Wisconsin Primary

[Joemailman]

Partial, you're a funny guy.

[BallHawk]

However, Partial, most of these people have actually lived life, tried to raise a family, try to pay the bills. You haven't.

And Obama's biggest supporters (yourself included) haven't either. He is extremely unpopular with the crowds up people who will wait hours to vote. Don't talk to me with your cocky ass 13 year old attitude. Once you start getting a paycheck and watch 25% get flushed down the toilet for nothing, than we can talk.

Difference between you and me Partial is that I'm not prancing around this forum like a self-righteous ass-clown acting like I've actually felt the hardships of life. You go around talking shit to Skin and others like you are in some twisted way more accomplished then them. I don't comment on people's family life because it's not of my goddamn business and I haven't been in their shoes. You, however, think that because you've had a job at some company for a month and you've worked at Sears that you know how life works.

Truth is you're just some college kid who talks out of his ass.

[BallHawk]

If a democrat gets elected, they better not hesitate to use force if we are attacked again. I would bet my bottom dollar a nuclear bomb goes off in this country in the next 5 years. If that happens, they had better be prepared to wipe the country and all of its people off the face of the earth that is responsible.

God, I'd love to hear the logic behind this statement. :lol:

[MJZiggy]

You can't possibly be serious. You honestly think we ended up in Iraq because of 9/11? We did not end up in Iraq because of 9/11 and if we had a crippled military force, we had no business attacking them in the first place. Recall, WE attacked THEM. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and al quaida was not there when we attacked them. They are now.

We attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11 (which was justified) and if we'd left it at that, we'd have money to work on our domestic problems without owing our kids' livelihoods to China. China calls in all the debt that Bush has racked up and we're screwed.

[BallHawk]

.If Bill Clinton didn't slice and dice our defense budget, do you think we would have been attacked and had our economy crippled? Do you think we would have been over in Iraq and Afghanistan avenging our fallen brothers and preventing future attacks?

Partial, did you actually just say that 9/11 is connected to our invasion of Iraq?

Nice one, dude.

[BallHawk]

And Zig beat me to it.

Partial, maybe you should just stick to your blog. At least then people won't be able to constantly prove you wrong.

[Partial]

.If Bill Clinton didn't slice and dice our defense budget, do you think we would have been attacked and had our economy crippled? Do you think we would have been over in Iraq and Afghanistan avenging our fallen brothers and preventing future attacks?

Partial, did you actually just say that 9/11 is connected to our invasion of Iraq?

Nice one, dude.

I am surprised you fucking libs don't want universal health care free of charge to all those fucking kurds that Sadam tortured and killed. I also didn't realize that when a hostile country refuses to let the UN search their "palaces" aka large factories and warehouses where they stored Nuclear missles, that we shouldn't go over there and twist there are a little bit.

Consider yourself lucky for George Bush or you and your family and many more Americans could very well be dead. Freedom isn't free and when half the world would rather kill you than speak to you out of jealousy, than sometimes you need to take pre-emptive action to ensure that freedom remains.

You can say blah blah blah oil this oil that or Iraq this or Iraq that, but the fact is you don't know anything more than anyone else. Maybe our intelligence was bad, I don't know, but that is probably a result of slick willy decimating the defense budget. The evidence that we had dictated they had weapons they shouldn't have had, and I for one am glad we did something about it. With a crazy fucker who had a history of genocide and mass killing, what makes you think he would have batted an eye over doing it again??

Answer me this. Tomorrow morning when going to school you see an outsider come into the school with what you are to believe in an assault rifle, but you are not 100%. You go and report this to the principle and the powers that be. What would happen if they didn't intervene with a pre-emptive strike before he lights you and your friends up?!? What is the authorities said they have evidence to believe the same thing, but until he actually shoots a classroom of children they are unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

[Partial]

You can't possibly be serious. You honestly think we ended up in Iraq because of 9/11? We did not end up in Iraq because of 9/11 and if we had a crippled military force, we had no business attacking them in the first place. Recall, WE attacked THEM. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and al quaida was not there when we attacked them. They are now.

We attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11 (which was justified) and if we'd left it at that, we'd have money to work on our domestic problems without owing our kids' livelihoods to China. China calls in all the debt that Bush has racked up and we're screwed.

Right, Iraq has never, ever harbored any terrorists or posed any threat to our country. Those Nuclear bombs were just decorations after all!

[MJZiggy]

.If Bill Clinton didn't slice and dice our defense budget, do you think we would have been attacked and had our economy crippled? Do you think we would have been over in Iraq and Afghanistan avenging our fallen brothers and preventing future attacks?

Partial, did you actually just say that 9/11 is connected to our invasion of Iraq?

Nice one, dude.

