's an interesting idea that could be argued either way. Given the enormous power of the executive branch, would it really be a good idea to hand it over to such a young party? Would they have a sufficient talent pool to fill all of the appointed positions? Also, couldn't the legislative process fall into gridlock that much more easily with the President having zero party allies in Congress?
I'm fairly sure the Greens could fill the posts. They'd know to be cautious in exercising their power as a young party with a PR war to win, and in many respects the legislative gridlock placed on them if they step too far out of line with the house is no bad thing.

Just as an aside, 2009 will be the first year of my life in which a person whose last name is not Bush or Clinton is in the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

Just as an aside, 2009 will be the first year of my life in which a person whose last name is not Bush or Clinton is in the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.
... Unless McCain makes a big mistake on his choice of running mate then proceeds to rig the election, of course.

I think it will likely be neutral or even negative, especially for people in the middle. Remember, Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change, and bringing along a career politician with various negative baggage hardly solidifies Obama as someone who is really above the politics and pandering of career politicians.

I'm fairly sure the Greens could fill the posts. They'd know to be cautious in exercising their power as a young party with a PR war to win, and in many respects the legislative gridlock placed on them if they step too far out of line with the house is no bad thing.

I just realized I'm a doofus -- the Green candidate is Cynthia McKinney; Nader is running as an independent. Sorry!

To your point, you're suggesting that what one is doing in supporting any third-party Presidential candidate is being in favor of a massive shift of power from the executive to the legislative branch. That would certainly be a change in government, almost too large a change to categorize as "bad" or "good".

It makes the idea of switching one's support from Clinton (or any Democratic or Republican candidate) to a third party to be a much bigger change of heart than I originally thought.

I think it will likely be neutral or even negative, especially for people in the middle. Remember, Obama is supposed to be the candidate of change, and bringing along a career politician with various negative baggage hardly solidifies Obama as someone who is really above the politics and pandering of career politicians.

It depends on how their working relationship is presented. If Obama's clearly going to be the one setting the tone and agenda, then Biden helps, because he's perceived to be an eminence grise who can provide advice and help get things done behind the scenes, an LBJ to Obama's JFK. If it looks like Obama's a nice guy who doesn't really know what he's talking about, then Biden doesn't help because he's perceived as either more-of-the-same or worse, a left-wing Cheney.

I just realized I'm a doofus -- the Green candidate is Cynthia McKinney; Nader is running as an independent. Sorry!

What on Earth did she ever do, besides slap a security guard and proceed to lose the following Congressional election, to deserve a Presidential nomination? Even from the boondocks of politics known as the Green Party?


Oh, and we can't forget that her bodyguard assaulted a TV reporter, That too.

I did? I don't think so my friend.


I don't believe that Shal was a puppet, and I think it is more a case of HIM losing interest in the cause.

I wish I had time to go back and find where you said if Hillary supported Obama you would too, but alas I do not. So who do you support at this time CH? I mean, clearly you were wrong in claiming she would come out on top. Don't go making excuses for her now. You made the claim and you were wrong. I believe she should get a spot in Education or Health and Human Services. Where do you think she would fit best in the Obama Cabinet?

Perhaps as I get older, I become more cynical? I don't see that the "Democratic Party ticket", as presented, as being the "best" "for the future of the United States and the world".

I don't envisage Obama as a "transformative" type of President, and I think he has missed his calling by choosing to run this year instead of a future date.

Gravel was a transformative candidate. Paul might be a transformative candidate. Koch is a transformative candidate.

American politics is apathetic and mainstream - really honest placards in the audience this year would have to say "We want change - but not too much?"

Real, serious change won't get you elected.

Im seriously going to lock CH and H2 in a room until they either kiss and makeup or kill each other.

seconded.

Im seriously going to lock CH and H2 in a room until they either kiss and makeup or kill each other.

Ooh, I'm hoping for kiss and makeup. Can we tilt the odds by feeding them oysters and stuff?

She stated what she HAD to say. It is all politics, and I truly believe that Nader is a better choice than Obama. Obama's politics have been more divisive then they appear to be.

Yes, he attacked that poor Hillary Clinton. All she did was bake him a pie and wish him well. Hell, how could she have had a chance to win? It's not like she had huge name recognition and a former President to go out and plug for her. She played the role of the polite underdog so well. She or her husband never attacked Obama. Damn that Obama for his divisive negative campaign. There, do we all feel better now? We're all victims of that evil man.

Given that she didn't have a nice dark-green option, orange might have been the best choice.

also, symbolic shout out to the great orange satan. at least that is how kos is pretending to take it.

What on Earth did she ever do, besides slap a security guard and proceed to lose the following Congressional election, to deserve a Presidential nomination? Even from the boondocks of politics known as the Green Party?


