How Voters Think

[Harlan Huckleby]

How Voters Think
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: January 18, 2008

People in my line of work try to answer certain questions. Why did Hillary
surge after misting up in New Hampshire? Why have primary victories produced no momentum for the victors? Why did John McCain win among Republicans who oppose the Iraq war in both New Hampshire and Michigan, but lose among voters who support it?

The truth is that many of the theories we come up with are bogus. They are based on the assumption that voters make cold, rational decisions about who to vote for and can tell us why they decided as they did. This is false.

In reality, we voters — all of us — make emotional, intuitive decisions about who we prefer, and then come up with post-hoc rationalizations to explain the choices that were already made beneath conscious awareness. “People often act without knowing why they do what they do,” Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. “The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible.”

Nobody really knows how voters think, especially during primary seasons when the policy differences are minute, but it wouldn’t be surprising if the cognitive chain went something like this:

After seeing a candidate for 100 milliseconds, voters make certain sorts of judgments based on expressiveness, facial structure, carriage and attitude. Alexander Todorov of Princeton has found that he can predict 70 percent of political races just by measuring peoples’ snap judgments of candidates’ faces.

Then, having formed an impression from these thin-slice appraisals, voters rack their memory banks. Decades ago, Kahneman and Amos Tversky argued that human judgment is less a matter of calculating probabilities and more a matter of trying to fit new things into familiar patterns. Maybe John Edwards reminds one voter of the sort of person he disliked in high school. Maybe Barack Obama evokes the elevated feeling another voter felt watching John F. Kennedy.

It is no accident that the major candidates in the Republican field are a pastor, a businessman and a war hero. These are the three most evocative Republican leadership models. Nor is it an accident that the Democratic race is a clash between a daughter of the feminist movement, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement and a self-styled proletarian. These are powerful Democratic categories.

In making these associations, voters are trying to perform trait inference. They are trying to divine inner abilities from outward signs.

At the same time, voters embark on an emotional journey with candidates. Antonio Damasio and Joseph LeDoux have shown that emotion isn’t the opposite of reason. We use emotion to assign value to things, thus making decision-making possible.

As the campaign drags on, voters see candidates at different events. Maybe at one event Mitt Romney smiled without dipping the outer edge of his eyebrows. This is a cue that the smile is fake, and produces distrust. On the other hand, maybe he vowed to bring all the manufacturing jobs back to Michigan. A voter might have known this was impossible, but appreciated the concern nonetheless.

As the months go on, emotions oscillate and voter preferences do, too. Voters listen to policy proposals and infer character traits. A social contagion like Obamamania might sweep the country. A global shock might set off a wave of fear, producing a powerful intellectual cascade.

Social tribes rally for and against certain candidates. Rush Limbaugh is currently going bananas because Mike Huckabee threatens to disrupt the community of conservative dittoheads he has spent decades cohering. Work by researchers at Stanford’s Business School suggests that the voting environment itself — in say a church or a school — can influence choices.

Each of us has an unconscious but consistent way of construing the world. Some of us light up when we see a candidate being intelligent, others when we see a candidate being friendly or sentimental. This is the mode we use every day to make sense of the world.

My own intuition is that this unconscious cognition is pretty effective. People are skilled at judging character. And through reading, thinking and close observation, they can educate their unconscious to make smarter and finer distinctions.

But if there is one lesson from this wacky primary season, it is that we analysts should be careful about imposing a false order on voter decision-making. We can do our best to discern how certain politicians are making connections with certain voters, but in that process we have as much to learn from William James as from political scientists and pollsters.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Brooks really hits it on the head. There is no rational reason why I support Huckabee, I just like him because he has an even disposition. And the fact that so many liberals like McCAin is also ridiculous, he's votes very conservative on most social and economic issues. Romney's record is more moderate than any of the Republican candidates, yet Limbaugh latches onto him because he struts like a right winger.

All this talk about issues really is a joke when it comes to the presidential race. We're just picking people we like, not unlike choosing the class president in highschool.

[Joemailman]

Romney's record is more moderate than any of the Republican candidates, yet Limbaugh latches onto him because he struts like a right winger.

That might be because in some of the earlier debates, Romney was throwing red meat to the conservatives ("I wouldn't close Guantanamo, I'd double it.")
Of course, Romney being Romney, has started trying to sound like a populist ever since Huckabee won Iowa.

Limbaugh wasn't going to back McCain, whom he detests, and wasn't going to back Huckabee because of his populism. That left Romney and Giuliani. Giuliani's past liberal stances on social issues probably eliminated him.

[digitaldean]

To me Romney is too much of a chameleon. I just get the feeling I have a used car salesman at the podium when he speaks.

I too like most of Huckabee's stances. I actually like the idea of the Fair Tax.

Though I like conservative talk radio, a lot of them appear to push for Romney or Thompson.

There really isn't a true conservative in the GOP batch when you get right down to it. I'm not saying that's good or bad. Tired of the liberal, conservative, etc. labels. Hell, I just want something to get freakin' done in DC.

My main concerns: limit spending then taxes, find a way to cut the red tape in health care (I do not want the gov't running it - case in point - look how horribly the returning vets were initially treated at Walter Reed), revamp the tax code with the Fair Tax or something similar and create a new GI Bill for Guard, Reservists and fulltime military personnel.

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the time the Wisconsin primary gets here, the only Republican candidates left will be Romney & McCain.

(Well, Ron Paul, but he's really a Libertarian using the Republican Party to get wider audience)

[RashanGary]

I think Rush and Sean are tied closely to the republican machine. They've all had private talks with Bush, and also Carl Rove. They are close with Newt Gingrich and others.

I think Mitt Romney is the next republican figure head. He's the one likely candidate everyone in the republican part wants because they know he'll do what they want him to do and he has a good chance of getting elected.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree that Mitt Romney is the choice of Republican insiders, he's the least likely to rock the boat on any issue. But I disagree that he has much of a chance in the general election. McCain would be a MUCH stronger candidate.

[digitaldean]

I agree that Mitt Romney is the choice of Republican insiders, he's the least likely to rock the boat on any issue. But I disagree that he has much of a chance in the general election. McCain would be a MUCH stronger candidate.

Right now, I think it'll be between Romney and McCain, but it could still end up as a brokered convention. Huckabee had his shot tonight in SC, but he couldn't close the deal.

McCain may win some independents. Romney just comes off as a slick politician with deep pockets. That perception (right or wrong) doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Either way, I see the election as the Democrats' to lose.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've heard several pundits say that if it goes to a brokered convention, McCain doesn't have a shot, it will swing to Romney. Apparently McCain has ruffled too many feathers within the Republican party over the years with postions on campaign finance, torture, immigration, etc.

[sooner6600]

Wait; Wait; dont tell me

McCain is a Republican?

I thought he was Finegold's feggela

[The Leaper]

Either way, I see the election as the Democrats' to lose.

Really?

If Clinton wins the nomination, already about 50% of the United States has made it known they will NEVER vote for her. Her negatives are astounding...only die hard democrats like Hillary.

FYI...McCain currently polls AHEAD of both Clinton and Obama in national polling of a head-to-head matchup, and the bloodbath taking place in the democratic party right now between Clinton and Obama isn't going to help either of their chances in November. I think a McCain/Huckabee ticket would be difficult for the Dems to beat.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Either way, I see the election as the Democrats' to lose.

Really?

If Clinton wins the nomination, already about 50% of the United States has made it known they will NEVER vote for her.

That is an ASTOUNDING statistic. Could you please provide a link to that survey?

I agree that McCain would be a strong candidate. But McCain is not so popular with Republicans, perhaps the Republicans will nominate Romney. I think you could pull the name of 100 Democrats out of a hat and they would beat Romney.

[Joemailman]

McCain holds a slight lead over any Dem candidate in recent polls. Anyone else and the Dems have an advantage...now.

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

I think the negative campaigning going on right now may be hurting Clinton, at least among Dems. Obama has moved out to a huge lead in South Carolina in some recent polls.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama has moved out to a huge lead in South Carolina in some recent polls.

Obama received 85% of the African American vote in Nevada. Half the democratic voters in SC are black. So it is probably no contest.

Ever since Obama looked viable (Iowa) the black vote has swung dramatically for Obama. (If you look at the graph on this page, the upward spike for Obama is Iowa: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html)

Although I am sympathetic to black people being excited about a real possibility of an African American president (or Halfrican American, as Rush Limbaugh says :lol: ) it is still offensive when people vote for a candidate strictly for ethnic reasons. Any time support goes about 60, 65% within a demographic group, issues or qualifications are being ignored.

Obama is in danger of becoming the candidate for black people. There will be resentment and a backlash if he is viewed this way. In fact, some have accused the Clinton camp of trying to subtley paint him this way.

In most remaining states, the Hispanic vote is far more important than the African American vote.

[Freak Out]

If Bloomberg joins the race he will change everything. He'll pull voters from both parties as an independent and it's been said he has a billion dollars to spend.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I hope like hell that he does get in the race! (Especially if McCain is the nominee.) :twisted:

[Joemailman]

A lot of people think Bloomberg is waiting because if McCain gets the Republican nomination, Bloomberg won't get in.

[Badgerinmaine]

McCain holds a slight lead over any Dem candidate in recent polls. Anyone else and the Dems have an advantage...now.

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

I think the negative campaigning going on right now may be hurting Clinton, at least among Dems. Obama has moved out to a huge lead in South Carolina in some recent polls.

McCain is running better in those trial heats than the other Republicans, but I didn't see many cases where he had a statistically significant lead (they didn't give the margins of error, but those leads were often nothing but a point or two).

[Harlan Huckleby]

A lot of people think Bloomberg is waiting because if McCain gets the Republican nomination, Bloomberg won't get in.

ya, this is probably true. Bloomberg is not interested in playing spoiler, reportedly, he only wants to run if he can win. McCain & Obama take the wind out of his sails.

This year is not a good one for Bloomberg. The Democrat-leaning people are very enthusiastic about the Democratic candidates. He would hurt Clinton if he could actually win New York, but that is quesitonable. Overall, he would kill the Republicans chances, IMO. I don't think there is much chance that Bloomberg will run. Maybe in a Clinton-Romney matchup there is some opportunity for him, but still not likely enough for him to win. The system is too stacked against 3rd parties.

[Harlan Huckleby]

McCain is running better in those trial heats than the other Republicans, but I didn't see many cases where he had a statistically significant lead (they didn't give the margins of error, but those leads were often nothing but a point or two).

I think your own theories about about how the various personalities will play-out over a long campaign mean more than poll numbers about general election matchups. At this time in the 92 election, George Bush (the elder) looked insurmountable.

My view is that McCain & Clinton are battle-tested, their flaws are already well-known, and they will gain support over a general election campaign. They are both good debaters and campaigners.

[The Leaper]

That is an ASTOUNDING statistic. Could you please provide a link to that survey?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/huge_increase_in_hillarys_nega.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28639/Gallup-Ranks-2008-Candidates-According-Feeling-Thermometer.aspx

The first one is more dated...but there is clear evidence that 45% or more of Americans feel strongly NEGATIVE toward Hillary Clinton. She is a very polarizing figure, and I think she would find it difficult to improve her favorable numbers much higher than 50% even if things really fell her way. Her spats with Obama aren't helping her image right now either.

So claiming the Democrats practically have the White House in the bag is a real stretch at this point. They couldn't beat one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) incumbent presidents in 2004, so why anyone would think they have it wrapped up in 2008 is beyond me.

[The Leaper]

My view is that McCain & Clinton are battle-tested, their flaws are already well-known, and they will gain support over a general election campaign.

As is pointed out in the Gallop poll I posted, only 8% of Americans did not have a positive or negative feeling about Clinton.

I don't see how she is going to gain a ton of support outside those firmly entrenched on the left. People don't like her, regardless of how well she does in debates. Her spat with Obama could alienate some AA voters if it continues to be intense through the convention.

Also, the American people have a recent history of putting one party in the White House and the other in Congress. With the Dems currently controlling Congress...and likely to gain more control...I wouldn't be surprised if people view the GOP candidate more favorably.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Any strong female candidate will have high negatives. People don't like an assertive woman.

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

I expect people will have misgivings about Hillary, but will vote for her in the end when she is contrasted with a Republican. And her base of support is rock solid.

[Joemailman]

I don't think those Gallup numbers look that bad for Clinton. Her unfavorability was 44%. That's not that bad for someone who has been in the public eye as long as she has. She's actually done quite well at luring independent voters from upstate New York in her senate races. Democrats are very fired up for this next election, and if she could keep her unfavorability numbers in the mid-40's, she would win.

[Freak Out]

I think I know how you feel about McCain HH but check out his daughter. Brick House.

http://mccainblogette.com/index.shtml

[BallHawk]

http://mccainblogette.com/docs/about/mccain.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I always thought McCain's wife was his daughter or grandchild.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/ldubeleventy7/McCain-feat-Nav-de.jpg

[Cheesehead Craig]

The latest attacks by Clinton on Obama rub me the wrong way. He mentioned something positive about the Republicans and Clinton started bashing him for it. Gee, I guess she doesn't like someone who is willing to cooperate with the other party. :roll:

[hoosier]

The latest attacks by Clinton on Obama rub me the wrong way. He mentioned something positive about the Republicans and Clinton started bashing him for it. Gee, I guess she doesn't like someone who is willing to cooperate with the other party. :roll:

I don't think Obama meant his comments to be a positive assessment of Reagan's politics. I think he was just stating that Reagan's presidency did more to transform the political arena than any other administration in recent memory. Transformations can be good, bad, or a mixture of the good and the bad. Bill's problem with Obama's comment seems to be ego driven: can't accept that Reagan made a bigger mark on politics than he did.

[Joemailman]

Obama didn't say the Reagan policies were good ones. The Clintons have been able to take his comments out of context to make it appear that he did. That's not admirable, but is fairly common in political campaigns. Obama will probably want to refrain from talking about Republicans (unless he's criticizing Bush) for the rest of the primary season. Presidential campaigns can get a bit rough, and Obama's having a tough week. He'll either be stronger for it, or succumb to it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

The crowd at that South Carolina debate was very pro-Obama. They groaned whenever Clinton landed a punch on their champion. I think that's why some people thought Obama "won" that debate. The harsh exchanges that were replayed are about 6 minutes out of a 90 minute debate.

Obama went into the debate looking to pick a fight. (Which Hillary emphasized the next day.) Every negative interaction was inititiated by Obama. I think Clinton beat him on facts, but Obama looked a little better.

Obama accused the Clintons of lying about his opposition to the war. Clinton came back by acknowledging Obama's initial opposition, then named three ways he later equivocated. Hisses from the crowd at the dragon woman.

Obama said Clinton was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wallmart while he was a poverty activist in Chicago. Hillary responds that she was working to bring healthcare for children in Arkansas while Obama was working for slum lord Rezko in Chicago. Loud groans and boos from the audience.

OK, here's the truth: neither of the accusations are that significant, but Obama's situation was more embarrassing. Rezko turns out to be quite the gangster, and he was courting Obama for many years. They have a string of small connections - contributions, job offers, Obama did some legal work for him, Rezko bought property next to Obama's mansion and transfered it to him.
Clinton a "corporate lawyer" for Wallmart? Ridiculous. As first lady of Arkansas, she was an honorary member of the board of directors briefly back in the 80's. Wallmart is the largest employer in Arkansas. And this was back before they became the notorious evil empire.