I am surprised you fucking libs don't want universal health care free of charge to all those fucking kurds that Sadam tortured and killed. I also didn't realize that when a hostile country refuses to let the UN search their "palaces" aka large factories and warehouses where they stored Nuclear missles, that we shouldn't go over there and twist there are a little bit.

Consider yourself lucky for George Bush or you and your family and many more Americans could very well be dead. Freedom isn't free and when half the world would rather kill you than speak to you out of jealousy, than sometimes you need to take pre-emptive action to ensure that freedom remains.

You can say blah blah blah oil this oil that or Iraq this or Iraq that, but the fact is you don't know anything more than anyone else. Maybe or intelligence was bad, I don't know, but that is probably a result of slick willy trimming the budget. The evidence that we had dictated they had weapons they shouldn't have had, and I for one am glad we did something about it.

Answer me this. Tomorrow morning when going to school you see an outsider come into the school with what you are to believe in an assault rifle, but you are not 100%. You go and report this to the principle and the powers that be. What would happen if they didn't intervene with a pre-emptive strike before he lights you and your friends up?!? What is the authorities said they have evidence to believe the same thing, but until he actually shoots a classroom of children they are unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

No, you don't invade a country that's not an imminent threat when we're right in the middle of another war and NOT without the support of the international community. It's going to take eons to repair that damage. We didn't twist their arm, we demolished their government and infrastructure. Great idea. And when they went in where were all the nuclear missiles they were storing? How many more Americans would be dead from a government that was no credible threat than were killed trying to take the damn thing out and rebuild the entire country? Exactly which intelligence budget did Clinton cut and by how much again? Try looking it up before you spout.

And you moron, they don't go in with preemptive strikes in schools. Maybe learn the Code Red and Code Blue procedures as well before you spout again. How many children do you want shot before they get the gunman down?

[BallHawk]

Consider yourself lucky for George Bush or you and your family and many more Americans could very well be dead.

And the logic behind that statement is what? Because we invaded Iraq we stopped an attack on our soil? I'm sorry, you must have some really good intelligence or something because I'm not seeing what you're seeing.


Freedom isn't free and when half the world would rather kill you than speak to you out of jealousy, than sometimes you need to take pre-emptive action to ensure that freedom remains.

Maybe half the world would rather kill us is because we go into countries we have no business being in trying playing policeman. Maybe if we worried about our problems here and didn't meddle with the problems of other countries then perhaps we wouldn't be a complete mess right now. But, hell, as you said, freedom isn't free and it is our duty to make sure asswipes like yourself have the power to go onto internet forums and spew their beliefs. :roll:

[BallHawk]

Right, Iraq has never, ever harbored any terrorists or posed any threat to our country. Those Nuclear bombs were just decorations after all!

Oh! Those Saudis have also harbored terrorists! Let's go get those bastards! We'll show them whose boss! After all, we're America, we can do whatever the fuck we want! :roll:

[Partial]

.If Bill Clinton didn't slice and dice our defense budget, do you think we would have been attacked and had our economy crippled? Do you think we would have been over in Iraq and Afghanistan avenging our fallen brothers and preventing future attacks?

Partial, did you actually just say that 9/11 is connected to our invasion of Iraq?

Nice one, dude.

I am surprised you fucking libs don't want universal health care free of charge to all those fucking kurds that Sadam tortured and killed. I also didn't realize that when a hostile country refuses to let the UN search their "palaces" aka large factories and warehouses where they stored Nuclear missles, that we shouldn't go over there and twist there are a little bit.

Consider yourself lucky for George Bush or you and your family and many more Americans could very well be dead. Freedom isn't free and when half the world would rather kill you than speak to you out of jealousy, than sometimes you need to take pre-emptive action to ensure that freedom remains.

You can say blah blah blah oil this oil that or Iraq this or Iraq that, but the fact is you don't know anything more than anyone else. Maybe or intelligence was bad, I don't know, but that is probably a result of slick willy trimming the budget. The evidence that we had dictated they had weapons they shouldn't have had, and I for one am glad we did something about it.

Answer me this. Tomorrow morning when going to school you see an outsider come into the school with what you are to believe in an assault rifle, but you are not 100%. You go and report this to the principle and the powers that be. What would happen if they didn't intervene with a pre-emptive strike before he lights you and your friends up?!? What is the authorities said they have evidence to believe the same thing, but until he actually shoots a classroom of children they are unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

No, you don't invade a country that's not an imminent threat when we're right in the middle of another war and NOT without the support of the international community. It's going to take eons to repair that damage. We didn't twist their arm, we demolished their government and infrastructure. Great idea. And when they went in where were all the nuclear missiles they were storing? How many more Americans would be dead from a government that was no credible threat than were killed trying to take the damn thing out and rebuild the entire country? Exactly which intelligence budget did Clinton cut and by how much again? Try looking it up before you spout.