Oh, and we can't forget that her bodyguard assaulted a TV reporter, That too.

Eh. She's a very-left-wing Congresswoman who agitated for the sorts of things that the Greens like, and she seems to massively irritate Republicans, and she was willing to take the job. Third parties take what they can get. (The "what's so special about..." question applies equally to Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, IMO.)

Ooh, I'm hoping for kiss and makeup. Can we tilt the odds by feeding them oysters and stuff?

Much as I love oysters, it'd be more like a Fight Club scenario.

Gravel was a transformative candidate. Paul might be a transformative candidate. Koch is a transformative candidate.

American politics is apathetic and mainstream - really honest placards in the audience this year would have to say "We want change - but not too much?"

Real, serious change won't get you elected.

What else is new? Our mobs haven't been angry enough for near on a hundred years now.

Much as I love oysters, it'd be more like a Fight Club scenario.

you want to have his abortion?

Wow, this pimping of Hillary at the convention right now is lame.

Wow, this pimping of Hillary at the convention right now is lame.

Well, she did act like she needed it.

Much as I love oysters, it'd be more like a Fight Club scenario.

You haven't been fucked like that since gradeschool?

What else is new? Our mobs haven't been angry enough for near on a hundred years now.

I think it might be because you're largely taught that opposing the American government is opposing America... and thus, really asking for change is unpatriotic, at best, and maybe even treasonous.

You haven't been fucked like that since gradeschool?

I haven't been fucked since ever.

You haven't been fucked like that since gradeschool?

i like that that is what they put in after censors told them to drop the book's 'i wanna have your abortion' line

i like that that is what they put in after censors told them to drop the book's 'i wanna have your abortion' line

Yeah - the abortion line is still in the extras, so you can still see it delivered... but, like you, I thought it hilarious that the abortion line couldn't pass the censors, but that one could...

I wish I had time to go back and find where you said if Hillary supported Obama you would too, but alas I do not.
You can go back and check all you want....you just aren't going to find anything of the kind.

So who do you support at this time CH?
Nader.....it has been in my siggy for quite awhile now.

I believe she should get a spot in Education or Health and Human Services. Where do you think she would fit best in the Obama Cabinet?
Clinton won't be in Obama's cabinet for the simple reason is that he won't have a cabinet. He will be lucky to get a key for the executive washroom.

Gravel was a transformative candidate. Paul might be a transformative candidate. Koch is a transformative candidate.

American politics is apathetic and mainstream - really honest placards in the audience this year would have to say "We want change - but not too much?"

Real, serious change won't get you elected.
The "change" talk was serious enough to get him elected as the Democratic candidate. I believe that many of his new supporters will feel shortchanged when they head to the ballot box, and they will vent their frustrations there.

Clinton won't be in Obama's cabinet for the simple reason is that he won't have a cabinet. He will be lucky to get a key for the executive washroom.

More wishful thinking, did I mention without any base, from you. You were wrong about Obama winning the nomination, so, would you like to examine your track record on this?

The "change" talk was serious enough to get him elected as the Democratic candidate. I believe that many of his new supporters will feel shortchanged when they head to the ballot box, and they will vent their frustrations there.

And I believe that the primaries have shown that reality doesn't really care much about what you believe.

Her speech was excellent. CH used to say that if Hillary asked her supporters to vote for Obama that would satisfy him. He also said that if Hillary spoke out and supported Obama herself, he would support Obama. It doesn't seem like that is going to be the case. An interesting point I'd like people to ponder. Where has Shalrochia gone? She was full fledged behind Hillary all through those debates. Now she has gone silent and hasn't returned. Any idea why people of NSG? It just seems odd that a single debate being over and she is gone. Surely we can't believe that she was just a puppet used to bolster the cause of the Hillary supporters on this board. Call me cynical, but it just seems odd.

She's a he, and when Clinton endorsed Obama, he switched to Obama recognizing that it was more important to have a Democratic President than a tizzy fit because things didn't go exactly as he wanted. He still believes in Clinton, which is fair, but is now behind Obama. He's poked in here now and then, because we can now see that, but hasn't posted. Given the noise, I don't blame him. As was his pattern, he made a thread about it, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

She's a he, and when Clinton endorsed Obama, he switched to Obama recognizing that it was more important to have a Democratic President than a tizzy fit because things didn't go exactly as he wanted. He still believes in Clinton, which is fair, but is now behind Obama. He's poked in here now and then, because we can now see that, but hasn't posted. Given the noise, I don't blame him. As was his pattern, he made a thread about it, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

I'm not:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558365

You see, the Hillary supporter that had a dog in this race is actually being respectful in that thread.