South Carolina is hopeless territory for the Clintons, Hillary is wise to have curtailed campaigning there. African-Americans have coalesced in racial solidarity, and even though the Clintons are their former champions, any friction they have with the Obama camp is being recast in a very ugly light. See her factual comment about the role of Lyndon Johnson in civil rights.

[Freak Out]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

The crowd at that South Carolina debate was very pro-Obama. They groaned whenever Clinton landed a punch on their champion. I think that's why some people thought Obama "won" that debate. The harsh exchanges that were replayed are about 6 minutes out of a 90 minute debate.

Obama went into the debate looking to pick a fight. (Which Hillary emphasized the next day.) Every negative interaction was inititiated by Obama. I think Clinton beat him on facts, but Obama looked a little better.

Obama accused the Clintons of lying about his opposition to the war. Clinton came back by acknowledging Obama's initial opposition, then named three ways he later equivocated. Hisses from the crowd at the dragon woman.

Obama said Clinton was a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wallmart while he was a poverty activist in Chicago. Hillary responds that she was working to bring healthcare for children in Arkansas while Obama was working for slum lord Rezko in Chicago. Loud groans and boos from the audience.

OK, here's the truth: neither of the accusations are that significant, but Obama's situation was more embarrassing. Rezko turns out to be quite the gangster, and he was courting Obama for many years. They have a string of small connections - contributions, job offers, Obama did some legal work for him, Rezko bought property next to Obama's mansion and transfered it to him.
Clinton a "corporate lawyer" for Wallmart? Ridiculous. As first lady of Arkansas, she was an honorary member of the board of directors briefly back in the 80's. Wallmart is the largest employer in Arkansas. And this was back before they became the notorious evil empire.

South Carolina is hopeless territory for the Clintons, Hillary is wise to have curtailed campaigning there. African-Americans have coalesced in racial solidarity, and even though the Clintons are their former champions, any friction they have with the Obama camp is being recast in a very ugly light. See her factual comment about the role of Lyndon Johnson in civil rights.

Many Dems are going to vote for Edwards in SC...who is the forgotten man now.

[The Leaper]

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

Bill Clinton has just as bad of a temper as McCain...didn't seem to hurt him when running for president.

Hillary's negatives are remarkably high...it is not unprecidented, but they pose a challenge that she will need to overcome. She is DESPISED by many on the right...and her nomination would actually energize the Republican base which is currently not very excited about politics at the moment.

The Democrats probably would have a better chance with a candidate that could just fly under the radar this year...because more Democratic voters are likely to vote than Republican voters in November. However, with a polarizing figure like Hillary running, that gap probably shrinks considerably.

And regardless of how well Hillary might appeal to NY moderates, there is no questioning the fact that McCain is viewed far more favorably by moderates as a whole than Hillary is. Hillary is viewed as a cut-and-dry liberal. McCain is viewed as a maverick who is willing to stand for his beliefs, not toe a party line. That appeals to moderates.

[The Leaper]

The mudslinging has actually been quite tame so far in both parties. I'm not at all worried about any longterm splits.

Huck, you are nuts.

The mudslinging between Clinton and Obama is at a very high level considering we are just a couple weeks into the PRIMARY season. Sure, mudslinging in the summer between the two parties can get intense...but it usually is never this bad this early.

Campaigning within your party typically is far more civilized than when the gloves come off against the opposing party. Occasionally, you'll see primary candidates have a couple days of bickering in a particular state. However, the spat between Clinton and Obama has spread over several states and weeks at this point.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I agree with Leaper, it's gotten testy real quick between these two.

There was the whole "inevitability" claim by Clinton's campaign and I really think they thought they were going to coast through the primaries. Obama has given her way more of a fight then she expected and now she's got to really push hard to put him down.

It's almost like Apollo Creed (Hillary as the more polished and pure politician) vs Rocky (Obama as a scrappy fan favorite).

Now, it's just a matter of if the ending will be from I or II.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

John McCain is famous for having a bad temper. And he can be very aggressive, even insulting, in debates & speeches. Ever hear anybody say they won't vote for him because he's too bitchy?

Bill Clinton has just as bad of a temper as McCain...didn't seem to hurt him when running for president.

Hillary's negatives are remarkably high...it is not unprecidented, but they pose a challenge that she will need to overcome. She is DESPISED by many on the right...and her nomination would actually energize the Republican base which is currently not very excited about politics at the moment.

The Democrats probably would have a better chance with a candidate that could just fly under the radar this year...because more Democratic voters are likely to vote than Republican voters in November. However, with a polarizing figure like Hillary running, that gap probably shrinks considerably.

And regardless of how well Hillary might appeal to NY moderates, there is no questioning the fact that McCain is viewed far more favorably by moderates as a whole than Hillary is. Hillary is viewed as a cut-and-dry liberal. McCain is viewed as a maverick who is willing to stand for his beliefs, not toe a party line. That appeals to moderates.

You are little off base if you think Clinton has as bad a temper as McCain. You would be hard pressed to find any examples of his temper prior to his election or even when he was prez.

Don't interpret standing up to Chris Wallace as a temper.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with Leaper, it's gotten testy real quick between these two.

The only really ugly, damaging moment was when Clinton was depicted as disrespecting Martin Luther King. Both parties have pulled back sharply from creating that racial divide, which could seriously f-up the democratic party. Initially, Obama said he was "deeply disturbed" by her Johnson-King statement. Within two days he was emphatically praising the Clintons for their longstanding commitment to civil rights and economic justice.

The Obama folks are painfully aware that they are walking on the edge of a trap. The minute he becomes "the black people's candidate" ala Jessie Jackson, he is done.
Don't you think it is a little curious that Oprah Winfrey has been withdrawn from the frontlines of South Carolina? She was drawing HUGE crowds of (mostly) African Americans two weeks ago.
Notice that Black celebrities and politicians are not speaking out publically on Obama's behalf. James Clyburn, the big cheese black politician in SC, has stepped back from his implicit support of Obama.



Obama has given her way more of a fight then she expected and now she's got to really push hard to put him down.

I think your analyis works for New Hampshire, where there was a whiff of desperation about the Clintons. But since then, it is Obama and supporters who are throwing most of the punches. Clinton has a strong lead in the national polls, which should return results on February 5. If you watch the last debate, Obama initiated every single one of their testy exchanges.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Many Dems are going to vote for Edwards in SC...who is the forgotten man now.

Finishing third out of three is hard to characterize as "many". The only story out of S.C. is that Obama is gonna win by 20 points or so.
This is the state that Edwards had to win to be a serious candidate. Edwards will stay in the race on a shoe-string budget and continue to pickup delegates, he might have a role to play at the convention.

It was interesting to see Edwards on Letterman this week. He was loose, funny, engaging. Two months ago he went on Letterman and was defensive and stiff as a board. Now that the pressure is off, guess he can let his well-coiffed hair down. (Letterman reached-over and messed it up at the end of the show.)

I'm also glad to see that Elizabeth Edwards is not traveling and campaigning anymore. She did not look so well, I think that lady needs regular sleep and a regular schedule.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just saw a new poll on MSNBC.

Barak Obama is getting 10% support among white democrat voters in South Carolina.

That's 10 percent. Ten.

[Joemailman]

What's really interesting about that poll is that Edwards beats Clinton among white voters 40%-36%. However, Edwards only gets 4% of the black vote. Are blacks in South Carolina unwilling to vote for a white man from the south? Or is it just that he is up against two candidates that have a lot of popularity among black voters?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Edwards only gets 4% of the black vote. Are blacks in South Carolina unwilling to vote for a white man from the south? Or is it just that he is up against two candidates that have a lot of popularity among black voters?

Option 2. Both Obama & Clinton are such huge favorites of the black community, it really doesn't say much that Edwards has little support there. (Edit: Bill Clinton won 82% of African American vote when he won S.C. primary in 92, so blacks will support a white man.)

Edwards WON the South Carolina primary in 2004, he was born in South Carolina, he's really a favorite son candidate.

Clinton will likely pull enough black votes to finish second.

I expect the Obama people very much regret pouncing on Clinton for allegedly dissing Martin Luther King. They are paying a price for opening that pandora's box. Blacks are only 12% of the population nationally, and there's still a lot of racial mistrust/rivalry beneath the surface.

The NY Times endorsed McCain & Hillary this evening, for what its worth.

I'll enthusiastically back Obama if he gets the nomination. I like him, I just don't think he is ready to be a President.

[Joemailman]

Did McCain accept the endorsement? :lol:

[The Leaper]

The only really ugly, damaging moment was when Clinton was depicted as disrespecting Martin Luther King.

Think about this...a DEMOCRAT seemingly dissed MLK...when the democratic party is reliant on the black vote to win elections. I'm sure she did not really mean it as she said it...but those slipups can do a lot of damage at the highest level of politics.

You do not find this race dynamic to be potentially damaging at all to the Democratic party? While I doubt blacks will run to vote Republican, they may not be as easy to pull to the voting booths for Democrats if Hillary is the nominee.

The growing chasm bewteen democratic white voters (who back Hillary in droves) and democratic black voters (who back Obama in droves) has to be upsetting for the leaders in the Democratic Party.

[The Leaper]

I expect the Obama people very much regret pouncing on Clinton for allegedly dissing Martin Luther King.

I doubt it. What she said was stupid. She deserved to be called for it.

Even if you take the comment for what she MEANT, rather than at face value, it was dead wrong. She was trying to claim that she was someone who can get things done...while Obama is just a hopeful dreamer.

What has she done though? She has no evidence of any meaningful legislation to her credit. She touts her "experience"...what experience? Watching Bill get blow jobs in the Oval Office? She wasn't a policy maker as First Lady. She didn't sit in on Cabinet meetings. She hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy in the Senate.

She's running on Bill's record...but she's not Bill.

[The Leaper]

You are little off base if you think Clinton has as bad a temper as McCain. You would be hard pressed to find any examples of his temper prior to his election or even when he was prez.

I'm hardly off base. Bill Clinton's anger is well-known in Washington...and beyond.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/19/wuspols619.xml

His blowups are legendary if you read any of the books done by people who were in his administration...even more legendary than his blowjobs.

Both Clinton and McCain have volcanic tempers. My point was that if it didn't really hurt Bill, it isn't really going to hurt John. People don't mind a president who blows his top once in awhile...as long as he gets things done.

[The Leaper]

The Obama folks are painfully aware that they are walking on the edge of a trap. The minute he becomes "the black people's candidate" ala Jessie Jackson, he is done.

I agree. It is still very unlikely that a black man can win the presidency in today's environment...especially one as young and untested as Obama. He never should have entered the race this year.

However, Clinton having to beat back Obama isn't good for her either. When she criticizes him, she looks "anti-black" in a way...which is going to cause friction in a party that previously had the 90% of the black vote without lifting a finger. While they may be a smaller segment of the US as a whole, they are a much larger segment of the Democratic Party because nearly all of them vote democratic. The Dems can't afford to piss them off.

[Joemailman]

I suspect that in the end, this will not be a big deal in the national election. If Clinton gets the nomination, Obama will strongly support her. He knows that if he does not, and the Republican wins, he will be a pariah in the Democratic party. If he wants to be President somewhere down the road, he will need white Democratic voters as badly as Clinton will need black voters this year. Obama is young enough that if he does not get the nomination, he will be doing things with 2016 in mind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are little off base if you think Clinton has as bad a temper as McCain. You would be hard pressed to find any examples of his temper prior to his election or even when he was prez.

I'm hardly off base. Bill Clinton's anger is well-known in Washington...and beyond.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/19/wuspols619.xml

His blowups are legendary if you read any of the books done by people who were in his administration...even more legendary than his blowjobs.

Both Clinton and McCain have volcanic tempers. My point was that if it didn't really hurt Bill, it isn't really going to hurt John. People don't mind a president who blows his top once in awhile...as long as he gets things done.

I guess I should have been more clear. Clinton has very rarely shown his temper to the public, unlike McCain. And certainly not before he was elected. McCain has shown his temper while being a senator.

Now that he is outta office, he has let loose a bit more.

McCain has more than just a temper, he can launch some really unpleasant zingers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

funny headline: Goodbye, Rudy Tuesday

(joke key: "Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday" is an old Rolling Stones song lyric. Guiliani will likely be out of race after tuesday's florida primary. See? belly laughs for me!)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is young enough that if he does not get the nomination, he will be doing things with 2016 in mind.

Try to stay postitive: if McCain gets in, he'll probably have a stroke in his first term.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I expect the Obama people very much regret pouncing on Clinton for allegedly dissing Martin Luther King.

I doubt it. What she said was stupid. She deserved to be called for it.

Even if you take the comment for what she MEANT, rather than at face value, it was dead wrong.

There was nothing wrong with what she said, it was factual and relevant. And not insulting to MLK, as Obama now eagerly agrees.


She was trying to claim that she was someone who can get things done...while Obama is just a hopeful dreamer.

Sounds reasonable to me.


What has she done though? She has no evidence of any meaningful legislation to her credit.

she's had a full term in the senate and rattles off her list of legislative accomplishments, which I won't fetch.
I think being a first lady is fantastic experience, she knows what the presidency is all about. She was a close advisor to the President.
Her experience is reflected in broad and insightful answers to questions. I am just extremely impressed with that woman, and I did not have relations with that woman.

Just on intellectual gifts, I am impressed by several candidates: Clinton foremost, but also Romney is extremely sharp. Obama seems brilliant, but his knowledge is shallow. He will be a president sooner or later, I expect.

[Joemailman]

With Rudy seemingly on the skids, I'm not stressed out about who the nominees will be. I think it will be Clinton vs. Romney. Although that would not be my favorite choice, in fact it might be my least, I feel either one of those will be a major improvement over the current occupant. They're going to have a tough job though. They will be inheriting a mess.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

[Joemailman]

Just watched a speech given by Bill Clinton given at a rally in Spartanburg today. Sounds like he wants to tone down the rhetoric. It was just a speech about why in his opinion Hillary would make the best President. Did not mention Obama. This is more the traditional role of a spouse of a candidate, as opposed to the attack dog we've seen lately.

[Joemailman]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

Oh come on. In a previous post you cited Romney as one of the candidates with impressive intellectual gifts. That would make him different.

On a completely different note, if Hillary is the nominee, will the rumors about her being a lesbian surface during the campaign. Come to think of it, can I say the word lesbian in the Romper Room?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

Oh come on. In a previous post you cited Romney as one of the candidates with impressive intellectual gifts. That would make him different.

He would be a better leader & spokesman for the country, yes, that's an improvement.
Foreign & domestic policy, he is in lock-step with Bush. (Of course it is hard to know what he really thinks.)

I'm looking for a leader that will be an aggressive and creative (re)builder of relationships around the world. Restore the U.S. leadership position. I don't sense that Romney is that guy, he exudes the same arrogance as Bush. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee would be better at international relations, me thinks.


can I say the word lesbian in the Romper Room?

only if you are speaking in a clinical sense. If you notice yourself getting aroused, you undoubtably crossed the line.

[oregonpackfan]

Romney may be be "blessed with intellectual gifts."

He was recently quoted saying that even Abraham Lincoln was despised by much of the country as he was "Leaving Office."