And you moron, they don't go in with preemptive strikes in schools. Maybe learn the Code Red and Code Blue procedures as well before you spout again. How many children do you want shot before they get the gunman down?

So a history of genocide and mass killing isn't enough for you? They didn't find any nukes because Sadam declared anything he didn't want searched a "palace" and thus the UN was not allowed to search. The fact of the matter is this. The intelligence thought it was a threat. Maybe our intelligence was bad because the libs decided to get rid of any sort of defense budget we had?!? I don't have the knowledge to know that but you don't know that that wasn't the case. All we know is what the tell us, and that is exactly what they have told us.

So you're trying to tell me it is NOT a good idea to stop crazy joe with an assault rifle coming into a school simply because he hasn't hurt anyone yet? Jesus christ...

[Partial]

Consider yourself lucky for George Bush or you and your family and many more Americans could very well be dead.

And the logic behind that statement is what? Because we invaded Iraq we stopped an attack on our soil? I'm sorry, you must have some really good intelligence or something because I'm not seeing what you're seeing.


Freedom isn't free and when half the world would rather kill you than speak to you out of jealousy, than sometimes you need to take pre-emptive action to ensure that freedom remains.

Maybe half the world would rather kill us is because we go into countries we have no business being in trying playing policeman. Maybe if we worried about our problems here and didn't meddle with the problems of other countries then perhaps we wouldn't be a complete mess right now. But, hell, as you said, freedom isn't free and it is our duty to make sure asswipes like yourself have the power to go onto internet forums and spew their beliefs. :roll:

I don't think that we should be policing the world either, but I don't consider following what our intelligence dictated to prevent a nuclear attack on our home soil to be policing the world.

Focusing on problems here would be defending your home turf. Gay rights and universal health care are going to seem very trivial if a million americans are killed in an attack because the defense money was allocated to health care.

[BallHawk]

So a history of genocide and mass killing isn't enough for you?

How does this justify invading a country? By that logic we should've invaded Sudan, Rwanda, Turkey, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc.

Why do you think we have to go around the whole goddamn world protecting the good from evil? It's none of our business.

[SkinBasket]

I love watching a meaningless argument completely unsupported by fact on both sides played out for the 104th billionth time on an internet forum with the same vim and vigor as it was the first time.

Harlan deserves some credit for creating such innocent sounding threads that plummet into comedic darkness.

[Partial]

Right, Iraq has never, ever harbored any terrorists or posed any threat to our country. Those Nuclear bombs were just decorations after all!

Oh! Those Saudis have also harbored terrorists! Let's go get those bastards! We'll show them whose boss! After all, we're America, we can do whatever the fuck we want! :roll:

The difference is they are not hiding Nukes from the UN. If the president of Saudi Arabia showed a history of genocide and a willingness to kill without batting an eye, AND our intelligence reported they had nuclear weapons, then hell yes something should be done about it.

What you don't realize is protecting America isn't in the interest of the UN. It's in the interest of America.

[BallHawk]

I don't think that we should be policing the world either, but I don't consider following what our intelligence dictated to prevent a nuclear attack on our home soil to be policing the world.

Focusing on problems here would be defending your home turf. Gay rights and universal health care are going to seem very trivial if a million americans are killed in an attack because the defense money was allocated to health care.

Ok, so let's just sit here and wait for that nuclear attack. Forget trying to advance the country, let's just twiddle our thumbs and wait for this attack. I'm sure it'll be any day now..... :roll:

[Partial]

So a history of genocide and mass killing isn't enough for you?

How does this justify invading a country? By that logic we should've invaded Sudan, Rwanda, Turkey, Bosnia, Cambodia, etc.

Why do you think we have to go around the whole goddamn world protecting the good from evil? It's none of our business.

I agree. Until they harbor nuclear weapons, fund the terrorist organizations that have attacked us, bombed our battle ships, etc. Sadam would blow your ass up in a heart beat if given the chance.

Don't kid yourself, there is a significant difference in the above situations you listed and the crazy fucking terrorist leaders of Iraq.

[Partial]

I don't think that we should be policing the world either, but I don't consider following what our intelligence dictated to prevent a nuclear attack on our home soil to be policing the world.

Focusing on problems here would be defending your home turf. Gay rights and universal health care are going to seem very trivial if a million americans are killed in an attack because the defense money was allocated to health care.