It depends on how their working relationship is presented. If Obama's clearly going to be the one setting the tone and agenda, then Biden helps, because he's perceived to be an eminence grise who can provide advice and help get things done behind the scenes, an LBJ to Obama's JFK. If it looks like Obama's a nice guy who doesn't really know what he's talking about, then Biden doesn't help because he's perceived as either more-of-the-same or worse, a left-wing Cheney.

Clinton seemed to suggest that during his speech earlier; if anything, Biden seemed to get more specific praise than Obama, even if Obama received more of it. I really got the feeling that Obama is the face and Biden the brains, which is hardly a strong point given what happened when W was in the same position.

I just feel that Obama appears to be floundering rather than making any serious inroads against McCain; that's going to cost him, especially if you get enough Hillary supporters to vote against him, draining votes in the same manner as Ross Perot back in 1996.

As much as I strongly doubt Barack Obama will win, I do have some faith that he's strong on election strategy, certainly better than John McCain, I'm just not sure it's enough.

I fear a John McCain presidency is inevitable and I'm sorry to say that it's simply a case of waiting for people to find an excuse not to vote in a black family.

I fear a John McCain presidency is inevitable and I'm sorry to say that it's simply a case of waiting for people to find an excuse not to vote in a black family.

Yeah, but how many people are voting for Obama because he's black? I would say there are as many people voting for him because he's black as there are people voting against him for that same reason...unfortunately, racism works both ways in this election.

You can go back and check all you want....you just aren't going to find anything of the kind.


Nader.....it has been in my siggy for quite awhile now.


Clinton won't be in Obama's cabinet for the simple reason is that he won't have a cabinet. He will be lucky to get a key for the executive washroom.

Oh you are so very witty. I'll get your your bowl of milk now so you can cry your alligator tears into it. Seriously, you truly think Nadar embodies the policies of Hillary Clinton better than Obama? I'll be sure to pick someone equally as obscure when it comes time for elections in your country.

More wishful thinking, did I mention without any base, from you. You were wrong about Obama winning the nomination, so, would you like to examine your track record on this?

Hey, he can be wrong time and time again and it doesn't matter. You're out of order Sir! This whole forum is out of order!!!! How dare you bring up his being wrong time and time again as example that he probably will be wrong again? Objection sustained.

It seems most people who are convinced Obama wil loose are forgeiners or right wing crazies.


This gives me confidence.

She's a he, and when Clinton endorsed Obama, he switched to Obama recognizing that it was more important to have a Democratic President than a tizzy fit because things didn't go exactly as he wanted. He still believes in Clinton, which is fair, but is now behind Obama. He's poked in here now and then, because we can now see that, but hasn't posted. Given the noise, I don't blame him. As was his pattern, he made a thread about it, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Enough said.

Hey, he can be wrong time and time again and it doesn't matter. You're out of order Sir! This whole forum is out of order!!!! How dare you bring up his being wrong time and time again as example that he probably will be wrong again? Objection sustained.

>.>

<.<

*Hits Liuzzo's head with the gavel*

ORDER IN THE COURT!

>.>

<.<

It seems most people who are convinced Obama wil loose are forgeiners or right wing crazies.

This gives me confidence.

Apparently half the electorate feels the same way. Obama's not doing any better than any other candidate in years past...hell, he's polling worse than Kerry even though there are people who actually like Obama as a candidate rather than as an anti-Bush choice. His performance is actually pretty underwhelming considering the fact that Bush is barely polling in the 30's and the majority of Republicans are on the defensive.

It seems most people who are convinced Obama wil loose are forgeiners or right wing crazies.


This gives me confidence.

To be sure, Barringtonia seems neither, and I, a "foreigner" (by your standards) think he'll win.

To be sure, Barringtonia seems neither, and I, a "foreigner" (by your standards) think he'll win.

I thought Barringtonia was British for some reason.


And I never said all forgeiners thought he was going to loose. Chill.

Good night all. I need to hit the rack. Bringing Mom to chemo and then it's another 12 hr day. Be well.

Apparently half the electorate feels the same way. Obama's not doing any better than any other candidate in years past...hell, he's polling worse than Kerry even though there are people who actually like Obama as a candidate rather than as an anti-Bush choice.
Some people are missing this point, by a mile.

I thought Barringtonia was British for some reason.


And I never said all forgeiners thought he was going to loose. Chill.

I am chilled, just pointing those out.

And Barringtonia MAY be British. I don't know. :p

Apparently half the electorate feels the same way. Obama's not doing any better than any other candidate in years past...hell, he's polling worse than Kerry even though there are people who actually like Obama as a candidate rather than as an anti-Bush choice. His performance is actually pretty underwhelming considering the fact that Bush is barely polling in the 30's and the majority of Republicans are on the defensive.