Romney seems to forget that Lincoln was assassinated.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Lincoln was very unpopular entering the last year of his first term, and he operated under the assumption that he would not be re-elected. The war turned-around in time to save his political bacon.

Giuliani gave a speech comparing Bush to Lincoln, both seeing the nation through an unpopular war.

Sounds like Romney was a bit confused. But he's a very handsome man.

Romney may or may not be a learned intellectual, and I wouldn't dismiss him based on a gaff. He is very smart, has the quick mind and intuition of a master salesman. I've been thinking of calling him Slick Mitt in honor of that other master salesman, Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan was a master salesman.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.nndb.com/people/373/000044241/mitt-romney.jpghttp://www.nbc.com/ER/images/wherearetheynow/george_clooney.jpg

[LL2]

I'm jumping in without haveing read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been discussed.

It seems some have made an issue of Romney being a Mormon, and of course everyone knows Huckabee is a Baptist. I'm sure in the 200+ years of our country there have been Baptist presidents, but never a Mormon one. Now, it seems Romney has had to defend being a Mormon to a degree and that his religion will not affect his presidency. What about Obama? There never seems to be any discussion of the fact that he's a Muslim. We never have had a Muslim president. You'd think people would be more uneasy of a Muslim president. Obama went to a radical Muslim school in Jakarta, India when he was a kid. I think Obama doesn't discuss it because it could be a sensitive issue, and he doesn't need to defend it because he's the popular kid on the block right now. I found some of this on Obama at snopes.com. It just seems when it comes to republicans their religion it's discussed in the media, but with democrats it's not. Media bias?

[Joemailman]

Obama is not a Muslim. He has belonged to the same Christian church for years. There is more talk of the religious leanings of Republicans because some Republicans bring it up more. Huckabee talks about his religious faith a lot, and therefore the media covers it. I don't hear anybody talking about McCain's religious faith much.

[LL2]

Obama is a Christian? That's news to me. What church did he go to?

[MJZiggy]

Trinity United Church of Christ, somewhere in the Chicago area.

[LL2]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Yes, your right the Trinity church.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I dislike Obama's race-based church. I find it deeply offensive.

Ya, I know there is the Greek Orthodox Church, and a Chinese Christian Church, but they don't close their doors to people of other ethnicities.

[Joemailman]

I don't find it offensive, but I don't think it's a good idea. Hard to spread the gospel if you cut yourself off from most of society. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

[Harlan Huckleby]

How would a candidate from a segregated, whites-only church fair? It's hypocritical to say that a blacks-only church is cool.

edit: OK, it is a little bit different. And I do admire Obama for staying true to this community when it would be politically advantageous to bail.

Alright, this is gonna hurt you much worse than its gonna hurt me, but I've been reading the leading black columnists on the Clinton-Obama spats, and boy are they mad as hell. I will put them here, in a fit of spam fury, and you can sensibly choose to ignore them if you wish. On third thought, I'll put them in another thread so they can be ignored en masse.

[Kiwon]

The MSM is racist, sexist, and bigoted against fat people. Here's proof from the South Carolina election coverage:

Heavy black & female turnouts

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/heavy-black-fem.html

Of course, they can't stop themselves from mentioning race and sex, but why do they have to refer to the size of a person's body? I thought America was more "evolved" than that. :|

[Joemailman]

Just saw a new poll on MSNBC.

Barak Obama is getting 10% support among white democrat voters in South Carolina.

That's 10 percent. Ten.

Well, he got 24% running against 2 white candidates. It would not appear that the Clinton campaign has succeeded in making him just the black candidate. It will be interesting to see if Obama gets a bump from this in the polls. Edwards actually beat Clinton among white voters, so the 3-way campaign continues. Is this the year a nomination finally goes to the convention?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Clinton is in some trouble. The problem is not her or Bubba's quarrels with Obama that the voters see directly. The damage is that the media is operating as a giant echo chamber that is painting a picture of the Clintons as dirty politicians. And the media largely ignores the spitfire from the Obama camp. Criticizing Obama has become off limits. Most journalists seem to like Obama. If you analyze the criticisms of the black columnists that I posted, the sins of the Clintons boil-down to rather generic campaign criticisms.

Obama got 25% of the white vote, but is this impressive when he got 56% of the total vote?

Edwards: His campaign now operates with a dubious agenda. Taking a paltry 18% in this, his strongest state, means his race for the Presidency is dead, if it wasn't already expired. What is the purpose for him to continue? Why so he might collect enough delegates to put him in a position to barter for power at the convention. He might be in position to influence whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination. In return for his support, he can extract a plum position in the new administration.

Edward's campaign is no longer honorable. A person may give him a vote for honorable reasons - as a statement of support for Edward's positions - but Edwards is then going to leverage that vote for his own purposes. Why would ANYBODY empower Edwards to choose between Clinton and Obama on their behalf? Maybe EDwards will choose the person that the Edwards supporter does not prefer.

[Joemailman]

I don't think it's likely Edwards can win, but I don't see a problem with him continuing the campaign. Only a very small percentage of the delegates need to win have been won. In 1992 Clinton didn't win until the 8th primary. If Edwards finishers 3rd in all the contests on Feb. 5,, then he may need to drop out. Right now though he trails Obama by 40 delegates. It would be unfair to the people who have supported his campaign for him to drop out this early as long as he has the money to continue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, if you believe he has even a slendor chance of pulling-out the presidency, then sure, campaign on.

I don't for a second believe that Edwards believes he has any prospects left, so I see it differently. He will continue the campaign because he can.

[RashanGary]

HH, what is the liberal core? What do they believe in? Why should we vote for any of them?

[hoosier]

Edwards: His campaign now operates with a dubious agenda. Taking a paltry 18% in this, his strongest state, means his race for the Presidency is dead, if it wasn't already expired. What is the purpose for him to continue? Why so he might collect enough delegates to put him in a position to barter for power at the convention. He might be in position to influence whether Clinton or Obama get the nomination. In return for his support, he can extract a plum position in the new administration.

Edward's campaign is no longer honorable.

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

In Edwards's defense, there is another possible motive for staying in the race that you don't mention--above and beyond mere power brokering: by staying in the running he can in principle force the candidates who do have a serious chance to face issues they would prefer to avoid. A hopeless candidacy is sometimes the only hope for giving voice to problems that the status quo wants nothing to do with.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

I never admire any spoiler. Edwards is a little worse than most because not only is he fuzzying-up the will of the people on the central decision of the campaign (Clinton vrs Obama), he is seeking to later leverage his thin slice of the pie to play the system.

And it's not being done honestly. He is pretending that he still trying to win the Presidency, and some supporters believe him. Even an observor as keen as Postal Joe just argued that Edwards has a slight chance to win because few delegates have been allocated at this point. Well, on closer inspection this is nonsense: to actually win the presidency, Edwards would have to win first place in several February 5 primaries. Edwards doesn't have a realistic shot to win a single state. South Carolina was his strongest state and he was creamed.



In Edwards's defense, there is another possible motive for staying in the race that you don't mention--above and beyond mere power brokering: by staying in the running he can in principle force the candidates who do have a serious chance to face issues they would prefer to avoid.

Name a single issue where Edwards has a position substantially different from Obama or Clinton. There are none.

[Harlan Huckleby]

HH, what is the liberal core? What do they believe in? Why should we vote for any of them?

Liberals are often accused of engaging in class warfare. I believe the warfare is already there, quietly, in that our society takes care of people with high income. Remind me again why homeowners can deduct their mortgages on their federal taxes, and renters can not deduct rent? Why do working people support the social security system with a high proportion of their paycheck, while people who earn through investment pay nothing at all towards social security? Why is the quality of a public school dependent upon the wealth of the neighborhood it is located in? What is this bullshit of people working for $8 per hour and not having health insurance? Are we a third world country?

BTW, I do not resent or envy wealthy people one bit. Why, some of my best friends are rich, and I wouldn't mind if my sister married one of their kind.

The people with the best ideas on foreign policy tend to be in the Democratic Party. George Bush has operated with the full support of the Republican Party, if you like our current position in the world, vote Republican.

[Joemailman]

Hopeless candidates have been playing the spoiler since electoral politics began. What makes Edwards so different from his umpteengazillion precedesors?

I never admire any spoiler. Edwards is a little worse than most because not only is he fuzzying-up the will of the people on the central decision of the campaign (Clinton vrs Obama), he is seeking to later leverage his thin slice of the pie to play the system.

And it's not being done honestly. He is pretending that he still trying to win the Presidency, and some supporters believe him. Even an observor as keen as Postal Joe just argued that Edwards has a slight chance to win because few delegates have been allocated at this point. Well, on closer inspection this is nonsense: to actually win the presidency, Edwards would have to win first place in several February 5 primaries. Edwards doesn't have a realistic shot to win a single state. South Carolina was his strongest state and he was creamed.

Edwards could be far more than a spoiler if none of the 3 candidates can get a majority of delegates prior to the convention. If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations. In that scenario, Edwards could win the nomination especially if he finishes the primary season strong. I realize it's highly unlikely that that would happen, but I see nothing wrong with Edwards continuing the fight as long as he has the money to compete.

By the way, I disagree that South Carolina was Edwards' strongest state. It was in 2004, but not in 2008. Black voters are a huge part of the Democratic vote in South Carolina, and it is virtually impossible for him to compete for the black vote against Clinton and Obama. In 2004, he was running against Kerry and Dean. He has a better chance in states with a smaller black population, especially those that have been badly hurt by losses of jobs overseas.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations. In that scenario, Edwards could win the nomination especially if he finishes the primary season strong.

This scenario is so far-fetched I don't believe it is anybody's mind. The notion that the convention would choose a candidate who was just rejected by the voters is unthinkable. A deadlocked convention might theoretically turn to some noncontroversial party stalwart, Sam Nunn type. But forget about it, they will find a way to choose between Clinton & Obama. And that way could include Edward's support for one candidate or the other - now THIS is thinkable.


He has a better chance in states with a smaller black population, especially those that have been badly hurt by losses of jobs overseas.

no need to answer this, it is too hard to know, but the following are the Feb 5 states. Which ones do you think he might have a chance to win? If he's just going for 2nd place finishes, then the run for the nomination is disingenuous, he's just trolling for delegates for his personal benefit.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia

[Kiwon]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/clearcarbon/Portraits/Hikton/hillcare500_Canda.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

There are 58 million Americans without health care. If they get a serious injury, medical bills will prevent them from accumulating any assets, they will ultimately become wards of the state. And people without health insurance often get sicker and end up draining the health care system as emergency room free loaders.

What is your plan to deal with the problem? Oh ya, you got yourself taken care of, fuck 'um. God Bless the Republican Party! The party of high morals and family values.

[MJZiggy]

Just because Canada has an inefficient health care delivery system does that necessitate the US adopting the exact same system that notably isn't working in Canada? Is there no country on the planet that has a universal health care system that works efficiently for us to model such a program after?**

**Please let it be noted that I'm in no way suggesting that our government is an efficient entity, however inefficiency is better than the wads of money I'm paying for crappy insurance and those people that Harlan mentioned that are completely screwed if their appendix bursts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just because we provide health care through the government would not preclude people who can afford it from purchasing private insurance.

We're the only country (of means) in the world that doesn't provide a basic level of health care for all its citizens.

[MJZiggy]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

[Joemailman]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

[Kiwon]

Oh boy! I can't wait for free health care.

There are 58 million Americans without health care. If they get a serious injury, medical bills will prevent them from accumulating any assets, they will ultimately become wards of the state. And people without health insurance often get sicker and end up draining the health care system as emergency room free loaders.

What is your plan to deal with the problem? Oh ya, you got yourself taken care of, fuck 'um. God Bless the Republican Party! The party of high morals and family values.

Yeah, right, like you care about anyone but yourself. :)


What is your plan to deal with the problem?

Who are you? Secretary of Health and Idiocy?

The answer is the government, of course. It's always the answer.

High morals and family values are passe since Clinton. Britney Spears hasn't endorsed a candidate yet so I'm going Barack Hussein Obama. It's time for a change.

¡Si, Se Puede! - Yes, we can!

[MJZiggy]

That was helpful. Those will be great options when my money runs out and I can't afford the massive premiums any more. Be glib all you want, but I'm not finding it funny at the moment.

[RashanGary]

I think you have some good points, HH.

Here's my current view on the issue of our economic and political system.

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.


How should the haves and have nots be separated? I say ability and ambition. I think less should be done for the poor. I think under the table earnings by the extremely wealthy should be taxed because it oppresses those who are acctually contributing to society by working or striving. It's one thing to earn a living and quite another to just roll up wealth with nothing more than using inherited wealth. Again, the goal is to empower the able and ambitious, not the circumstance they were born into. I think it should be easier to get an education for those who want it and are capable of getting it (even if it's 6 or 8 years). I think corperate scandals and political scandals should be investigated and prosecuted at a higher level. I think the laws in statues should be in place in a way that prevents frivilous law suits by holding lawyers accountable which will lower the risks of doing buisness in any field.

I don't think any of the politicians running for president do what I want them to do. Newt was the closest thing, but he's not running. Mit seems intent on helping buisnesses succeed in the world wide market place. I think some of the liberals have the right idea as far as finding ways to tax the extremely wealthy. I want people to be able to achieve and sustain wealth. I just want it to be based on their actions, not an aristocratic system and limiting the abilty to steam roll wealth based on power will force everyone who wants wealth to earn it rather than be given it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is only so much to go around. There really isn't enough for everybody in this world. There will be haves. There will be have nots. Either that or everyone will be the same, motivation to work harder will go down and everyone will be have nots. That's how I see it. WE have to split up the pie some how.

I'm not suggesting a socialized economy, or making everyone equal economically. But I am for pooling resources to provide everyone a baseline of health care. This can be done, it is done in every other modernized country in the world. And it will be cheaper overall, the current system is highly inefficient.

And this policy is NOT in conflict with your value of individual initiative. It empowers people who want to start their own businesses. Under the current system, there is a crushing pressure to get a government job or work for a big corporation. Promote entreprenaurial spirit!

[RashanGary]

I'm starting to develop opinions on what I believe. I think there are answers but the political system is set up in such a way that enacting them or finding the right ones is nearly impossible. Interest groups and polarized politics lead to bickering and manipulating.

I'm pretty discouraged with the entire political system. I have some ideas, but they're constantly changing and not based in enough knowledge to really have conviction in them. I really hope we find a way to become more efficient and more competitive in the world wide market place. Our economy is in danger IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!


It's the bratwurst.

[The Leaper]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

[hoosier]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

[The Leaper]

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

I'm not going to disagree that executives in all areas of business/education are overpaid by and large. I want universities to stop spending billions of dollars competing with each other with bigger and better...particularly at the undergraduate level, whick provides a very limited service to the real world at this point in time. You learn far more about your field when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

There's more value to a college education than just a first job ticket. It makes a person more interested and interesting. I'd never have the drive to learn that I have now if I didn't get jump-started by college.

When you look at how expensive it is to hire professors and provide all those facilities, I can understand why college is expensive. I really don't think there is much cost-cutting to be done. If you want college costs to come down, you have to raise taxes and fund it at higher level.