Ok, so let's just sit here and wait for that nuclear attack. Forget trying to advance the country, let's just twiddle our thumbs and wait for this attack. I'm sure it'll be any day now..... :roll:

How is the country not going to be advancing? The big difference will be they will tax the working class more, give more handouts to the poor, and allocate the defense budget to health care. If you think Obama is going to accomplish all the great stuff he hoots and hollars about you're one delusional cat. It's a thing called the lobby system that will corrupt him just like everything else and keep the machine running just as is.

[Partial]

What great things can we expect Homeboy Obama to do to advance our country. Really, I'd like a list. Ideally we won't ever know! But, in the event that we do I'd like to go back and compare!! So, go ahead and list them please.

[MJZiggy]

So a history of genocide and mass killing isn't enough for you? They didn't find any nukes because Sadam declared anything he didn't want searched a "palace" and thus the UN was not allowed to search. The fact of the matter is this. The intelligence thought it was a threat. Maybe our intelligence was bad because the libs decided to get rid of any sort of defense budget we had?!? I don't have the knowledge to know that but you don't know that that wasn't the case. All we know is what the tell us, and that is exactly what they have told us.

So you're trying to tell me it is NOT a good idea to stop crazy joe with an assault rifle coming into a school simply because he hasn't hurt anyone yet? Jesus christ...

There was genocide and mass killing going on there for decades, but Hussein was running a secular government that did not allow extremists. They didn't find any nukes after they invaded either and Saddam didn't have sufficient time to get rid of that kind of evidence. Sorry don't buy it. And AGAIN, if you want me to believe that Clinton cut the defense budget, you're gonna have to show me even the article that says it happened because I recall no such thing. You're making shit up based on what you think Democrats might do. Try basing your logic in fact. It works better. The fact is that I do read the news and they report on crazy shit like the Federal Budget, (which used to be in much better shape by the way).

The article about the Republicans being pissed off about him cutting spending will be there (and if you wanna tell me you don't have time to look it up, then just quit spewing about something you know nothing about. It's that simple).

YOU DON'T START SHOOTING AT AN IDIOT WITH A GUN INSIDE A SCHOOL. You lock the school down the way you're supposed to and make sure the children are safe. The police that handle this shit are trained to do so. YOU DO NOT OPEN FIRE IN A SCHOOL UNLESS YOU LIKE DEAD CHILDREN. I am personally against dead children and have been in the school for a Code Red and a Code Blue. Learn what the fuck you're talking about BEFORE you talk.

[Partial]

There was genocide and mass killing going on there for decades, but Hussein was running a secular government that did not allow extremists. They didn't find any nukes after they invaded either and Saddam didn't have sufficient time to get rid of that kind of evidence. Sorry don't buy it. And AGAIN, if you want me to believe that Clinton cut the defense budget, you're gonna have to show me even the article that says it happened because I recall no such thing. You're making shit up based on what you think Democrats might do. Try basing your logic in fact. It works better. The fact is that I do read the news and they report on crazy shit like the Federal Budget, (which used to be in much better shape by the way).

Are you kidding me??? Sufficient time??!?? We had weapons inspectors there for many, many months unallowed to enter any building he deemed a palace. How many reports did we read about how futile it was because anywhere where they wanted to get in and look they were not able to?

Clinton balanced the budget by getting rid of the excess defense money from the desert storm years. Look it up yourself. It's a commonly accepted fact.

As for time, how long does it take to sell a nuke to a terrorist? Hell, put that thing on craigslist and its gone in 5 minutes regardless of cost :lol: . You're ignorant if you don't think terrorists groups have nukes, and you're even more ignorant if you don't think Iraq had nuclear weapons.


YOU DON'T START SHOOTING AT AN IDIOT WITH A GUN INSIDE A SCHOOL. You lock the school down the way you're supposed to and make sure the children are safe. The police that handle this shit are trained to do so. YOU DO NOT OPEN FIRE IN A SCHOOL UNLESS YOU LIKE DEAD CHILDREN. I am personally against dead children and have been in the school for a Code Red and a Code Blue. Learn what the fuck you're talking about BEFORE you talk.

No one is suggesting you shoot him. You go and inspect. If he doesn't let you look into his locker where the gun is, you need to use force at that point. We didn't kill Sadam, we used force and detained him when he didn't let us look in his proverbial locker. No one is suggesting anyone getting shot. By not detaining the kid you're allowing a class room full of dead children, though. I hope this proves my point of sometimes force is necessary when it is to save America lives.

[BallHawk]

I agree. Until they harbor nuclear weapons, fund the terrorist organizations that have attacked us, bombed our battle ships, etc. Sadam would blow your ass up in a heart beat if given the chance

Bombed our battleships? Are you kidding me? Do you think the Iraqis blew up the USS Cole?

It keeps on getting funner and funner.

[MJZiggy]

Focusing on problems here would be defending your home turf. Gay rights and universal health care are going to seem very trivial if a million americans are killed in an attack because the defense money was allocated to health care.