I'll start to care about polling after Sept. 15th. It'll start to matter at that point. Anyhow, it will be a great political season.

Some people are missing this point, by a mile.

Bill Clinton was behind Bush AND perot when HIS election started.

Or you're trying to use this as an argument while claiming your messiah is immune to it?

You also seem to assume that the bitch would be doing much, or any, better. Why?

Yeah, but how many people are voting for Obama because he's black? I would say there are as many people voting for him because he's black as there are people voting against him for that same reason...unfortunately, racism works both ways in this election.

Sure, but I'd say they're mostly Democrats anyway - the only real factor is voter registration among the black population, is it enough?

This is a pretty good article, I"ll snip some points since it's probably a little tl:dr for most...

It's not the be all and end all of facts and opinion for sure but I think it's a reasonable snap shot, especially the hesitation people have in expressing their doubts about his colour, yet happy to say that's what other people will think.

Full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race)

Certainly, a closer look at the polls uncovers a stubbornly consistent racial divide. A recent Gallup poll had 91% of black voters backing Obama - indicating a nationwide trend in tune with Mississippi. Hispanics were keen on him too, with 68%. But non-Hispanic whites showed a clear preference for McCain, at 49% to Obama's 39%. When you factor in gender, the disparity is yet more glaring. White women came out evenly divided between the two candidates, but look at the findings for white men: McCain 55%, Obama 34%.

Until this year, the average turnout for a Democratic primary there [Mississippi] would be about 90,000. In March it was 500,000, three-quarters of whom were black. In 2004, George Bush took the state with 670,000 votes to his name - suggesting that a huge turnout of black voters in November would give Obama a big bounce in Mississippi, a state with the highest proportion of African-Americans in the US (39%). That would certainly scare the Republican elders even more than they are already.

But, of course, that still leaves the balance of power in the hands of the majority white voters. As Professor Marty Wiseman of Mississippi State University explains, race is no longer the number one issue for most white voters, but it remains an issue. "Any Democratic candidate who gets a big turnout of black voters is off to a very good start. It's just getting that other 20% that's difficult."

It occurs to me that of all the people I have spoken to - both in Livonia and in Philadelphia, towns separated by 800 miles and a divergent history - it has always been the "other people" who won't vote for Obama. Not a single person has said they personally would balk at a black president.

When she says there are a lot of people who don't want a black man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, does that include her?

Pause.

"Not really."

Does "not really" mean yes or no?

"I wouldn't want to see it in my lifetime."

A black presidency?

"I wouldn't like to see it, OK?"

Wilkerson himself is clearly conflicted. He knows Obama calls himself a Christian and says "that's good enough for me. I'm not a judge." But later in our conversation he admits that he too is troubled. "I'd like reassurance about who he is, who's backing him, just to be sure there's not an underlying current."

What is his worst fear?

"That he does turn out to be a Muslim after all."

"I don't have anything against a black man as president," he begins. "But Obama, he's not qualified. When you are president you represent everyone, not just your race. I've heard him talk about 'his people'."

He goes on: "And what about his religion, he can't just drop his religion."

What do you mean, I ask.

"He's a Muslim."

No, he's not. He's a Christian.

"Well, he should make it clear he stands by Christian values in America. That he doesn't hold those other values."

But he has made that clear.

"I don't think he's done that at all. He's just run from it. He should have nipped it in the bud and made clear he's a president for everybody."

But he's said that. What else can he do?

"Just because he's a Muslim, he should make it clear he doesn't believe in suicide bombing and killing."

Good night all. I need to hit the rack. Bringing Mom to chemo and then it's another 12 hr day. Be well.

Wow, your 12 hour day sucks way more than my 12 hour day. Hope everything works out.

I'll start to care about polling after Sept. 15th. It'll start to matter at that point. Anyhow, it will be a great political season.

We shall see. Even so, no matter who wins...it won't be a Clinton or (God forbid) another Bush in office.

She stated what she HAD to say. It is all politics, and I truly believe that Nader is a better choice than Obama. Obama's politics have been more divisive then they appear to be.

I love that you decided she was such a great leader and so prepared to lead our country, but not leader enough to lead you or to have anything relevent to say outside the President.

Now that she can't win, in your eyes, she's a liar and would just say anything to further her career. Interesting, that most of us had the same opinion when she was running and you protested so strongly. Ready to admit you were wrong?

Some people are missing this point, by a mile.

Right, because the person leading in the polls in August has always gone on to be the winner. I mean, since the election of 1984 the person leading in the polls has always... strike that...I just checked back in with reality. Seriously, it's bed time.

I thought Barringtonia was British for some reason.


And I never said all foreigners thought he was going to loose. Chill.