Corporate excecutive salaries: I think it is silly to waste energy on executive salaries. It's a free market. Why should I care if they make a lot of money? And the amount of money that corporations pay on executive salaries is not significant compared to their other costs. The issue is strictly about envy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, read this analysis in "The Fix" blog:

The states in which Edwards is expected to campaign hard, as outlined during the call by former congressman David Bonior (Mich.), an Edwards adviser, are the same that Obama expects to target heavily -- Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Minnesota and North Dakota to name a few. Edwards is also making noise in several strong Clinton states -- California being the most prominent -- but it's clear that Edwards is far more likely to overlap with Obama than Clinton over the next eight days of campaigning.

Now it appears that Edwards' focus on the southern and rural states that should be Obama strongholds is designed to weaken Obama more than Clinton.

As a Clinton supporter, I'm not displeased to see Obama lose some delegates. But since the election is truly down to a very close contest between Clinton and Obama, wouldn't it be better to know which candidate the voters actually prefer? I don't like when results get skewed by vanity candidates.

[Joemailman]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

Here's why I think the Dem nomination could go to the floor. 2025 delegates are needed to be nominated. In the Democratic Party, there are about 850 "super delegates". These are Dem members of the House and Senate, Governors, elected members of the DNC, and other party leaders. They are not pledged to any candidate. Normally they vote for the candidate who won their state's primary, but they are not required to do so. If my math is correct, this means that either Clinton or Obama would have to win about 63% of the delegates allocated from primaries and caucuses to sew up the nomination before the convention. If Clinton and Obama are virtually deadlocked heading into the convention, in essence the "super delegates" will choose the nominee. If either one has a clear advantage in number of delegates, but still short of the nomination, I suspect the "super delegates" will choose that person. If everything is deadlocked, they could try to find someone else that everyone can agree on. I agree that Gore would be a logical choice in that event.

[MJZiggy]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just read something interesting: the democrats in Florida want to organize a caucus, and the convention would then have to accept the chosen delegates.

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

ya, but if they're deadlocked - what are they gonna do, flip a coin? Actually, I would think that delegates not committed to the big two could be swayed.

I have a hunch that a frontrunner is going to come out of Feb 5.

[digitaldean]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

There needs to be some reform. It's true it does hold back entrepreneurs and startup small businesses.

Without going into great detail, a family member of mine has MS. Like it or not, I am shackled to my present employer due to the health insurance. I can't afford to be without it, but if I went on my own or with a much smaller company the premiums (if I could get coverage at all for being self employed) would be astronomical.

There should be these available options:
1.) Buying pools of multiple companies (even if in different states) should be enabled to allow more choices.
2.) Allow for importation of drugs from Canada.
3.) Allow for interstate commerce for health insurance. If I can buy the same insurance cheaper in another state, then I should be allowed to.
4.) Present all citizens with 2 options
a.) Have a government health care option that you could buy into (or provided for you if you prove you can't afford it)
b.) If option a's coverage doesn't suit you, buy your own on the open market.
5.) Outlaw subsidies/kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies who subscribe certain medication. It's corrupt, leads in some cases to over medication, plus drives up insurance costs because of the over prescribing.

Though I don't like the government running the health care system (e.g., look at how vets were treated at Walter Reed), so little has been done by both sides that we WILL end up with some form of universal system. It's not if, but when.

</rant> :soap:

[hoosier]

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room somewhere in Chicago. National parties organize the selection process and can do damn well pretty much what they please. If the Floridians get too uppity they'll be reduced to irrelevance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

Of course it depends on how the election plays out, the later primaries could easily end up being the decisive ones this year.
I think there should (and will be) some reform, rotating the order that primaries occur in the future.


In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room

You are correct in a technical, legalistic sense. There is nothing in our constitution requiring parties to behave democratically. But the parties have to respond to the values and expectations of the people to remain viable, and democracy/fairness is a shared value.
Not allowing people in a state to vote in a primary certainly is disenfranchisement as a practical matter.

If the democratic race is close coming out of February 5, I expect both Michigan & Florida will organize caucuses (cauci? caucatooee?) for March. And I certainly support them, democracy is the American way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.

[The Leaper]

When you look at how expensive it is to hire professors and provide all those facilities, I can understand why college is expensive. I really don't think there is much cost-cutting to be done. If you want college costs to come down, you have to raise taxes and fund it at higher level.

How is letting the government oversee it going to make it cheaper?

I'm sorry, but a 100% increase in the costs of a basic 4 year education over the last 20 years is an outrage IMO. Inflation has been extremely low over that that time span...roughly 2-3% most years. There is no justification for why a college degree costs so much more today when you factor inflation into it than it did 20 years ago.

Cost of professors? You mean the ones who don't really teach...and let teaching assistants lead most of their low level classes? Please.

While you might have enjoyed your liberal arts education, I really don't see how it is worth $75k. I can go to the library and learn all that stuff on my own for next to nothing. The world is a different place today...getting students involved in their industry rather than sitting in a classroom is the key to the future.

I don't discount that true higher education is costly...going for a PhD or MBA should be a significant investment. Getting a BA in criminal justice isn't worth $75k. College today is what high school was 60 years ago.

[The Leaper]

I agree that Gore would be a logical choice in that event.

God...I couldn't bear to watch Gore-McCain debates. Those two are probably among the worst personalities in that kind of format.

ZZZZzzzzzzzz...............

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm sorry, but a 100% increase in the costs of a basic 4 year education over the last 20 years is an outrage IMO.

What is your theory on what is driving the cost of college? I suspect that the government is subsidizing higher ed at a lower rate. That's certainly is true of state funding for UW.


While you might have enjoyed your liberal arts education, I really don't see how it is worth $75k.

75K doesn't sound like very much to me, if you are talking total tuition cost. I unfortunately didn't have a liberal arts education, I was in physics & electrical engineering. But the courses that I remember, that changed me, were in liberal arts. Best class I ever took was in Greek Mythology. If I could do it all over, I would major in English.

[RashanGary]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.


haha, I only heard a little talk radio today. I love hearing them pissed off. It was just a few months ago that Rush said "I know I am powerfull and have influence. I know I can change elections".. . . ." I used to be too embarassed to accept these comliments, but I have to learn to accept them."

hahahahahah..... now he's squirming, cussing out the media for saying he can't change the election. His ego just got shot. Ah well, he makes a lot of money doing what he does. I'm sure he's not effected too greatly.


Go McCAin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I liked McCain's response in 2000 when he was asked if he would consider the vice presidency:

"I spent years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam where I was kept in the dark and fed scraps. Why would I want to go through that all over again?"

[Joemailman]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

[Harlan Huckleby]

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

In general I care less about the Republican side. One reason I am glad Edwards is out is that the Dems will have a much better chance of avoiding a deadlocked convention, and can choose a candidate sooner.

I find it a little sour that Huckabee is staying in the race, it makes me uneasy. The role he is playing in deflecting votes from Romney blurs the will of the people. He has been buttering-up McCain when he is on the stump, it seems that he is possibly maneuvering for a VP under McCain. It is not entirely honest when he speaks to his backers about how the contest has just begun, and he is competitive with delegate count. BS, he's out of it.

I guess there is a lot of deception in politics.

I have no problem with the Ron Paul's of this world, he is promoting a distinctive political voice.

[RashanGary]

I think Huckabee is taking votes away from McCain, acctually. The hard core, closed minded evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon no matter what (esspecially a mormon who goes back and forth on the abortion issue).

I have no faith in politics. I think the U.S. is run by big spending interest groups. However, I would love to see the upset just because I'd love to hear Rush and Sean cry about it.

[The Leaper]

I guess there is a lot of deception in politics.

That's just how the process works. Huckabee would like to be involved in a potential McCain administration, so he is sticking around to garner as much clout as he can. Edwards would be doing the same thing if he had any interest in being VP...but he clearly doesn't, nor should he considering his ailing wife.

[The Leaper]

You're glad Giuliani and Edwards are gone, but what about Huckabee? Do you still think he has a shot at the nomination? If not, is it right for him to stay in the race and pull social conservative votes away from Romney?

I'm not sure Huckabee is truly hurting Romney. Romney is an establishment candidate...neither McCain nor Huckabee is an establishment candidate. Most very evangelical voters won't vote for Romney anyway, as they view his religion as a cult...and that is where Huckabee's strength lies.

Huckabee is remaining in the race because I think he feels he has a decent chance of being the VP for McCain, so keeping his name in the political discussion is an advantage for him...and ultimately the GOP if McCain does select him as a VP. He's also relatively young and unknown...with little cash...so he's doing what he can to make himself a name for future elections as well. Elections aren't just about who will win this year, but who will compete the next time around as well.

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Big Clinton-Obama debate on CNN tonight. I expect Clinton will best him, Obama is an awful debater and has shallow knowledge of issues. But it won't matter too much, I think the political elites - journalists, politicians - have turned against the Clintons to a degree that will help Obama to gradually overcome her strong support with voters. Bill's excessive behavior pushed people past a tipping point the past two weeks.

A McCain-Obama general election will be close and unpredictable. I'd guess that the democratic party's desire for faster withdrawal from Iraq will be decisive in their favor.

Forget about Obama as the great unifier of Republicans and Democrats, it never has worked that way and never will. Remember, George Bush came into office as the great healer, with a track record of bipartisian support as Texas governor. Presidents have always been bashed and villified by the opposition party since George Washington, there is nothing new under the sun.

BTW, are you aware that Senator Clinton has a strong reputation for working well with Republicans, she is an effective coalition builder? And did you know that Obama is strongly disliked in the Sentate, he is viewed as an arrogant lone wolf? (His unpopularity may be largely due to jealousy at all the attention he recieves, first term senators are supposed to be humble back-benchers paying their dues.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

Is he being honest about his intentions? No, he is misleading voters, feeding them the line that he still has a chance to win the presidency and intends to do so.

The irony is that if Thompson had not stayed in the race in South Carolina, Huckabee would have won that primary and he'd be a first tier candidate now with McCain & Romney! Thompson is a longtime ally with McCain, was one of only two Senators to endorse him in 2000.

[Scott Campbell]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

There needs to be some reform. It's true it does hold back entrepreneurs and startup small businesses.

Without going into great detail, a family member of mine has MS. Like it or not, I am shackled to my present employer due to the health insurance. I can't afford to be without it, but if I went on my own or with a much smaller company the premiums (if I could get coverage at all for being self employed) would be astronomical.

There should be these available options:
1.) Buying pools of multiple companies (even if in different states) should be enabled to allow more choices.
2.) Allow for importation of drugs from Canada.
3.) Allow for interstate commerce for health insurance. If I can buy the same insurance cheaper in another state, then I should be allowed to.
4.) Present all citizens with 2 options
a.) Have a government health care option that you could buy into (or provided for you if you prove you can't afford it)
b.) If option a's coverage doesn't suit you, buy your own on the open market.
5.) Outlaw subsidies/kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies who subscribe certain medication. It's corrupt, leads in some cases to over medication, plus drives up insurance costs because of the over prescribing.

Though I don't like the government running the health care system (e.g., look at how vets were treated at Walter Reed), so little has been done by both sides that we WILL end up with some form of universal system. It's not if, but when.

</rant> :soap:


Sorry about your family member. I'm kind of interested in insurance portability.

[The Leaper]

Claiming Huckabee is doing something questionable is pretty far-fetched IMO.

Is he being honest about his intentions? No, he is misleading voters, feeding them the line that he still has a chance to win the presidency and intends to do so.

The irony is that if Thompson had not stayed in the race in South Carolina, Huckabee would have won that primary and he'd be a first tier candidate now with McCain & Romney! Thompson is a longtime ally with McCain, was one of only two Senators to endorse him in 2000.

So you are telling me he is this close to being a first tier candidate...but that he is misleading voters?

What do you want him to say? "I'm still in this because I'm auditioning for the role of VP?" Who is going to say that? Please show me any historical evidence of that ever happening.

The reality is that this kind of posturing by a candidate who realizes he has no realistic chance of winning, but has a good chance to potentially be a VP or cabinet member, is typical and happens almost every election cycle. Huckabee isn't misleading anyone...we all know what is going on.

IMO, Paul is more misleading. The guy acts like people give a crap about his ideas...when the guy can't muster much more than 3% of the vote in most relevant states.

[The Leaper]

BTW, are you aware that Senator Clinton has a strong reputation for working well with Republicans, she is an effective coalition builder?

She wasn't much of a coalition builder in 1992 when she was trying to stuff socialized medicine down everyone's throat. She did some things in the Senate because she knew she would have to if she had any chance in becoming President. It certainly wasn't because of her warm, fuzzy nature that attracts people to her and her ideals.

Hilliary does whatever it takes to get where she wants to go. She's a bitch...there is no other word for it. Her and Ann Coulter should have a PPV bitchoff. That is why Clinton's negatives are so high, and why most who worked with her husband's administration did not view her in high esteem.

If you are going to talk about coalition builders, John McCain trumps Clinton by a landslide. McCain has been one of the most active politicians in Washington for over a decade, and has worked with people on both sides of the aisle. That is precisely why moderates chose him in droves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you are telling me he is this close to being a first tier candidate...but that he is misleading voters?

Ya, Hucklebee desperately needed a win in S.C. to remain viable. It really was that stark - he dropped from first tier to out of the race. The reason is that he has so little funding that he is vulnerable, no margin for error. His distant 4th place finish in Florida was the last stroke of the axe.


What do you want him to say? "I'm still in this because I'm auditioning for the role of VP?" Who is going to say that? Please show me any historical evidence of that ever happening.

No, here's the speech I would write for him: "Thank you for your support. The voters have spoken and we do not have the resources to continue our campaign. I hope to continue to be a voice in the Republican Party for working people. I urge you to support my friend, a great American, John McCain."



The reality is that this kind of posturing by a candidate who realizes he has no realistic chance of winning, but has a good chance to potentially be a VP or cabinet member, is typical and happens almost every election cycle. Huckabee isn't misleading anyone...we all know what is going on.

I agree with everything you say except the last sentence. A lot of his voters do not fully understand that he is effectively out of the race.


IMO, Paul is more misleading. The guy acts like people give a crap about his ideas...when the guy can't muster much more than 3% of the vote in most relevant states.
huh? He gets a low vote total because he is portrayed in the media (correctly) as not being viable. His isolationist ideas have a lot of resonance. I find him honest & sincere.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you are going to talk about coalition builders, John McCain trumps Clinton by a landslide.

You are right that McCain is an effective senator and famous for building coalitions. You are wrong about Clinton, she is also highly respected and effective in the Senate, your mind is stuck on an impression you formed of her 15 years ago.

[RashanGary]

Rush and Hannity are really pushing hard for Huckabee to drop out. Apparently all the polsters are saying McCain wins in a three way race. With that in mind, they realize the only chance Romney has is to either have a major swing (which doesn't appear likely) or for Huckabee to drop out (hopefully giving Romney more votes). They're taking a "we're desperate and it can't get any worse" approach.


I think they'll be unpleasantly suprised if Huckabee drops out. His 100% is probably made up of hard core evangelical christians who would NEVER vote for a mormon, esspecially a mormon who supported abortion for most of his career. If Huckabee drops out, I think McCain is in even better shape.


The funniest thing about this whole thing is taht the talk radio right always stroked and loved the radical christian voters. They talked about how libs laughed at them and didnt' respect them. It's funny to see that same group take their party down. Every christian should realize that conservatism comes before christianity to these hosts and to the poliltical party. It's been obvious, but I think the christian right thinks the republican party and conservative radio hosts care about them, hahahah. It's all for votes.