You do realize that most all of the defense budget (under our Republican president) is being allocated to a war instead of protecting the homeland...

[Partial]

Focusing on problems here would be defending your home turf. Gay rights and universal health care are going to seem very trivial if a million americans are killed in an attack because the defense money was allocated to health care.

You do realize that most all of the defense budget (under our Republican president) is being allocated to a war instead of protecting the homeland...

Not true. Boarders are far more secure than they were before. They're fighting a war as a pre-emptive strike. It's a way to secure the country. I don't even consider it a war. We're not going in there to kill anyone unless they attack us first. We're there to inspect and detain. Unless I am mistaken I don't believe US Troops fire unless fired upon. Furthermore, knowing that we're just trying to inspect and protect our families from terrorist attacks, why won't they let us inspect and be on our way? If they have nothing to hide why shoot and kill Americans.

[Partial]

Furthermore, whats done is done. Wouldn't it be very unliberal and very irresponsible to pull out now leaving a country in shambles?!?

[MJZiggy]

I'm not talking politics with you any more. I can have a discussion with a knowledgeable Republican without difficulty but only when they have a clear understanding of what's actually going on in the world. Pick up a paper or read a news website or something.

[BallHawk]

Furthermore, whats done is done. Wouldn't it be very unliberal and very irresponsible to pull out now leaving a country in shambles?!?

Definitely, especially with all the progress the country is making. :roll:

[Partial]

I'm not talking politics with you any more. I can have a discussion with a knowledgeable Republican without difficulty but only when they have a clear understanding of what's actually going on in the world. Pick up a paper or read a news website or something.

I'm not the delusional one. You're the one that thinks they know more than the entire defense department!!!!!

[Zool]

Not true. Boarders are far more secure than they were before. They're fighting a war as a pre-emptive strike. It's a way to secure the country.

Partial FTL. If you think this 'war' isn't (pardon the pun) fueled by oil greed, then you need to start mashing you head against something hard.

911 was done by a guy in Pakistan so we invade Iraq. Why? Because they have WPM thats why.

What? We didn't find any? Hmm...well lets hang out for a while and see if we cant dig some up.

Here's a hint, people on TV can and do lie to further their own agenda.

[Partial]

Furthermore, whats done is done. Wouldn't it be very unliberal and very irresponsible to pull out now leaving a country in shambles?!?

Definitely, especially with all the progress the country is making. :roll:

So you're willing to give up on a bunch of people?!?!? Isn't that what I am saying about all the thugs and gangbangers??!? Christ, how hypocritical is that!

What about kids who don't make as much progress in school? Simply because something takes a little more time and effort we should consider it a lost cause and give up on it?

God damnit, this stuff just pisses me off. You are one hypocritical 13 year old. No wonder you support Obama.

I can understand Zig and her personal agenda that would be fulfilled with an expanded role of federal government, but not you. If anything, your upper middle class family will be the one that suffers.

[Partial]

Not true. Boarders are far more secure than they were before. They're fighting a war as a pre-emptive strike. It's a way to secure the country.

Partial FTL. If you think this 'war' isn't (pardon the pun) fueled by oil greed, then you need to start mashing you head against something hard.

911 was done by a guy in Pakistan so we invade Iraq. Why? Because they have WPM thats why.

What? We didn't find any? Hmm...well lets hang out for a while and see if we cant dig some up.

Here's a hint, people on TV can and do lie to further their own agenda.

Our intelligence stated that they had Nukes. I realize its easy to play armchair quarterback, but you're just an average joe who works a 9-5, who are you to make a statement regarding national security and the intelligence that they have gathered? Really, you have no more idea than I do or anyone else does who hasn't seen the documents. I, for one, don't immediately think that because our intelligence was wrong that the government is a bunch of liars.

Furthermore, we have plenty of oil of our own. Most of our oil is from Canada anyway. To say that it is about oil is again making an assumption without any basis to back it up. I reiterate, you can't blame bush for following what his intelligence tells him to do. That blame falls solely on Slick Willy and his budget balancing technique of getting rid of national defense.

[BallHawk]

What about kids who don't make as much progress in school? Simply because something takes a little more time and effort we should consider it a lost cause and give up on it?

Um, Partial, the kids that don't make progress in school aren't detonating mentally disabled people in the middle of markets. The kids that struggle in school don't kill innocent civilians. People don't die because the kids struggle in school. Nice comparison.

Yeah, we do need to give up on it. Why we have to go around the world going around the world trying to make every country a clone of us is beyond me. Hoorah Democracy! Democracy for everyone!


If anything, your upper middle class family will be the one that suffers.