You're correct, I am British and you might be on the mark with your initial statement, there is a certain pessimism among foreigners in the main - I'm just not sure whether it's a case of over-pessimism or clear reality compared to the rose-tinted glasses seen in some Barack Obama supporters - he faces some very real issues that people appear to shrug off, they're not going to go away.

I have rarely lived in Britain if that helps though.

Sure, but I'd say they're mostly Democrats anyway - the only real factor is voter registration among the black population, is it enough?

This is a pretty good article, I"ll snip some points since it's probably a little tl:dr for most...

It's not the be all and end all of facts and opinion for sure but I think it's a reasonable snap shot, especially the hesitation people have in expressing their doubts about his colour, yet happy to say that's what other people will think.

Full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race)

While the "people" in this article are disturbing and infuriating, odds are they'd not vote for a Democrat anyways, no matter how much campaign was made. So, these people are also meaningless.

Wow, your 12 hour day sucks way more than my 12 hour day. Hope everything works out.

Thank you my friend. I never actually mind working so hard. I'm a work-a-holic and so is my wife. It makes vacation that much more fun.

Apparently half the electorate feels the same way. Obama's not doing any better than any other candidate in years past...hell, he's polling worse than Kerry even though there are people who actually like Obama as a candidate rather than as an anti-Bush choice. His performance is actually pretty underwhelming considering the fact that Bush is barely polling in the 30's and the majority of Republicans are on the defensive.

The polls focus on "likely voters". That's people who have voted in the last two election. Given both Clinton and Obama brought out record numbers of NEW voters, if McCain ends up even close to tied in the polls, he's straight out screwed.

The polls focus on "likely voters". That's people who have voted in the last two election. Given both Clinton and Obama brought out record numbers of NEW voters, if McCain ends up even close to tied in the polls, he's straight out screwed.

If that's true, that's VERY good news.

While the "people" in this article are disturbing and infuriating, odds are they'd not vote for a Democrat anyways, no matter how much campaign was made. So, these people are also meaningless.

Sure, it's the sentiment though, and more that although people are saying race doesn't matter, it does. Traditional Rs and Ds, sure they don't matter overall but among swing voters, I certainly wonder.

Which of these two statement do you think drives respective voters to the polls?

1. We need a black president
2. Damned if we're having a black president

It's easy to sit among peers who all agree Barack Obama is best, yet the silent racism remains strong I think and I just feel it will be a deciding factor.

If that's true, that's VERY good news.

Look at some of the numbers above. The average primary in Miss is 90,000. This year half a million. That's nearly the number of votes the winner got in Miss in 2004. If someone thinks not counting them wouldn't skew a poll, then I simply don't know what to say.

The polls focus on "likely voters". That's people who have voted in the last two election. Given both Clinton and Obama brought out record numbers of NEW voters, if McCain ends up even close to tied in the polls, he's straight out screwed.

Absolutely - added to Barack Obama's grassroots strategy, I feel this is the major hope.

Can he maintain the enthusiasm of the primaries though?

Hard to see the future is.

Look at some of the numbers above. The average primary in Miss is 90,000. This year half a million. That's nearly the number of votes the winner got in Miss in 2004. If someone thinks not counting them wouldn't skew a poll, then I simply don't know what to say.

If so, conceivably, even Texas will be into play...

The "change" talk was serious enough to get him elected as the Democratic candidate. I believe that many of his new supporters will feel shortchanged when they head to the ballot box, and they will vent their frustrations there.

Out of everything that actually had a chance of getting elected, Obama probably is the 'change' candidate. As much as that ever really happens in American politics.

It's been discounted a lot. The polls simply aren't going to be reflective of the current ground. That they still show him winning is, frankly, wildly concerning to the Republicans. Given that their current strategy seems to be throw everything and anything and hope something sticks, I'd say Obama is in a great position. In 2004, they found what sticks and pounded that nail till election day. If they'd found their nail, we'd be seeing it. That they're scrambling is GREAT.

It's been discounted a lot. The polls simply aren't going to be reflective of the current ground. That they still show him winning is, frankly, wildly concerning to the Republicans. Given that their current strategy seems to be throw everything and anything and hope something sticks, I'd say Obama is in a great position. In 2004, they found what sticks and pounded that nail till election day. If they'd found their nail, we'd be seeing it. That they're scrambling is GREAT.

From your fingers to God's eyes...

For desperation see:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/

Let's see, WWE RAW, Wedding Crashers, 24 and SNL. Hmmm... yeah, perhaps one should stress too much who much someone is a celebrity while trying to get on film any way possible.

For desperation see:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/

Let's see, WWE RAW, Wedding Crashers, 24 and SNL. Hmmm... yeah, perhaps one should stress too much who much someone is a celebrity while trying to get on film any way possible.