The right tried to convince everyone this election would tear apart the liberal base. Instead, it's shredded the republican party. This is fantastic. I still think McCain can pull it out and I hope he does. I'm aligned with him now. NOt because I think any of them will do any good; just because I want to see the fireworks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am watching the democratic debate on CNN.COM.

It is a total love fest, and both candidates are coming off wonderfully. In my biased opinion, Hillary is magnificent tonight. The Democrats have the issues, and two candidates who are extremely charismatic and articulate.

I just may cream my jeans.

[Joemailman]

No videos please.

I thought in the first part of the debate Clinton's answers on health care and immigration had more depth than Obama's. However, she didn't do herself any favors on Iraq. Was she really surprised that the vote to give Bush authorization to use military action turned into a war?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-memo-on-obamas-iraq-war-comments/

[hoosier]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-memo-on-obamas-iraq-war-comments/

The intelligence about Iraq and WMD's wasn't nearly as clear cut as Bush suggested. Bush and company cherry-picked the reports to make the picture seem black and white, and disregarded anything that suggested otherwise.

But the WMD issue is a red herring, IMO. Who do you think sold and helped Iraq to develop their WMD programs in the 80's? WMD was never the real reason that the Bush admin wanted to depose Hussein--although, granted, there may have been some idealistic people in the White House who thought the invasion was about fighting tyranny and installing democracy. But anyone who thought THEN that this was BushCheney's main motive is every bit as naive and deluded as those who think Saddam was behind 9/11.

[The Leaper]

His isolationist ideas have a lot of resonance. I find him honest & sincere.

Perhaps, but he is no more in the race than Huckabee...so your opposition to Huckabee's continued presence in the race seems strange when you support Paul sticking around.

If Huckabee's supporters at this point truly think he has a chance to win the nomination, they are retarded. The media coverage has been portraying the race for the nomination as a 2 person race in both parties since SC.

[The Leaper]

I think they'll be unpleasantly suprised if Huckabee drops out. His 100% is probably made up of hard core evangelical christians who would NEVER vote for a mormon, esspecially a mormon who supported abortion for most of his career. If Huckabee drops out, I think McCain is in even better shape.

I generally agree with you.

The notion that Huckabee is influencing this primary is nutso. The vast bulk of his supporters are evangelical Christians who view Mormonism as a cult...and are probably less likely to support Romney than a staunchly pro-life McCain, although they are more likely to see neither as worthy of their support.

Rush and his rich crowd is just going to have to suck up their pride and back McCain...unless they want Hillary or Obama to win the presidency in a landslide.

[The Leaper]

The Democrats have the issues.

They had the issues in 2004...and lost to the weakest incumbent president perhaps in US history.

I wouldn't make a mess in your pants just yet.

[Joemailman]

Both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards voted to authorize Bush to go to war. Those who treat this decision as a litmus test of their judgement are being a bit superficial. The information at the time was that Iraq had WMD. Not authorizing Bush would have weakened the U.S. diplomatically. It was a reasonable choice that most Senators made.

If Obama had been in the Senate at the time, he might very well have voted to authorize. "I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence", he conceded in a New Yorker Magazine interview.

“Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn’t consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried.” Audacity of Hope

And excuse my cynicism, but Clinton and Edwards are obviously politically ambitious, and voting to authorize was the (seemingly) politically wise choice at the time for someone seeking to be Commander in Chief. Perhaps a politically ambitious fellow like Obama would have done the same.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camp-memo-on-obamas-iraq-war-comments/

I've been torn for some time on whether to be critical of people like Clinton and Edwards for voting for the authorization. Part of me is critical of them because it was blatantly obvious to me that the authorization meant war, and they should have realized that.

On the other hand, there is the argument that the authorization did strengthen the diplomatic power of the White House, and it is not Clinton's fault that Bush abused that power. There is the question of whether she should be criticized for giving the President of The United States the benefit of the doubt when he said he would only go to war as a last resort.

I'm a little surprised she didn't mention that it was only after the authorization that Saddam let the inspectors back into Iraq. Perhaps she has on other occasions. The bottom line though is that in debates Obama, unlike Clinton, doesn't have to get into explanations about why he voted for the authorization, but now says the war was a bad idea. It's not so much a plus for Obama as it is a negative for Clinton.

Personally, I've kind of moved past this debate. I'm more concerned what will happen the next 5 years in Iraq than I am with what has happened the last 5. Clinton and Obama don't seem to differ much on what the policy in Iraq should be going forward. It will be a much different in the national election where their differences with McCain are much greater.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The notion that Huckabee is influencing this primary is nutso.

He's taking 15% of the vote, more in Arkansas and bordering states, so clearly he is influencing results. Most pundits say he is drawing from conservative Romney voters. You imply they wouldn't vote at all without Huckabee. I don't think this is a credible claim, a percentage, probably most, would still vote.

Regardless of how he is impacting the race, I wish he would get the hell out, he's distorting the will of the voters, and his expressed intention of becoming president is no longer credible or sincere.

[RashanGary]

I find it hard to believe that Huckabee's radical christian vote would go to Romney. I think they'd vote for McCain or not at all (most likely McCain).


Regardless, no matter who wins the race, the GOP is going to have a tough time this election. They don't have a conservative/christian to lead the charge. McCain isn't a conservative. Romney isn't a traditional christian. Their voting base is split, the way I see it.



Their best chance might be something like Romney/Huckabee. Romney to keep the conservatives happy and Huckabee to keep the radical Christian turn out.

[hoosier]

I find it hard to believe that Huckabee's radical christian vote would go to Romney. I think they'd vote for McCain or not at all (most likely McCain).


Regardless, no matter who wins the race, the GOP is going to have a tough time this election. They don't have a conservative/christian to lead the charge. McCain isn't a conservative. Romney isn't a traditional christian. Their voting base is split, the way I see it.



Their best chance might be something like Romney/Huckabee. Romney to keep the conservatives happy and Huckabee to keep the radical Christian turn out.

I think their best chance is Hillary at the head of the Dem ticket.

[Joemailman]

Recent polls show that McCain would be competitive with either Clinton or Obama; Romney would not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
These polls are probably not very meaningful right now. Many of those voters who do not vote based on party affiliation will probably wait until they know who the nominees are before comparing candidates.

[hoosier]

Recent polls show that McCain would be competitive with either Clinton or Obama; Romney would not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
These polls are probably not very meaningful right now. Many of those voters who do not vote based on party affiliation will probably wait until they know who the nominees are before comparing candidates.

Yes, agree, it's hard to measure in a poll how much a given candidate would motivate the opposition. If I were a Repub, though, I'd much much rather see Hillary than Obama right now.

[The Leaper]

If I were a Repub, though, I'd much much rather see Hillary than Obama right now.

I would agree with that. The GOP doesn't seem to really be behind any candidate very strongly...McCain has yet to garner 40% of the vote in any state, even though he seem the prohibitive frontrunner.

The one thing that can save them is the threat of Hillary Clinton in the White House. That will be enough to get the rich ass economic wing and far right evangelical wing to the booth, as both groups despise Clinton...and would seriously consider voting for Satan over Hillary.

Obama, while just as liberal as Clinton, doesn't have the negative hatred that Hillary has...and probably would be able to get in easily because of a significantly stronger democratic voter turnout.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You can tell who the Republicans are most worried about by who they attack the most this time of year.

What people say they'll do 9 months from now doesn't mean much. Hell, Hillary had 30 point leads in many state polls just 3 months ago! The general election campaign will shape everything.

I'm confident Clinton would be a strong candidate. Obama could be even better, but I wouldn't count on it. I'm comfortable backing the winner of the upcoming Obama/Clinton contest rather than theorizing how each will come out of a future campaign with the republicans.

I started having some doubts about McCain this week. He looked tired and old at the debate, and didn't look good last night on Leno. Age is a problem for him. Obama is going to look like McCain's illigitimate grandson if/when they debate.

[Joemailman]

I've seen a number of times this year where McCain seemed to be looking old and tired, but he always seems to bounce back. If this campaign were being held 2000 years ago, he would be endorsed by Lazarus.

[RashanGary]

It always looks like McCAin has a big swollen left cheek (If you're looking at the TV it's on the right).

It's strange looking.


Yes he is VERY old. I just keep hoping he wins because the conservative media is going absolutely crazy and I love it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It always looks like McCAin has a big swollen left cheek (If you're looking at the TV it's on the right).

McCain had melanoma (skin cancer), had lymph nodes removed from his face. Not sure why it is still all swollen-up several years later.

I see many parallels between John McCain & Bob Dole. Dole was an older, disabled war hero, likeable guy with a sharp wit who worked well with Democrats in the Senate. He got trounced by Clinton.

I liked Hillary's response to the kenard about family dynasties: "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

I think Hillary can win people over in a campaign. She's a decent speech maker and a superb debater. Her negatives are that she is an insider, and the second-hand gossip that she is a witch. She will never win-over the Leapers of this world who heard on talk radio in 1994 that she is a bitch - that's his story and he's sticking to it. I believe most of those covetted Independents that we are always talking about can be won-over by her steadiness and intelligence.

Obama will be diminished in a general election, the halo will come off. His membership in a segregated church is going to be played up, for instance. Not sure whether McCain will make Obama look unprepared for a presidency (which is true enough in my view) or McCain will just look very very old. If I had to guess: Obama is going to win the nomination and then the presidency. He's got that media mojo workin, and he's so charismatic.

[Joemailman]

It always looks like McCAin has a big swollen left cheek (If you're looking at the TV it's on the right).

It's strange looking.


Yes he is VERY old. I just keep hoping he wins because the conservative media is going absolutely crazy and I love it.

Ann Coulter has endorsed Clinton because she Says Clinton is more conservative than McCain. :lol: I actually think the Talk radio conservatives might prefer a Dem win the election rather than McCain. A McCain win could spur a resurgence of moderate Republicans who have been marginalized since Dole lost in 1996. Besides, a Dem in the White House, especially if it's Clinton, with a Democratic congress, would be great cannon fodder for their agenda.

[Joemailman]

Good article on the Republican Civil War:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8268.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

people on the extremes always hate the centrists within their own party much more than people on the other side of the fence. The obvious reason is that centrists marginalize the true believers.

Ralph Nader hated Al Gore far more than any Republican. Gore presented alternatives to Nader acceptable to left-leaning people, made Nader less relevant.

The most vicious Hillary Clinton talk comes from Progressives. The MoveOn.org people hate the Clintons above all because moderate democrats block their rise to power.

I'm not a bit surprised that Ann Coulter despises McCain, even though McCain is obviously much more of an ideological ally than the democrats.

[RashanGary]

I love the hate that is being spewed toward McCain right now. If he wins it's going to be so funny to see Hannity and Rush flounder around, not knowing what side to take. A big part of their success is the "us against them" mentality. They're going to have a hard time when none of the "us's" are left. All they can do is sti and bitch about both of them. It will be funny to hear the big optimists be optimistic about this one :) :)

I want Hillary and McCain to duke it out in the general. It will make for fun radio (for those of us who want to see the far right taken down)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Been listening to a Barak Obama rally - Oprah, Stevie Wonder, Carolyn Kennedy, Michelle Obama.

They repeated the word "brilliant" about 100 times. Everyone is inspired. The main theme seems to be that if Michelle & Barak could start from such humble beginnings and be sent to the White House, then we are in a new era.

I don't know, it is all just like a Tony Robbins seminar.

We can change the world - yes we can! yes we can! yes we can!

But the only change they are really talking about is electing Obama, that's the whole show.

[Joemailman]

Details about what Obama would change should come out more in the general election if he is the nominee as he will need to distinguish his policies from those of the Republican. He and Clinton don't differ that much on policy, so the talk is all about change vs. experience.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I know that political rallies are pep fests. I just don't like the religious revival feel to the Obama events. They talk like they are on a righteous mission of good versus evil, but actually they just want to get somebody elected.

Obama says that he will fight special interests, he's down on lobbyists. I really doubt that he will attempt to do anything significant in this area. Campaign Finance Reform, the real solution, seems dead in the water because of First Amendment concerns.

It seems to me that Ralph Nader is the one on the scene that is talking realistically about fighting corporate control of the government. The major parties are not in a position to reform themselves. I'm not anti-corporate, corporations should be able to lobby government, they are an important part of society. But Nader is the one speaking truth to power, as they say.

Obama may very well beat Clinton in California on Tuesday. If he does, the Obama triumph will be all but inevitable. I think the Clintons lost the election in South Carolina.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

[esoxx]

Fuck the Pats!!!! oops wrong thread. :whist:

[Freak Out]

Have Clinton or Obama talked about the Pentagons budget at all?

[Joemailman]

I know that political rallies are pep fests. I just don't like the religious revival feel to the Obama events. They talk like they are on a righteous mission of good versus evil, but actually they just want to get somebody elected.

Obama says that he will fight special interests, he's down on lobbyists. I really doubt that he will attempt to do anything significant in this area. Campaign Finance Reform, the real solution, seems dead in the water because of First Amendment concerns.

It seems to me that Ralph Nader is the one on the scene that is talking realistically about fighting corporate control of the government. The major parties are not in a position to reform themselves. I'm not anti-corporate, corporations should be able to lobby government, they are an important part of society. But Nader is the one speaking truth to power, as they say.

Obama may very well beat Clinton in California on Tuesday. If he does, the Obama triumph will be all but inevitable. I think the Clintons lost the election in South Carolina.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

Edwards tried to talk truth to power, and the mainstream media, who are all owned by huge corporations, did their best to pretend he didn't exist. This is very difficult for a candidate to overcome, and Edwards could not do it. There are very powerful people who want to maintain the status quo, and reducing their power will be very difficult.

[LL2]

I don't know, it is all just like a Tony Robbins seminar.

We can change the world - yes we can! yes we can! yes we can!

But the only change they are really talking about is electing Obama, that's the whole show.

Bill Clinton had that same feel back in 1992. They were singing "can't stop thinking about tomorrow..." all the way to the White House.

[Deputy Nutz]

I liked Hillary's response to the kenard about family dynasties: "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

Sounds like the Clintons used to work at a whore house.

[Deputy Nutz]

It always looks like McCAin has a big swollen left cheek (If you're looking at the TV it's on the right).

It's strange looking.


Yes he is VERY old. I just keep hoping he wins because the conservative media is going absolutely crazy and I love it.

Ann Coulter has endorsed Clinton because she Says Clinton is more conservative than McCain. :lol: I actually think the Talk radio conservatives might prefer a Dem win the election rather than McCain. A McCain win could spur a resurgence of moderate Republicans who have been marginalized since Dole lost in 1996. Besides, a Dem in the White House, especially if it's Clinton, with a Democratic congress, would be great cannon fodder for their agenda.

This just drives me nuts. McCain actually votes the way he thinks and feels in congress to hopefully best represent the state of Arizona. But yet because he doesn't walk the party line on things the republican voice won't get behind him, they would rather vote against their party for someone that won't give them anything they want.

[MadScientist]

I liked Hillary's response to the kenard about family dynasties: "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush."

Sounds like the Clintons used to work at a whore house.
A pretty apt description of a George Bush Whitehouse. :lol:

That is one of her best lines, but it still doesn't change the fact that she is the poorest of the Democratic candidates. She may win the nomination, but she will have to overcome the loss of the disillusioned new voters that Barack has brought to the table, along with the independents and moderate repubs that would have voted for him.