And here you come, making assumptions about people's families. I'm far from upper middle class. My Mom works full-time, my Dad is trying to start up his own business. We don't take vacations, we don't drive new cars, and we don't go around spending money on luxuries.

So, please, stop making assumptions about my life, asswipe, because you don't have a fucking clue.

[Partial]

Um, Partial, the kids that don't make progress in school aren't detonating mentally disabled people in the middle of markets. The kids that struggle in school don't kill innocent civilians. People don't die because the kids struggle in school. Nice comparison.

Yeah, we do need to give up on it. Why we have to go around the world going around the world trying to make every country a clone of us is beyond me. Hoorah Democracy! Democracy for everyone!

Wait wait wait, so you want to leave these people to run around and blow up Americans rather than continue fixing their broken system?



And here you come, making assumptions about people's families. I'm far from upper middle class. My Mom works full-time, my Dad is trying to start up his own business. We don't take vacations, we don't drive new cars, and we don't go around spending money on luxuries.

So, please, stop making assumptions about my life, asswipe, because you don't have a fucking clue.

OK, so I was wrong because your dad quit his job. With that in mind, how can you support bigger government taxing the hell out of your dads business. Get ready to pay double social security (which you have to now as a business owner) and double health care in the future. 50% of the money your pops makes will go right back into the system, paying my high school educated friend 93k a year.

For the record, I did not support going into Iraq, but to say the evidence wasn't there and the government is a bunch of liars is moronic. If you're going to go around calling people liars without any facts supporting your statement, then you should start pointing your fingers at the democrats. After all, wasn't it President Clinton who was convicted of lying under oath.

Clearly they had a reason to do it and it turns out their intelligence was wrong. It happens. If Clinton hadn't cut the defense budget who knows, our intelligence probably would have been more accurate. Regardless, I am all for doing whats necessary to keep myself and my family safe.

[BallHawk]

Wait wait wait, so you want to leave these people to run around and blow up Americans rather than continue fixing their broken system?

They weren't blowing up Americans before we invaded them, were they? The violence in Iraq is resistance fighting. None of the insurgents in Iraq would be capable of pulling off anything close to 9/11.

So, yes, let them run around in their country and let them do whatever they please. They weren't bothering us before we invaded them and if we leave I doubt they'd bother us either. Hell, look at Basra. Although it was under British control, the citizens were overjoyed to see the British pull out. The city went to hell once troops got there. The media spins it to seem like every Iraqi walks up to an American soldier with an outstretched hand to say thank you. I think a large amount of Iraqis wish we were never there in the first place.


OK, so I was wrong because your dad quit his job.

No, that's not the reason you were wrong. You were wrong because you made assumptions. My family has never, at any point, been upper-middle class.

[Partial]

They weren't blowing up Americans before we invaded them, were they? The violence in Iraq is resistance fighting. None of the insurgents in Iraq would be capable of pulling off anything close to 9/11.

Source??? http://www.on9now.com/video/v429.html



OK, so I was wrong because your dad quit his job.

No, that's not the reason you were wrong. You were wrong because you made assumptions. My family has never, at any point, been upper-middle class.[/quote]

Fine, your middle class or even lower middle class family is what suffers from Democrats in office. Better?

[Harlan Huckleby]

My sense is that the super delegates were created to prevent someone who would have little chance in the general election from getting nominated. But do either Clinton or Obama fall into that category? It's not like Al Sharpton or Michael Moore have a chance at the nomination.

Mark Shields talked about it on PBS newshour, he was a journalist back in 1980 when the rule was instituted. He said the point was to take advantage of wisdom of party elders, act as a check against the scenario you describe. But they are expected to vote their concience in any case. Shields made a forcefull argument that the Obama people are out of line. (And he has been dogging the Clinton campaign in the past. )

I really am not upset about this issue for partisian reasons. If Clinton were to try and get the Florida vote to count, I would refuse to support her too. The integrity of the Democratic campaign looks doomed to me.

The Democratic Party has really screwed up. Ideally, Obama would step forward and say he will accept the independent decisions of the Super Delegates, and Clinton would say that the vote in Florida is null and void. Both candidates should agree on a way to seat MI & FL delegations, be it with a new vote, or a 50-50 delegate split. And all this ought to happen NOW. Things are only going to heat up.

[Partial]

I'm not trying to be a dick about Iraq because I don't think we should have gone in the first place, but to look at things from one side but not the other is ignorant. Clearly, there was reason to do it according to what we knew. Otherwise they wouldn't be fighting an extremely costly battle with no end in sight.