I have to wonder... Could that "celebrity" thing have stuck if Paris Hilton didn't make that commercial? If that's so... Could it be that Paris Hilton saved the world? :eek2:

For desperation see:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0564587/

Let's see, WWE RAW, Wedding Crashers, 24 and SNL. Hmmm... yeah, perhaps one should stress too much who much someone is a celebrity while trying to get on film any way possible.

What?

WWE Raw? Wedding Crashers? 24?! I can believe SNL, because practically every presidential candidate goes on there these days, but seriously on the other three? What the hell?

After seeing Bill Clinton's speech, I am 100% convinced that there is no reason, none, for a Hillary supporter to be against Obama unless its just plain old stubborn bitterness or maybe racism.


I have not seen a stonger endorsment for Obama from anybody this whole campaign. And Bill has no politics to play. Bill has nothing to gain from this. He could have not spoken. He could have given a lukewarm endorsement. No. He gave a powerful, forceful, passionate endorsement (in the form of an excellent speech) that should galvinize those last few stubborn hold outs. He even spoke well of Obama's choice of a running mate.

For God's sake, Bill even drew comprisons between himself and Obama. You have to really think someone is right for the job to compare him to yourself. He even used memorable lines from his 1996 speech.

I now remember why I like Bill. Hes an excellent speaker. Im glad that l be seeing him on my side of the campaign trail this election.



I now repeat, there is no reason for someone who supported Hillary to now support McCain. Anyone who does so I will simply assume is as stubborn as a mule, petty as a child, racist, or just not very bright. Or maybe even all those.

I now remember why I like Bill. Hes an excellent speaker.

He really is, an enormous asset when on side, more fool Al Gore for distancing himself.

...in return, I hope people give a little back to Hillary, it was a race and she fought her end, she's a human being, I get tired of the vitriol.

Yet Bill's speech was a great speech on any terms, stand alone, and Joe Biden's speech was also fantastic.

Here's hoping

The polls focus on "likely voters". That's people who have voted in the last two election. Given both Clinton and Obama brought out record numbers of NEW voters, if McCain ends up even close to tied in the polls, he's straight out screwed.

Not to mention the fact that many polls depend on phone responses from land-lines...

...as though land-lines represent America these days. :rolleyes:

there is a certain pessimism among foreigners in the main - I'm just not sure whether it's a case of over-pessimism or clear reality compared to the rose-tinted glasses seen in some Barack Obama supporters - he faces some very real issues that people appear to shrug off, they're not going to go away.
Definitely, there is an element of pessimism, but I believe you are right on with the stark reality of "some very real issues", and that many Obama supporters seem to own a set of "rose-tinted glasses".

Definitely, there is an element of pessimism, but I believe you are right on with the stark reality of "some very real issues", and that many Obama supporters seem to own a set of "rose-tinted glasses".

You mean like the ones you had regarding Hillary Clinton when YOU were WRONG?

Again: Reality doesn't really care about what you believe. Such as the belief that the person with one of the highest rejection rates in America would be doing any better than Obama only because he's young/black/insert prejudice du jour. More telling is the fact that you didn't answer Barringtonia's folluw-up, more optimistic post.

Definitely, there is an element of pessimism, but I believe you are right on with the stark reality of "some very real issues", and that many Obama supporters seem to own a set of "rose-tinted glasses".

You've been wrong so often now that this is the best sign yet.

You've been wrong so often now that this is the best sign yet.

I wonder if he could change reality THROUGH his wrongness. Mmm.

CH, quick, say I will NEVER have Selune for a girlfriend and then wife, let alone tomorrow!

Sure, but I'd say they're mostly Democrats anyway - the only real factor is voter registration among the black population, is it enough?

This is a pretty good article, I"ll snip some points since it's probably a little tl:dr for most...

It's not the be all and end all of facts and opinion for sure but I think it's a reasonable snap shot, especially the hesitation people have in expressing their doubts about his colour, yet happy to say that's what other people will think.

Full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/28/uselections2008.race)
the interesting part of those quotes is not the black support of obama--blacks have been overwhelmingly democratic for a long time.

its the black TURNOUT.

if republican voters cant be bothered to turn out to vote in november because john mccain leaves them cold AND 90% of black voters are so stoked by the idea of a black president that they DO vote, obama wins states that no other democratic candidate would have had a chance in.

You're correct, I am British and you might be on the mark with your initial statement, there is a certain pessimism among foreigners in the main - I'm just not sure whether it's a case of over-pessimism or clear reality compared to the rose-tinted glasses seen in some Barack Obama supporters - he faces some very real issues that people appear to shrug off, they're not going to go away.

I have rarely lived in Britain if that helps though.