They try to frame it as the safe choice (Clinton) vs the risky one (Obama), but, really, Hillary is safe enough to lose. Every time Democrats play it safe, they lose. It's the same playbook that brought you Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.

[Harlan Huckleby]

She may win the nomination, but she will have to overcome the loss of the disillusioned new voters that Barack has brought to the table

yes, I've heard a lot about these people. They are the dem equivalent of Ann Coulter, who announces she is voting for Clinton if McCain gets the nomination. Maybe some children will hold their breath and stamp their feet if Hillary gets nomination, but not that many.


Every time Democrats play it safe, they lose. It's the same playbook that brought you Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.

Those were all weak candidates, with the possible exception of Mondale. Clinton is a superb debater and dynamic campaigner who has a VERY passionate following.
I don't see Clinton as a safe candidate because of her high negatives. It seems to me that Obama folks are playing the safe card because Obama does modestly better in matchup polls against McCain.

The general election is going to be a learning experience for Obama fans, whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama. It is going to be a tough fight for either. Either will be diminished by the process, and especially so for Obama.

I'll be happy with Obama as president, but I expect him to do some stumbling in first term. Just one example: Hillary's health care plan that insists on mandatory participation shows that she has a better feel for how things work, and how the Republicans will subvert efforts by the Democrats.

[MadScientist]

She may win the nomination, but she will have to overcome the loss of the disillusioned new voters that Barack has brought to the table

yes, I've heard a lot about these people. They are the dem equivalent of Ann Coulter, who announces she is voting for Clinton if McCain gets the nomination. Maybe some children will hold their breath and stamp their feet if Hillary gets nomination, but not that many.

No, they are new people who have not firmly established their political identity, independents who look for integrity, and moderate republicans who are ticked at Bush. Obama gets them, Clinton doesn't.



Every time Democrats play it safe, they lose. It's the same playbook that brought you Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.

Those were all weak candidates, with the possible exception of Mondale. Clinton is a superb debater and dynamic campaigner who has a VERY passionate following.
I don't see Clinton as a safe candidate because of her high negatives. It seems to me that Obama folks are playing the safe card because Obama does modestly better in matchup polls against McCain.
Clinton is a weak candidate. I will give that she is good in the debates, and more energetic than McCain (only Fred Thompson wasn't). But even to the people that don't demonize her, she still comes across as just another political weasel saying anything to win and standing for nothing. That's why she will do poorly with new voters and independents. McCain comes across as more honest, even if he has spent the last 4 years selling out to Bush and would make horrible appointments to the courts.

[Joemailman]

Cinton's mantra of "I will be ready to be President from day one" is getting really old in my view. A four year term is a long time, and I'm more interested in who has more potential to grow into the role of an outstanding President than I am with who will be more ready on day one. If I'm willing to consider taking a chance on a relative newcomer as I approach the age of 50, I have to believe that much younger voters are even more inclined to do so.

Of course, I always vote, so I will be there on election day no matter who the nominees are. The big question is whether Obama's young followers will show up if he is not the nominee.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton is a weak candidate. I will give that she is good in the debates, and more energetic than McCain.

Clinton is an extraodinary politician. Perhaps Obama even more so. You have no idea how unusual this election is.


she still comes across as just another political weasel saying anything to win and standing for nothing. That's why she will do poorly with new voters and independents.

I see. Clinton is selling snake oil. Whereas Obama is delivering the real goods: hope, change, unity, end of politics as usual, yes we can! yes we can! :lol:

I would suggest that Obama is marketing an empty vessel into which anyone can pour whatever they want. Thus his broad appeal. Check out one of those books advertised in back of men's magazines, "How to Pickup Women", (I know a guy who wrote such a book :D , what a dope!) those books will tell you: don't say too much, be vague and allow the woman to project into you what she wants.

And if you think new voters are gifted as truth detectors, well, you have a very dim view of life. People actually get wiser as they see more, especially in their ability to judge character.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cinton's mantra of "I will be ready to be President from day one" is getting really old in my view. A four year term is a long time

I think its necessary to strip away all this stuff.

Choosing a president is simple: try to get to know the mind of the person as best you can, and picture how they will deal with tough decisions. 95% of what is said in campaigns is a distraction.

[hoosier]

Choosing a president is simple: try to get to know the mind of the person as best you can, and picture how they will deal with tough decisions. 95% of what is said in campaigns is a distraction.

Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying, Project into them whatever it is you want :P

[The Leaper]

She will never win-over the Leapers of this world who heard on talk radio in 1994 that she is a bitch - that's his story and he's sticking to it.

Again...

It is from reading the memoirs of people who worked INSIDE the Clinton administration, not talk radio or some "conservative" outlet. People who share most of the Clinton's viewpoints on the issues still view Bill as a hothead and Hillary as a bitch. Claiming that viewpoint only comes from Limbaugh or O'Reilly is ignoring the facts.

Her own party has been yelling and screaming at her and Bill to tone it down the last few weeks. Maybe you've missed it. But I guess those people are all part of conservative talk radio.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Her own party has been yelling and screaming at her and Bill to tone it down the last few weeks.

Hillary has been a bitch in this campaign? I'd give her the Miss Congeniality Award.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Choosing a president is simple: try to get to know the mind of the person as best you can, and picture how they will deal with tough decisions. 95% of what is said in campaigns is a distraction.

Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying, Project into them whatever it is you want :P

OK, you scored a couple points here, but its still early rounds.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am mad as hell. In West Virginia, the McCain supporters in caucuses voted for Huckabee so that Romney would end up getting no delegates.

What a corrupt subversion of democracy!

Leaper & JustinHarrel argued that Huckabee's voters are all mormon-hating evangelicals, but the exit polls and analysts are unequivicol: Huckabee is running interference for McCain in the South, taking voters who would mostly fall to Romney.

I hate Mitt. I like Mike. But I can't stand the spoiler role that Huckabee is playing. I'm glad that Edwards got out of the race, even though most of his supporters have evidently fallen to Obama. Let the people have the say!

[Joemailman]

Huckabee is winning in the south tonight, which probably guarantees that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate. McCain will need him in the general election. With the numbers of new voters that the Dems are bringing in, the Repubs can not assume a clean sweep in the south in the general election.

[LL2]

Huckabee is winning in the south tonight, which probably guarantees that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate. McCain will need him in the general election. With the numbers of new voters that the Dems are bringing in, the Repubs can not assume a clean sweep in the south in the general election.

I do not think Huckabees strong showing means he will be the VP. Whoever the presidential nominee gets to choose his own VP. McCain might be wise to ask Huckabee to be his VP in the fall to get all those states in the Bible belt.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Huckabee is winning in the south tonight, which probably guarantees that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate.

He wouldn't be a bad choice. Boy would it piss the party establishment off, though, the Country Club Republicans don't much like him either.

Clinton's having a decent showing so far. Obama needs to win Connecticut, so far he has won only states in the Eastern section of country with high African American population: Deleware, Georgia, Alabama.

Bottom line, I'm convinced the winner of California will win the nomination, and we won't know that until midday tomorrow. I'd bet on Obama, he really surged in the last couple days. There are a couple wild cards that could help Hillary: 2.6 absentee ballots were cast mostly prior to Obama's upswing, and Hispanics are voting (so far this evening) very strongly for Hillary, there's been zero erosion of her support. Most analysts thought Barak was making inroads with Hispanics.
Come on you beautiful brown people! Hillary loves the Mexicans!!

[SkinBasket]

We're fucked no matter what.

[Harlan Huckleby]

true enough. the government is already stealing our precious bodily fluids.

[SkinBasket]

true enough. the government is already stealing our precious bodily fluids.

You too? I thought they were aliens. Turns out they were just illegals hired by Hillary to collect my DNA to predict my voting tendencies.

[packinpatland]

true enough. the government is already stealing our precious bodily fluids.

You too? I thought they were aliens. Turns out they were just illegals hired by Hillary to collect my DNA to predict my voting tendencies.

I knew there was nothing that woman wouldn't resort to.

[BallHawk]

Arizona called for Hillary.

I am very nervous about Cali. I'm feeling a big number for Hillary.

[BallHawk]

true enough. the government is already stealing our precious bodily fluids.

We need to head underground.......

[Joemailman]

Huckabee is winning in the south tonight, which probably guarantees that Huckabee will be McCain's running mate. McCain will need him in the general election. With the numbers of new voters that the Dems are bringing in, the Repubs can not assume a clean sweep in the south in the general election.

I do not think Huckabees strong showing means he will be the VP. Whoever the presidential nominee gets to choose his own VP. McCain might be wise to ask Huckabee to be his VP in the fall to get all those states in the Bible belt.

Your last sentence is what I was suggesting. McCain may well pick Huckabee as his running mate to help him in the south.

[BallHawk]

Chuckie T on MSNBC has the delegate count at 841-837 (margin of error +/- 10.

Tonight was undoubtedly a tie.

[Partial]

That's because they are both equally terrible candidates! :rs:

[Harlan Huckleby]

How do we get Obama & Clinton together on a ticket?

The analysts say its a dumb move, too much total risk with two tradition breakers, no geographical advantage with Illinois and New York already in the bag. I see things in emotional terms, both of these candidates have such passionate support.

Clinton clearly gains politically as a candidate with Obama as her VP.

Clinton's value to Obama as a VP is far less clear, and certainly many of his supporters reject her and her generation. But I think Obama would benefit hugely from her once he got elected. I suspect Obama appreciates her talents, and I guess she would be willing to do it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

true enough. the government is already stealing our precious bodily fluids.

We need to head underground.......

I stole line from movie "Doctor Strangelove"

[Joemailman]

How do we get Obama & Clinton together on a ticket?

The analysts say its a dumb move, too much total risk with two tradition breakers, no geographical advantage with Illinois and New York already in the bag. I see things in emotional terms, both of these candidates have such passionate support.

Clinton clearly gains politically as a candidate with Obama as her VP.

Clinton's value to Obama as a VP is far less clear, and certainly many of his supporters reject her and her generation. But I think Obama would benefit hugely from her once he got elected. I suspect Obama appreciates her talents, and I guess she would be willing to do it.

I could see a Clinton Obama ticket. It would help to make sure that the new young Obama supporters will show up on election day. Obama is young enough to wait another 8 years run for President, at which point he would be the Dem front-runner.

I don't see a Obama/Clinton ticket. I just don't see her being anyone's VP. I think she'd rather be Senate majority leader. I think Obama would probably pick someone with a lot of foreign policy experience. Joe Biden perhaps.

[hoosier]

I could see a Clinton Obama ticket. It would help to make sure that the new young Obama supporters will show up on election day. Obama is young enough to wait another 8 years run for President, at which point he would be the Dem front-runner.


I'm guessing Obama would take one look at what happened to Al Gore and say "no thanks" to the idea of riding in the back seat of the Hillarymobile.

[LL2]

What is most amazing is that around $1 billion dollars will be spent by all candidates in the process of becoming the next president to get a $400,000 dollar a year job. That is gov't math. Sure, there are a lot of perks that come with being the president during and after their term, but I would never want that job.

[RashanGary]

I LOVED seeing McCain kick Romney's ass.


McCain has to be the front runner in the general election too. So many independants will vote for McCain and conservatives really don't have a choice.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sure, there are a lot of perks that come with being the president
http://www.famouspictures.org/images/thumb/0/00/BillClintonMonicaHug.jpg/280px-BillClintonMonicaHug.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm guessing Obama would take one look at what happened to Al Gore and say "no thanks" to the idea of riding in the back seat of the Hillarymobile.

?? What happened to poor Al? He lost the election all on his own.

the theory I heard is that Obama would much rather become governor of Illinois than Vice President. It would be better for his career.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I LOVED seeing McCain kick Romney's ass.

It was McCain & Huckabee in strategic alliance that kicked Romney's ass. I would rather see whether the majority of voters prefer McCain.

Mitt is not somebody easy to love. I bet when his dog runs away from home he stays there.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't see a Obama/Clinton ticket. I just don't see her being anyone's VP. I think she'd rather be Senate majority leader. I think Obama would probably pick someone with a lot of foreign policy experience. Joe Biden perhaps.

both tickets are unlikely in that the chances of BOTH parties agreeing to it are a stretch.

I think Hillary would be very good at the VP job, she is well respected in Congress, and Obama would benefit from her knowledge and savy. I would be nearly as happy with her at VP than P, in some ways an Obama-Clinton ticket is the ideal.

The VP job is not the pit that used to be.

I want to believe that Hillary & Barrak might suck it up for the benefit of the country and the Democratic Party. And I doubt the acrimony between them is permanent, I bet there is more grudging respect than anything else. Silly me.


Obama would probably pick someone with a lot of foreign policy experience. Joe Biden perhaps.

I hope that either or Obama or Clinton will name Biden Secretary of State. That suits his personality best.

[RashanGary]

If I had to put my money on who's goiong to be the next pres right now, I'd bet McCain.

He's a staunch pro life candidate. The number of people who vote on abortion is substantial IMO.

He's better with taxes than the lib so conservatives will have no choice but to vote for him.

I think he'll take the latino vote or at least split it with the lib.

He's a free thinker, not a party guy and I think many independants love that attitude.

He's an older guy. I think baby boomers will respect him more than Obama just for age and race issues. Right or wrong, I don't think people vote on issues as much as impressions.

He's very strong on war. Seems to me that we have a culture were many people have a "don't take shit" attitude and a "lets go to war if you don't like it" way about us. I could see many people loving his hard ass attitude.


Bottom line, Obama and Clinton are going to get black voters, a few women, gay people and people who want free health care but many of them need free health care because they don't have any ambition to make anything happen so they'll probably forget to register or not know where to vote and miss it anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

:lol: JustinHarrell, I like the cut of your jib. No mincing of words from you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If I had to put my money on who's goiong to be the next pres right now, I'd bet McCain.

He's a staunch pro life candidate. The number of people who vote on abortion is substantial IMO.

He's better with taxes than the lib so conservatives will have no choice but to vote for him.

I think he'll take the latino vote or at least split it with the lib.

He's a free thinker, not a party guy and I think many independants love that attitude.

He's an older guy. I think baby boomers will respect him more than Obama just for age and race issues. Right or wrong, I don't think people vote on issues as much as impressions.

He's very strong on war. Seems to me that we have a culture were many people have a "don't take shit" attitude and a "lets go to war if you don't like it" way about us. I could see many people loving his hard ass attitude.


Bottom line, Obama and Clinton are going to get black voters, a few women, gay people and people who want free health care but many of them need free health care because they don't have any ambition to make anything happen so they'll probably forget to register or not know where to vote and miss it anyway.

First, the conservatives don't like moderates. I know many conservatives that will not vote McCain. Perhaps you haven't noticed the virulent attacks on McCain from Rush.

Even coulter said Clinton is more conservative than her.

Pro life: umm, i don't know how old you are, but before you post you should really know the candidates and their positions. In 99 he said he was opposed to overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Now he wants an amendment and it overturned.

Taxes: he was opposed to the bush tax cut, now he is for them.

Christian right: Opposed Falwell as agent of intolerance, now is cozying up to them.

Latino vote: You are insane. The latinos aren't stupid..and i live in a state with tons. They know the repub position..regardless of what McCain says. McCain is part of the Repub party. The party has betrayed latinos.