I am against the war because Congress did not declare war and by that it is unconstitutional. However, with the Patriot act giving big brother more and more power (Which I didn't see any democrats voting against except Russ Feingold (who is actually a decent senator) ) Bush was able to declare war. His approval ratings are shit but you must admit he was put in a lot of very difficult positions as well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june08/sbcampaign_02-15.html

JIM LEHRER: Yes, yes. What about the endorsement or coming endorsement by John Lewis, the Georgia congressman, switching, big supporter of Hillary Clinton, now he's going to switch to Obama? Is that an important move?

MARK SHIELDS: It is an important move. I mean, John Lewis is an icon in the civil rights movement. I mean, he carried the scars himself from being beaten as a civil rights worker in the South in the 1960s.

But I think it's part of a larger argument, where I think the Clintons are on solid ground and the non-Clinton folks aren't. I mean, super delegates are not electors in an Electoral College that have to follow some election returns.

I mean, they are chosen because of who they are, that they have a continuing interest in the party beyond a particular campaign or a candidate, that they're privileged observers, in the sense that they know these candidates better than just I, an ordinary voter, might.

And for that reason, I just think that every -- we knew going in what the rules were and that they were independent operatives. And the idea that somehow now they have to all follow slavishly the election returns I think is just trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

DAVID BROOKS: I don't agree with that. It's a democracy. It's not an oligarchy. And I think there's going to be a lot of voter resistance to the idea -- if Obama wins the elected delegates and the super delegates swing it to Clinton, I think there will be an enormous amount of voter resistance to that.

Also, I have a Center for Responsive Politics report that Barack Obama has given $694,000 to the campaigns of the super delegates. Hillary Clinton has given $228,000. They've given -- if you look at all these super delegates, they've given $10,000 to this candidate, $19,000 to this candidate.

When you've got money flying around between the candidates, the presidential candidates and the super delegates, I think that will further taint the whole idea.

JIM LEHRER: And Speaker Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg today that she believes that the super delegates should represent the voting, in other words, they should not be an elite.

MARK SHIELDS: That isn't the reason they were chosen, Jim. They'll be objective to these rules going in.

JIM LEHRER: I didn't say it.

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, no, these rules have been there since 1980. They've been on the board. The point was to try and get party elders, party leaders into the convention so they wouldn't have to choose between candidates and run to be a delegate.

You can argue with the philosophy behind that, but that's been in the books for 28 years. Now people, the Obama people, want to change it at this point, Speaker Pelosi does?

I mean, David's right. It would leave a terrible, sour taste if, in fact, it appeared that super-delegates altered the outcome that somebody was going to be nominated and they stopped it. But at the same time, let's understand what super delegates are. And they are independent agents.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of rules, there's also the issue that's now, of course, on the table, could be big time on the table eventually, is Michigan and Florida. How do you feel about that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: In this case, I think the Obama camp is right. I think it's tragedy for Hillary Clinton, because if you had counted those delegates, if those voters, the people who did vote had counted, she'd be well ahead.

But the fact is they were told not to campaign; they promised not to campaign; they didn't campaign; there were not real races in those two states.

And I think Hillary Clinton probably would have won anyway, but, nonetheless, you can't go and include them. Now, there is some talk of trying to get them to revote. That's pragmatically hard to do.

MARK SHIELDS: By the same standard, the rules of the super delegates begin, the rules on this begin. Everybody knew going in, all the candidates, that they weren't going to count. Now you can't pretend you're going to count them.

All I'm asking for is a little consistency on both sides. I mean, the Obama people are right on this one; the Clinton people are right on the super delegates.

[BallHawk]

They weren't blowing up Americans before we invaded them, were they? The violence in Iraq is resistance fighting. None of the insurgents in Iraq would be capable of pulling off anything close to 9/11.

Source???

Common sense.

What are half of coalition forces killed by? IEDs. IEDs can be made cheaply, quickly, and without a large amount of training.

The other half of casualties are mortars, ambushes, etc.

It's all guerrilla warfare. The insurgents in Iraq haven't done anything to prove they are capable of anything more than tactics like the ones mentioned above.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If this report accurately characterizes the Clinton camp's position then they are being unethical too and I will have to give-up on politics completely, start building bird houses.

Clinton, Obama Dispute Roles of Superdelegates
By Peter Slevin and Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page A12

MILWAUKEE, Feb. 16 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday urged the Democratic Party's unpledged delegates to make their own decisions about whether to support her or Sen. Barack Obama, predicting that the battle for the Democratic nomination will continue into the summer.

"Superdelegates are a part of the process. They are supposed to exercise independent judgment," said Clinton (N.Y.), who wants to put into play hundreds of the unelected delegates, as well as large contingents from Michigan and Florida, where the candidates did not campaign.

Clinton trails Obama (Ill.) in the count of pledged delegates, awarded on the basis of primary and caucus results. She said she believes superdelegates, appointed by the party, should not simply anoint the candidate who is leading after the primary season.