I had never meant to diminish your opinion in any way, it was just an observation on my part.

The polls focus on "likely voters". That's people who have voted in the last two election. Given both Clinton and Obama brought out record numbers of NEW voters, if McCain ends up even close to tied in the polls, he's straight out screwed.

Yeah, thats the way I look at it. McCain is boned.

You've been wrong so often now that this is the best sign yet.
The problem is that I will probably be right at the most inconvenient time.

The problem is that I will probably be right at the most inconvenient time.

Considering how blatantly wrong youve been though, and how hes currently ahead in the polls and consitantly has been, there is no indication that you will be anything but dead wrong on this too.


Youve been crying wolf about his defeat for a long time now.

The problem is that I will probably be right at the most inconvenient time.

Because your track record of having your statements correct is so good?

You're wrong most of the times, and odds are you'll be wrong in this one too. Deal.

The problem is that I will probably be right at the most inconvenient time.

and why should we expect your luck to change?

the fact is you just don't have a good read on usian politics, nor on, for example, basic logic. if you are ever right on this topic, it is most likely to be a stopped clock phenomenon. this won't, however, stop you from becoming a pundit on one of the cable news channels - if anything, it will help immensely. so i'd work on that if i were you.

and why should we expect your luck to change?
My conclusions are not based upon luck.

the fact is you just don't have a good read on usian politics,
Strictly your opinion, or do you have specific examples that demonstrate the veracity of your claim?

nor on, for example, basic logic.
Please provide examples of my apparent lack of "basic logic".

if you are ever right on this topic, it is most likely to be a stopped clock phenomenon.
Again, strictly your opinion.

Strictly your opinion, or do you have specific examples that demonstrate the veracity of your claim?


That youve been wrong on every single damn prediction?

Considering how blatantly wrong youve been though,
Specific examples?

and how hes currently ahead in the polls and consitantly has been,
These polls suggest that you are wrong:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109873/Gallup-Daily-Race-Still-Close-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx

there is no indication that you will be anything but dead wrong on this too.
This is where the rose coloured glasses come into play?

That youve been wrong on every single damn prediction?
List them.

Specific examples?


I must have missed Hillary recieving the nomination.

List them.

The many times you prophesized Hillary's vanquishing of Obama?

List them.

1- Hillary will be the nominee.

2- Hillary will be VP.

3- Hillary will be President.

4- Obama will be easily dealt with by McCain.

The many times you prophesized Hillary's vanquishing of Obama?
Your a little short on specifics. Try again.

Your a little short on specifics. Try again.

Stop playing dumb. You predicted, several times throughout the primary that Hillary would win. You predicted that various strategies of hers would work and that various "scandals" about Obama would break him and that he would loose. You then predicted that she would be the VP.

Neither happened. Stop playing dumb and own up to the fact that you have yet to make a correct prediction in this election thus far. Everyone here knows it, so you are not fooling anyone.

do you have specific examples that demonstrate the veracity of your claim?

how goes that soaring that clinton did?

and while we are at it, how about your count of who wins what state in the event of a tie throwing the election to the house? oh, and which of us knew how mi and fl would be resolved back in feb, and which one was totally wrong about it?

the interesting part of those quotes is not the black support of obama--blacks have been overwhelmingly democratic for a long time.

its the black TURNOUT.

if republican voters cant be bothered to turn out to vote in november because john mccain leaves them cold AND 90% of black voters are so stoked by the idea of a black president that they DO vote, obama wins states that no other democratic candidate would have had a chance in.
That's easily dealt with. Simply limit the number of voting machines in black precincts so that there is an absolute ceiling on the number of votes that can be cast there, regardless of how many turn out to try to vote.

how goes that soaring that clinton did?
Definitely thought Clinton would win.

and while we are at it, how about your count of who wins what state in the event of a tie throwing the election to the house?
That was a misread on my part and I quickly acknowledged that fact.

oh, and which of us knew how mi and fl would be resolved back in feb, and which one was totally wrong about it?
I do believe back in Feb. most were saying that it should remain status quo. I do believe that I was the one that suggested that something would have to be done to address the situation and I was correct in that something was done.

That's easily dealt with. Simply limit the number of voting machines in black precincts so that there is an absolute ceiling on the number of votes that can be cast there, regardless of how many turn out to try to vote.
Either that or make them wait an absurd amount of time at the polls, as happened in Ohio in 2004.

Stop playing dumb. You predicted, several times throughout the primary that Hillary would win. You predicted that various strategies of hers would work and that various "scandals" about Obama would break him and that he would loose. You then predicted that she would be the VP.

Neither happened. Stop playing dumb and own up to the fact that you have yet to make a correct prediction in this election thus far. Everyone here knows it, so you are not fooling anyone.
You should check your "facts". You are incorrect on most of your assertions, especially the one that I predicted that Hillary "would be" VP.