And, if McCain does push amnesty, he loses all those repubs who are against it.

Plenty of voters will sit out this vote if gets the nomination.

Independents: Clearly that favors Obama more than anyone else.

Free thinker: Far fewer independents to counter the massive fall out from conservatives. A man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).


Ethanol: Pro, was against. Hello flip flop.

War: You really think independents are going to vote to stay in Iraq? McCain has backed off his previous statements that he would withdraw troops..now no withdrawl. LOL

Economy: While no candidate, except Romney, is really any better, the economy is most likely going to be in the dumper or close to it come election time. That is bad news for the incumbent party.

[RashanGary]

Nationalized health care is the liberal issue of today. Turning 10-15% of the economy over to the govt is a bigger deal than anything Ann Coulter's little tirade was based in.

conservatives will come around. They're doing everything they can to get a true blue, but since the winner isn't one, they'll come around.

[The Leaper]

It was McCain & Huckabee in strategic alliance that kicked Romney's ass.

Huck, you are delusional.

If the races were 35%-35% between McCain and Romney with Huckabee getting 20% of the vote, I could see your point. However, most of the tight races yesterday were between McCain and Huckabee...with Romney bringing up the rear.

Romney is hurting Huckabee just as much as Huckabee is hurting Romney. Both are spliting the anti-McCain vote...it just depends which area you are talking about as to which candidate gets those votes. In more liberal areas (northeast) Huckabee hurts Romney. In more conservative areas (south) Romney hurts Huckabee.

The bottom line is that neither Romney or Huckabee has the base to challenge McCain. Romney only has the fiscal conservatives in his corner (because he's a rich guy who is part of the "club") and Huckabee only has the social conservatives in his corner (because he's a minister and regular joe). The fiscal conservatives won't vote for Huckabee, and the social conservatives won't vote for Romney.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nationalized health care is the liberal issue of today. Turning 10-15% of the economy over to the govt is a bigger deal than anything Ann Coulter's little tirade was based in.

conservatives will come around. They're doing everything they can to get a true blue, but since the winner isn't one, they'll come around.

Really, if they came around, why didn't they get on Romney's bandwagon?

There are plenty of conservatives that wouldn't vote for Guiliani and said so. You are confusing economic conservatives with social value conservatives.

Do you think the southern voters are voting for Huckabee based on his econ policy?

McCain is a joke..and as someone who lives in AZ..the shit will hit the fan when he gets the nomination.

[The Leaper]

Even coulter said Clinton is more conservative than her.

Which is a ridiculous notion.

McCain has a lifetime 83% ACU rating in the senate.

Hillary Clinton has a 9% rating.

Ann Coulter has the brain the size of a split pea.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Even coulter said Clinton is more conservative than her.

Which is a ridiculous notion.

McCain has a lifetime 83% ACU rating in the senate.

Hillary Clinton has a 9% rating.

Ann Coulter has the brain the size of a split pea.

That large?

Of course it is ridiculous, but the point wasn't whether it was accurate and truthful (if that was the case, Coulter wouldn't have a career), it was to show the conservative mindset towards McCain.

Pretty funny when conservatives are imploring Rush to back off. LOL

I wouldn't even grudge fuck that bitch. :twisted:

[RashanGary]

If the republicans learned one thing here, I think it's that they better start finding some more anti abortion, pro tax cut, evangelicals because the pro abortion mormons just don't cut it in a republican primarys.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wouldn't even grudge fuck that bitch. :twisted:

I would.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I wouldn't even grudge fuck that bitch. :twisted:

I would.

She is a SHIM. I could see ya doing it. Close you eyes and she could be a guy.

[Zool]

I wouldn't even grudge fuck that bitch. :twisted:

I would.

She is a SHIM. I could see ya doing it. Close you eyes and she could be a guy.

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/nucleus/media/21/20061114-playboycoulter.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

I could see ya doing it. Close you eyes and she could be a guy.

:lol:

[Freak Out]

I have heard Obama say more than once that he would NEVER be a VP on Clinton's ticket. He could change his mind with a little persuasion but I think it's pretty doubtful.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have heard Obama say more than once that he would NEVER be a VP on Clinton's ticket. He could change his mind with a little persuasion but I think it's pretty doubtful.

Well, this is an important stance for him to take as a candidate, since so many people were viewing him, at least until recently, as ideal VP material.

I think Hillary Clinton should state: "I would give strong consideration to being on a ticket with Barak in either position." (note: they are friends now, on first name basis :) )

Now, most people would say this is crazy. It gives her supporters permission to vote for OBama with the reassurance that they can have the old girl in the bag too. I don't suppose any candidate has ever said something like this before the race was decided.

But I think it would work to her favor, this is an EXTREMELY unusual election. Most Democrats think very highly of both candidates. There would be a surge of good will in her direction. And Obama would be under great pressure to signify his willingness to yeild to the wishes of the party as well.

Damn, if Hillary would just hire me, I could take her, I mean us, right to the top!

[BallHawk]

It makes sense for Hillary to choose Obama.

It does not make sense for Obama to choose Hillary.

[Freak Out]

Is Obama going to take a slim lead after all the data is in after Tuesday? That would be a little shocking but with all the people I saw out here in Alaska last night it would not surprise me. It was cold (-12) and I have never seen more people out for a caucus. He can pull a crowd that's for sure.

[Joemailman]

Nationalized health care is the liberal issue of today. Turning 10-15% of the economy over to the govt is a bigger deal than anything Ann Coulter's little tirade was based in.

conservatives will come around. They're doing everything they can to get a true blue, but since the winner isn't one, they'll come around.

No one who is still running is pushing nationalization of health care. Kucinich was the only one calling for a single-payer system. What Clinton is proposing now is not what she tried to push through in 1993.

[The Leaper]

Well, this is an important stance for him to take as a candidate, since so many people were viewing him, at least until recently, as ideal VP material.

It doesn't matter what people think. If Obama wants to be president, his best chance IMO is to wait it out. Riding someone else's coattails might not be a good idea...especially if the other person doesn't do very well.

In 4 or 8 years, he will still be a top candidate...and a likely favorite...even if he isn't a VP. He also eliminates any potential to be dragged down by circumstances that are mostly out of his control as a VP. VPs also are notoriously absent from public view...Senators typically have far more access to the media and publicity.

[RashanGary]

The liberals are just lying low right now. Wait till the general comes around. They will be pimping their "health care for all" cause at an alarming rate.


With the economy the way it is, who knows, they might be able to knock of McCain.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The liberals are just lying low right now. Wait till the general comes around. They will be pimping their "health care for all" cause at an alarming rate.

JH, we're the only developed country in the world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens. Its not a fantastic idea.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, this is an important stance for him to take as a candidate, since so many people were viewing him, at least until recently, as ideal VP material.

It doesn't matter what people think. If Obama wants to be president, his best chance IMO is to wait it out.

:shock: doesn't matter what people think? That's all that matters to a politician.

I agree that a VP position is not the best career advancement position for him. But its hardly a dead end, either.

I don't think the choice of a vice-president makes a huge deal in terms of electability. I think Obama should consider Clinton because she will serve him well in office.

[RashanGary]

The problems with the health care system are so wide spread that I doubt anything the libs do will fix it.


The extremely poor get health care through state programs already. We all pay for the poorest of the poor.

It's the lower/middle who have jobs but the job might offer extremely pricey health care who suffer. Maybe they can't afford their bills so they take a risk and cut out health coverage. They make too much to get it free, but not enough to live in their Milwaukee home and pay healthcare at the same time. They end up getting Hodgekins cancer. The doctor says you should be recovered within a year so you don't qualify for any type of disabled health care. You end up racking up $150,000 in bills. You cannot pay it. You either file bankruptsy and start yoru life over or you pay $5.00 per month and the hospital never gets it's money back. You think that was free treatment? No, it was not. The people who pay for it are those who pay for health insurance. The bills that acctually do get paid cover teh bills of those who do not get paid.

In the end, the poor get all the health care they need without giving up anything right now. It's the hard workign lower/middle class that sacrafices and then when they sacrafice too much, they pass the price on to everyone who can afford insurance and the bill ends up getting split anyway.


Ultimately, I don't think it's going to get cheaper for the middle class unless they find a way to put a tax curve on it and take more from the rich rather than splitting it evenly (the way it gets split between the payers now by passing on unpaid bills). If they do that, it's going to piss off the top 1% and it's really not going to make the industry any more efficiant or affordable (it's just going to adjust the way it's paid by takign money from doctors, lawyers, and some buisnessmen). The richest of the rich will find a way to avoid it, so it's just going to take from those who really worked hard to get where they are.

I think the ultimate answer is finding a way to make higher competition to drive prices down. I'm OK with a new system of paying, but along with the system has to come some solutions to the inefficiencies of the industry so it ends up saving everyone money.

[RashanGary]

Another big solution in this country is going to be to find a way to tax gained wealth rather than taxing the piss out of the upper middle class. Those people really work for their money. There are people out there who just steam roll it by doing nothign for society but they were born rich so they will stay rich as long as it's easy as hell to steam roll.

I think wealth and money overall is something that should be earned through decisions, ability and hard work, not through aristocratically passing it through families. By taxing the piss out of the upper middle class it becomes very hard to enter into the extremely rich category. However, the extremely rich are in a position where it's nearly impossible to drop status, no matter how useless the person. In these cases it's not based on what your capable of, how hard you work or the decisions you make. It's based on what family you were born into.

AGain, overall I think something should be done to take the burden off the upper/middle, allowing people to pass into the extremely wealthy sector more freely and the extremely wealthy sector should get taxed in a way that makes it more possible for bad decisions and low contributions to beget bad results. Basically, you decide your lifestyle with the way you live.

For the most part it's that way, but there are some things happening that defy the American ideal of getting what you put in.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The extremely poor get health care through state programs already. We all pay for the poorest of the poor.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

JH, you came to the right place, because I have just been through some painful first-hand experience on this issue, and I have found-out that the safety net you envision is a myth. Its true that they will sew-up the poorest of the poor in the emergency room. But that is far from providing them with health care. They aren't gonna schedule a poor person for surgery that they need.

On paper I am among the poorest-of-the-poor, because I've been living largely by selling stock I accumulated in the past, my income is tiny - just the capital gains. I've had to deal with major health problems without health insurance. (I actually have health insurance now, through a state program, but it is very expensive despite my low income.)

Its true that in some states, some categories of poor people are taken care of. Families with children in Wisconsin, for instance, are covered by Badger Care.

I've learned ALL about the reality of health care for the poor and/or uninsured the past couple years, and I assure the system is a disgrace. I am just lucky that I had the means to escape disaster, but I suffered along the way.

[RashanGary]

I think the way it gets paid could be changed HH. I don't trust governement at all to get it done. I think they'll find ways to line their pockets and their friends pockets and they'll make an inefficient system even more inefficient.

I think a system should be thought up (with the flexibility to change as the conditions change because it's going to have some suprises along the way). The system should not be dreamed up by Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the democratic party filled with contracts that line the pockets of their friends and indirectly themselves along the way and on top of that employ more cushy govt jobs to their friends to go to work and basically do nothing on the tax bill.

Whatever the libs do is going to be a crock of shit. That's my problem with it.

[The Leaper]

JH, we're the only developed country in the world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens. Its not a fantastic idea.

Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.

There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.

[The Leaper]

I think Obama should consider Clinton because she will serve him well in office.

I'm sure Obama would consider Clinton...I doubt Clinton would ever consider a VP role. She's in it to win it...she wants no part of anything less.

[MJZiggy]

JH, we're the only developed country in the world that doesn't offer health care to its citizens. Its not a fantastic idea.

Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.

There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.

Most, often. Words like this would suggest that MOST do it poorly, but there are a few that do it well. What's wrong with modeling a system after the best universal health care system in the world regardless of where it is?

[RashanGary]

Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.

There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.

I agree 100% and I think insurance as a 3rd party lowers direct competiiton. If yoru doctor or hospital pisses you off or over charges you, you should want to go somewhere else. Natural markets have a funny way of driving prices down.

I'm not against a system that covers everyone, but I think it should be based in competition and personal responsiblity to spend wisely. When you put those things together, I think industries clean themselves up.

[The Leaper]

Most, often. Words like this would suggest that MOST do it poorly, but there are a few that do it well. What's wrong with modeling a system after the best universal health care system in the world regardless of where it is?

It is not an easy solution...and the options I've seen from all the candidates fail to address many of the most common issues with our health care system, such as malpractice litigation, insurance, industry regulation, etc.

Most aspects of our health care are world class. However, there are several gaping holes...and universal coverage is not the answer to most of those gaping holes. Sure, it is the answer in terms of getting coverage for everyone...however, it also brings with it new problems without addressing many of the old ones.

IMO, with some commitment, we can solve the health care woes without federalizing our health care system. Just because everyone else is doing it certainly does not mean it is the best way to go. Many nations with "universal" health care will probably be tottering on the brink of financial disaster in 15-20 years without drastically increasing the tax burden on their citizens. That will be even more true of our own nation, where a massive generation is about to enter their senior years, sending health care needs skyrocketing.

However, the lemmings who follow our political leaders love catch phrases and simiple solutions to issues that should be solved with a far greater debate and examination.

[MJZiggy]

Sure, it is the answer in terms of getting coverage for everyone...

Ding, ding, ding, ding!! We have a winner! This is the problem they're trying to solve. I don't think they're trying to be a cure all, end all right now. This is the problem that needs solving--uninsured people dying on hospital floors and dying after being sent home without having been properly cared for because they were uninsured and got the minimum treatment. People going bankrupt over medical bills because they can't afford healthcare and uninsured kids is what they're trying to fix. They ain't trying to fix the whole works.

[The Leaper]

They ain't trying to fix the whole works.

Of course not.

They are merely trying to get elected.

They don't give a rat's ass about your health care...once elected, they don't have to worry about their health care system either.

[MJZiggy]

They ain't trying to fix the whole works.

Of course not.

They are merely trying to get elected.

They don't give a rat's ass about your health care...once elected, they don't have to worry about their health care system either.

They sure as hell do if they get elected on a healthcare reform platform and want any hope of getting re-elected next term. Hillary wanted that HC initiative passed in 93 and I have never once heard her back off from that objective.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Romney just dropped out of the race. I don't think a guy as rich as him got rich throwing his money away.

good riddance. (actually, I don't really know what kind of man he is, he might be ok, i just didn't like him.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I was watching a panel discussion on "Democracy Now!", the lefty news show on cable access. The panelists were all villifying Hillary as the Enemy of the PEople, because the far left (and right) operate this way - they need a bogey man to rally against. But to her credit, the host Ellen Goodman kept pointing out that Obama is identical to Hillary on nearly every position, and he takes money from many of the same corporate donors. It was fun to watch. People on the fringe don't like dealing with ambiguity.

They kept refering to the "Clinton Machine", as do many pundits. "Machine" has the connotation of corruption, as in the political machines in Chicago and Kansas City etc. in the early 20th century. It also implies that their success is driven by money and organization, rather than popular support.

Hog Warsh!

Obama has raised money at 3x the rate of Hillary of late. And the Obama campaign is built on superior organization - they have won all but one of the caucus states. Whenever the contest is a straight vote of the people, Hillary more often than not wins. He has a lot of donors, which is certainly admirable, but its important to note that he has much more affluent supporters than Hillary.

Why, this daughter of a poor Mill Worker (I think that's her story :) ) recently had to dip in her piggy back and pull out 5M$ of her baby-sitting money just to keep the campaign afloat.

Clinton - the voice of the little people. Down with the big money Obama Machine!!! :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Are you just hoping she's gonna be looking for a White House intern to get a little revenge on Bill? You have quite the crush!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you just hoping she's gonna be looking for a White House intern to get a little revenge on Bill? You have quite the crush!

I admire her strength and intelligence. She has taken a lot of shit over the years with grace and dignity - go ahead and :lol: if you want, but its true. And ya, I'd do her, might take a little K-Y jelly these days, but who am I to be picky?

[MJZiggy]

Ah, hell Harlan, most of your life is run by KY jelly anyway...

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not against a system that covers everyone, but I think it should be based in competition and personal responsiblity to spend wisely. When you put those things together, I think industries clean themselves up.

JH, I think you are a Hillary Clinton guy and don't even know it. Clinton's healthcare plan has a good balance.

Personally, I would simply offer Socialized Medicine - meaning the government just pays the checks. And then richer people could supplement with private insurance. But this seems not to be politically feasible at this time.

Hillary expands private insurance. I think you'll like her plan. And she's kinda cute, don't you think?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ah, hell Harlan, most of your life is run by KY jelly anyway...

true enough, I'm good to go.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Obama should consider Clinton because she will serve him well in office.

I'm sure Obama would consider Clinton...I doubt Clinton would ever consider a VP role. She's in it to win it...she wants no part of anything less.

Well, when she teared-up in New Hampshire, she said it was because she sensed she might miss her chance to help her country. IF there is any truth to this, she'd swallow her pride and take the job. I guess we can both agree on this last statement. :D

[Freak Out]

Romney just dropped out of the race. I don't think a guy as rich as him got rich throwing his money away.

good riddance. (actually, I don't really know what kind of man he is, he might be ok, i just didn't like him.)

Good fucking riddance. Did you hear the speech he made after announcing he was dropping out for the good of America?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I was watching a panel discussion on "Democracy Now!", the lefty news show on cable access. The panelists were all villifying Hillary as the Enemy of the PEople, because the far left (and right) operate this way - they need a bogey man to rally against. But to her credit, the host Ellen Goodman kept pointing out that Obama is identical to Hillary on nearly every position, and he takes money from many of the same corporate donors. It was fun to watch. People on the fringe don't like dealing with ambiguity.

They kept refering to the "Clinton Machine", as do many pundits. "Machine" has the connotation of corruption, as in the political machines in Chicago and Kansas City etc. in the early 20th century. It also implies that their success is driven by money and organization, rather than popular support.

Hog Warsh!

Obama has raised money at 3x the rate of Hillary of late. And the Obama campaign is built on superior organization - they have won all but one of the caucus states. Whenever the contest is a straight vote of the people, Hillary more often than not wins. He has a lot of donors, which is certainly admirable, but its important to note that he has much more affluent supporters than Hillary.

Why, this daughter of a poor Mill Worker (I think that's her story :) ) recently had to dip in her piggy back and pull out 5M$ of her baby-sitting money just to keep the campaign afloat.

Clinton - the voice of the little people. Down with the big money Obama Machine!!! :lol:

The reason they hate her is she really isn't much of a democrat. She didn't take any stands against Bush.

She doesn't believe in outsider reform. She turned down the same position Obama later took because she only believed change could come from inside.

Remember, she was a REPUBLICAN in college during a time when she shoulda been a dem.

She only became a dem when Nixon got the nom over rockefeller.

Infact, her whole campaign is nixonian. His was the forgotten people..isn't that what she is saying now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think Obama should consider Clinton because she will serve him well in office.

I'm sure Obama would consider Clinton...I doubt Clinton would ever consider a VP role. She's in it to win it...she wants no part of anything less.

Well, when she teared-up in New Hampshire, she said it was because she sensed she might miss her chance to help her country. IF there is any truth to this, she'd swallow her pride and take the job. I guess we can both agree on this last statement. :D

While i want to believe her tear job was sincere....not one tear shed for dead soldiers, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Most developed nations OFFER health care, but it also is often relatively pitiful coverage...not at all timely or effective. In terms of immediate care when needed, those nations you refer to often fall short. There is no point in rushing to creating a system like that.

There are a lot of issues in solving our health care system woes...just throwing out universal coverage alone is not an acceptable solution IMO. It certainly should be considered in the solution, but we need a larger bandage that also covers the over-regulation of the industry and addresses the growing complexity of insurance.

I agree 100% and I think insurance as a 3rd party lowers direct competiiton. If yoru doctor or hospital pisses you off or over charges you, you should want to go somewhere else. Natural markets have a funny way of driving prices down.

I'm not against a system that covers everyone, but I think it should be based in competition and personal responsiblity to spend wisely. When you put those things together, I think industries clean themselves up.

The problem is that insurance has no vested interest in that.

Healthcare and insurance aren't one in the same.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Remember, she was a REPUBLICAN in college during a time when she shoulda been a dem.

can't you forgive a youthful indiscretion? she came from a very republican background, not everyone has the benefit of coming from a good family.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Remember, she was a REPUBLICAN in college during a time when she shoulda been a dem.

can't you forgive a youthful indiscretion? she came from a very republican background, not everyone has the benefit of coming from a good family.

I can forgive, never forget.

[Freak Out]

Infact, her whole campaign is nixonian. His was the forgotten people..isn't that what she is saying now.

I think Edwards was using that line. But I don't pay much attention to Hillary so I could have missed it.

[Freak Out]

I was wondering today if Mac could be thinking of bringing Powell back into the picture and perhaps offering him a shot at VP?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Infact, her whole campaign is nixonian. His was the forgotten people..isn't that what she is saying now.

I think Edwards was using that line. But I don't pay much attention to Hillary so I could have missed it.

He did as well.

But, Clinton is definitely using it.

[hoosier]

I was watching a panel discussion on "Democracy Now!", the lefty news show on cable access. The panelists were all villifying Hillary as the Enemy of the PEople, because the far left (and right) operate this way - they need a bogey man to rally against. But to her credit, the host Ellen Goodman kept pointing out that Obama is identical to Hillary on nearly every position, and he takes money from many of the same corporate donors. It was fun to watch. People on the fringe don't like dealing with ambiguity.

They kept refering to the "Clinton Machine", as do many pundits. "Machine" has the connotation of corruption, as in the political machines in Chicago and Kansas City etc. in the early 20th century. It also implies that their success is driven by money and organization, rather than popular support.

Hog Warsh!

Clinton - the voice of the little people. Down with the big money Obama Machine!!! :lol:

Whatever ethical standards Hillary may once have had, getting burned on health care back in the early 90's must have permanently scarred her, becuase she turned into just another opportunist. Take Bush's invasion of Iraq. She can't not have known that the rationales the Bushies were passing out like crazy were all bullshit. And yet she gave him free reign, knowing full well (she can't not have) that he'd take ever inch Congress gave him and then some. Why? Beacuse it was 2002/2003 and the country was fired up about terrorism and she feared that speaking out against the war would be political suicide. Even though she knew it was all based on half truths and lies. If she's not willing to risk her political life over THAT, then she's not willing to risk it over anything. That, IMO, is why the Left hates her.

This is the realist-cynical account of Hillary's post-9/11 trajectory. The other possibility is that she was Bush's dupe. Which is worse?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Whatever ethical standards Hillary may once have had, getting burned on health care back in the early 90's must have permanently scarred her, becuase she turned into just another opportunist.

opportunist? What could be more opportunist than running for president with only 3 years of national experience?

I consider her failure in delivering health care in the '90s to be perhaps the greatest feather in her cap. She knows the political/economic terrain inside out, she's THE person in the Democratic Party to lead this battle.
As I've said before, her plan is my second favorite, but its better than all the rest. (Her approach is identical to John Edward's.)


Take Bush's invasion of Iraq. She can't not have known that the rationales the Bushies were passing out like crazy were all bullshit.

I will not try to dissuade you from your black and white thinking. You are unable to see that reasonable people might form different judgements on this issue. Not going to argue the details, you aren't open to weighing them, but here's the bottom line:
1) Hillary Clinton authorized Bush to go to war.
2) Your main man John Edwards authorized Bush to go to war.
3) From comments Obama has made, its quite plausible he would have authorized Bush to go to war if he had been in the Senate.

Leaving the world of speculation, lets look at some cold facts. Obama and Clinton have an identical voting record on the Iraq War. If you want somebody who is willing to take a hard stance to defund the war, Dennis Kucinich is your man.


Even though she knew it was all based on half truths and lies.
So you believe that the 77 Senators who voted to authorize did so knowing the evidence was based on half truths & lies.
I believe you've accepted an irrational argument as a salve to your anger.

[Joemailman]

Romney just dropped out of the race. I don't think a guy as rich as him got rich throwing his money away.

good riddance. (actually, I don't really know what kind of man he is, he might be ok, i just didn't like him.)

Are there any more Republican debates scheduled? It would be interesting to see if the relationship between McCain and Huckabee would change now that they are the only two (apologies to Ron Paul) candidates left in the race. Up to now they've been kind of a tag team, but now they are technically competitors.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are there any more Republican debates scheduled? It would be interesting to see if the relationship between McCain and Huckabee would change now that they are the only two (apologies to Ron Paul) candidates left in the race. Up to now they've been kind of a tag team, but now they are technically competitors.

It will be the Mutt 'n' Jeff Show. These guys genuinely like each other, and Huckabee can't possibly dream of catching McCain. Even if he harbors irrational ambitions, doing a Dr Jeckle and turning on McCAin ain't gonna do anything for him. Expect a lovefest.

Huckabee's best shot is if McCain's ticker seizes up.

BTW, I laughed when McCain's mother told an interviewer that she expected that Republicans would hold their noses and vote for her son.

[Joemailman]

Debate scheduled February 28. I wonder if they will let Ron Paul in. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/more-cnn-debates-on-the-horizon/

[Harlan Huckleby]

just saw a convincing argument on Charlie Rose show that the Dems are headed for brokered convention. Its unlikely either candidate can pull ahead.

Yuk! Worst possible result.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Crap. David Brooks thinks its gonna be a brokered convention too.
This is terrible if he is right.

Questions for Dr. Retail
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 8, 2008

QUESTION: Dr. Retail, now that the Democratic presidential race has entered its long, bloody slog phase, I figured it was time to get a fresh perspective. Can you explain to me what it’s all about?
DR. RETAIL: Why do you bother me with simple problems? Listen, the essential competition in many consumer sectors is between commodity providers and experience providers, the companies that just deliver product and the companies that deliver a sensation, too. There’s Safeway, and then there is Whole Foods. There’s the PC, and then there’s the Mac. There are Holiday Inns, and there are W Hotels. There’s Walgreens, and there’s The Body Shop.

Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer. As Ron Brownstein of The National Journal pointed out on Wednesday, she won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts and 54 points in Arkansas. She offers voters no frills, just commodities: tax credits, federal subsidies and scholarships. She’s got good programs at good prices.

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.

Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.

QUESTION: But why would Democratic votes break down so starkly along educational lines?

DR. RETAIL: The consumer marketplace has been bifurcating for years! It’s happening because the educated and uneducated lead different sorts of lives. Educated people are not only growing richer than less-educated people, but their lifestyles are diverging as well. A generation ago, educated families and less-educated families looked the same, but now high school graduates divorce at twice the rate of college graduates. High school grads are much more likely to have kids out of wedlock. High school grads are much more likely to be obese. They’re much more likely to smoke and to die younger.

Their attitudes are different. High school grads are much less optimistic than college grads. They express less social trust. They feel less safe in public. They report having fewer friends and lower aspirations. The less educated speak the dialect of struggle; the more educated, the dialect of self-fulfillment

Did you hear the message of Clinton’s speech Tuesday night? It’s a rotten world out there. Regular folks are getting the shaft. They need someone who’ll fight tougher, work harder and put loyalty over independence.

Then did you see the Hopemeister’s speech? His schtick makes sense if you’ve got a basic level of security in your life, if you’re looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstacy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

QUESTION: Your cynicism is really interfering with my vibe. I don’t think you’re feeling the fierce urgency of now.

DR. RETAIL: Believe me, those of us who bill by the hour completely feel the fierce urgency of now. As John Edwards would say, this is personal with me.

QUESTION: So does this mean the Democrats are fundamentally divided?

DR. RETAIL: Why do you political people always think in either/or terms? No. Safeway and Whole Foods people shop in each other’s stores. They just feel less at home.

QUESTION: So who’s going to win?

DR. RETAIL: Observe the marketplace. The next states on the primary calendar have tons of college-educated Obamaphile voters. Maryland is 5th among the 50 states, Virginia is 6th. But later on, we get the Hillary-friendly states. Ohio is 40th in college education. Pennsylvania is 32nd.

But it’ll still be tied after all that. The superdelegates will pick the nominee — the party honchos, the deal-makers, the donors, the machine. Swinging those people takes a level of cynicism even Dr. Retail can’t pretend to understand. That’s Tammany Hall. That’s the court at Versailles under Louis XIV.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Then did you see the Hopemeister’s speech? His schtick makes sense if you’ve got a basic level of security in your life, if you’re looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstacy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

:bclap: :bclap: :bclap: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Partial]

How can anyone support the democratic candidates?!?

I simply do not understand it. I'm all for equality to all, but I am NOT all for over taxation and hand outs. That's why libertarian candidates like Dr. Paul are appealing to me.

Personally, I am all for FairTax. It would force people to live within their means. Ever walk through the ghetto and see a bunch of people with 20" rims and designer clothing? Yeah, me too. It's ridiculous. These people are a drain on society and get handout after handout. That has to end in my opinion because all they do is take. The only thing they give back is bullets to the chest (4 good friends of mine have had guns held to their heads outside their house at market) and annoying me by begging for cash every night in the summer.

Plus, Fairtax would force the illegal immigrants to pay taxes.

[Partial]

I recently read something about a series of CEOs meeting and ranking the best and worst places to run a business from. Milwaukee ranked as one of the worst where as someplace like Texas ranked as the best.

How can this sit well with anyone? It is sickening how many of my peers are supporting all the Dems because of the social issues like Aborton and such. That is just dumb to me because all of that will be irrelevant when the taxes force all the jobs out of Wisconsin!!!!!!!

[hoosier]

Whatever ethical standards Hillary may once have had, getting burned on health care back in the early 90's must have permanently scarred her, becuase she turned into just another opportunist.

opportunist? What could be more opportunist than running for president with only 3 years of national experience?


I meant opportunist as in, Will say or do anything if she believes she can improve her own position by doing so. Obama running for Pres with 3 years as Senator: yes, he's seizing an opportunity by recognizing that other Dem candidates have signficant weaknesses. But I see no reason to assume that he's doing it for purely selfish or base motives.

[hoosier]

I consider her failure in delivering health care in the '90s to be perhaps the greatest feather in her cap. She knows the political/economic terrain inside out, she's THE person in the Democratic Party to lead this battle.
As I've said before, her plan is my second favorite, but its better than all the rest. (Her approach is identical to John Edward's.) That may be. I know there's some evidence that Hillary's plan is better thought out and more likely to make a meaningful difference than is Obama's. If the elections were primarily about differences in health care policy I'd be much more inclined to support Hillary.