You should check your "facts". You are incorrect on most of your assertions, especially the one that I predicted that Hillary "would be" VP.

:rolleyes:



I see you are not prepared to man up and admit that you are way out of touch with US politics.

I do believe back in Feb. most were saying that it should remain status quo. I do believe that I was the one that suggested that something would have to be done to address the situation and I was correct in that something was done.

you thought that if they got seated, clinton would win but had some doubt whether they would be. i said that they would get seated with full voting rights and at the convention would vote for obama. turns out that i was right about everything, while you, not so much. and this is no mystery. its because the end game was pretty obvious like half a year ago to anyone who really got the the rules, the precedent, and the political pulse and wasn't blinded by their own biases.

:rolleyes:

I see you are not prepared to man up and admit that you are way out of touch with US politics.
No, what we see here is someone unable to back up their claims, and wants to suggest that I am somehow "playing dumb".

No, what we see here is someone unable to back up their claims, and wants to suggest that I am somehow "playing dumb".

Have you yet backed any of YOURS up beyond predicting doom for Obama based on the fact that he's not white nor female?

No, what we see here is someone unable to back up their claims, and wants to suggest that I am somehow "playing dumb".

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I still get tickled when you tell someone else to back up their claims.

Either that or make them wait an absurd amount of time at the polls, as happened in Ohio in 2004.

As someone who worked for the State of Ohio on that election, I can confirm that the reason for the lines was, literally, the fact that we were entirely unprepared for turnout. In many areas, there were two factors driving the problems.

First, the state uses formulae based off of past voting patterns to determine the staffing and equipping of polling stations. The districts with the longest lines had historically low voter turnout. Both parties, though, drove massive GOTV campaigns, and overwhelmed us. Even in pasty-white-dude suburban precincts we had this problem.

Second, several key urban areas are struck by a very peculiar problem: A lack of Republicans. Cuyahoga County, the county in which the city of Cleveland sits, is the obvious example. The Board of Elections was actually limited in its ability to post staff at polling stations, because, according to the ORC, no polling station can have staff from a single party that exceeds 50% of the staff at the location. Cuyahoga County was unable to fully staff polling stations, because they could only staff a number of Democrats comparable to that of the number of Republicans available.

Second, several key urban areas are struck by a very peculiar problem: A lack of Republicans. Cuyahoga County, the county in which the city of Cleveland sits, is the obvious example. The Board of Elections was actually limited in its ability to post staff at polling stations, because, according to the ORC, no polling station can have staff from a single party that exceeds 50% of the staff at the location. Cuyahoga County was unable to fully staff polling stations, because they could only staff a number of Democrats comparable to that of the number of Republicans available.

So, the fact that may have tilted the election to Bush was that there were too few Republicans?

Are you aware how much this sounds like Weekend Update or The Daily Show?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I still get tickled when you tell someone else to back up their claims.
You made specific claims. Now, the onus is on you to put up or shut up.

So, the fact that may have tilted the election to Bush was that there were too few Republicans?

Are you aware how much this sounds like Weekend Update or The Daily Show?

I'm not kidding. The ORC requires that members of one party can comprise no more than fifty percent of the staff at a polling station.

As it stands, roughly seventy percent of Cuyahoga County voted for Kerry in 2004. The County is heavily, heavily Democrat.

Oh, and the Plain-Dealer had an article yesterday about the county BOE's woes with recruiting Republicans as poll workers, and how they need about hired about 2,000 Democrats so far this year, and only about 700 Republicans.

See what I'm talking about?

And, beyond that, there would not have been enough votes in Cuyahoga County to swing the election to Bush, no matter how long the lines. He won by tens of thousands of votes in this state, and, quite simply, the change would not have been enough.

I'm not kidding.

Not doubting you, just pointing out it's absurd.

Not doubting you, just pointing out it's absurd.

We're talking about politics in Ohio, here. Nothing at all is absurd. It also doesn't make it untrue.

There was no fraud, no planned attempt to disenfranchise voters. That's just how the chips fall here.

We're talking about politics in Ohio, here. Nothing at all is absurd. It also doesn't make it untrue.

There was no fraud, no planned attempt to disenfranchise voters. That's just how the chips fall here.

Again: I wasn't saying it was untrue. Just odd. :p

You made specific claims. Now, the onus is on you to put up or

Why would I waste the time? Everyone concerned is well aware of all the blatantly incorrect "predictions" you have made. You may have convinced yourself you havent been wrong since last December, but no one else is buying.

shut up.

I have no intention of doing this either.

Again: I wasn't saying it was untrue. Just odd.

That's Ohio for you. *grimaces*