Clinton's remarks came as she arrived in Wisconsin ahead of Tuesday's primary. Although she will cut her visit short by a half-day, she is waging a vigorous fight, hoping to blunt Obama's momentum in a state that offers advantages to each.

Obama, who holds a narrow lead in two recent polls, won the last eight Democratic primaries and caucuses, but he trails Clinton in superdelegate endorsements. He contends that superdelegates should back the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates.

Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, himself a superdelegate, told reporters Saturday that the delegates should exercise "their best judgment in the interests of the party and the country."

Ickes also pressed the Clinton campaign's attempt to validate the results of voting in Michigan and Florida. The states were stripped of their delegates after they moved their primaries in defiance of the Democratic National Committee.

Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in either state, and Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Clinton, who beat a ballot slot labeled "uncommitted" in Michigan and won easily in the uncontested Florida primary, contends Democrats in the two states would be disfranchised unless their delegates are seated at the party's convention.

The Clinton campaign opposes a proposal to hold new primaries or caucuses.

"We don't need a redo," said Ickes, who voted as a Democratic rules committee member to penalize the states. He said of Michigan: "The people have spoken there."

Obama told reporters on Friday that he played by the rules, and the rules should be honored.

"Even my 6-year-old daughter would understand it would not be fair for Senator Clinton to be awarded delegates," Obama said, adding without elaboration that there are "probably a slew of different solutions" that would fairly give the delegations a convention role.

Obama and Clinton have traded barbs for days as they competed for Wisconsin's 74 pledged delegates and positioned themselves for the potentially pivotal March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. Clinton bought extra time on television stations across the state to broadcast an advertisement criticizing her rival's record, while Obama has responded to Clinton's push with sharp-edged ads of his own.

They crossed paths here on Saturday night at a Wisconsin Democratic Party dinner, speaking back to back to a large crowd.

In a sign of the intensity of the competition, Obama scheduled a rally near Appleton for Sunday after initially planning a day off. He will return to the state on Monday following a brief trip to Ohio.

Late last week, Clinton launched an advertisement that challenged Obama's record on health care and energy policy. She also accused him of refusing to debate her.

"We've had 18 debates. Eighteen debates!" Obama told a crowd in Green Bay, an assertion the campaign also made in a television spot. "But that's what happens when you've been in Washington a long time. Your attitude becomes, 'I'll just say whatever might work to win an election.' "

The Democratic rivals are due to debate each other in Texas on Thursday and in Ohio on Feb. 26.

[SkinBasket]

If this report accurately characterizes the Clinton camp's position then they are being unethical too and I will have to give-up on politics completely, start building bird houses.

You don't have to characterize it. The Clinton camp is pretty open now about wanting Michigan and Florida counted for no other reason than they won them. No reasoning about voter rights, rules, or philosophical differences.

I'll take a green one with a fake chimney and window boxes.

[Joemailman]

For Ickes to claim that the people have spoken when Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan requires a special brand of chutzpah. I think it is a big part of the reason why a lot of people don't like the Clintons even when they agree with them politically.

Then again, maybe this is all just posturing. I'm sure there are talks going on in DNC circles right now to try to work out some kind of arrangement with the two parties regarding the Florida and Michigan delegations. When you start out in a negotiation, your first position is always more than what you realistically expect to get.

[Joemailman]

Just a thought... There is also a primary in Hawaii tomorrow. With the weather what it is here, why aren't they in Hawaii? I would be.

[Freak Out]

Nice little interview with Samantha Power who has been working with Obama for awhile. I read her first book a few years ago and have been following her ever since.

If he wins count on her being a part of his administration.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/18/samantha_power/index.html

Plus her freckles are hot.

[Joemailman]

My sense is that the super delegates were created to prevent someone who would have little chance in the general election from getting nominated. But do either Clinton or Obama fall into that category? It's not like Al Sharpton or Michael Moore have a chance at the nomination.

Mark Shields talked about it on PBS newshour, he was a journalist back in 1980 when the rule was instituted. He said the point was to take advantage of wisdom of party elders, act as a check against the scenario you describe. But they are expected to vote their concience in any case. Shields made a forcefull argument that the Obama people are out of line. (And he has been dogging the Clinton campaign in the past. )

I really am not upset about this issue for partisian reasons. If Clinton were to try and get the Florida vote to count, I would refuse to support her too. The integrity of the Democratic campaign looks doomed to me.

The Democratic Party has really screwed up. Ideally, Obama would step forward and say he will accept the independent decisions of the Super Delegates, and Clinton would say that the vote in Florida is null and void. Both candidates should agree on a way to seat MI & FL delegations, be it with a new vote, or a 50-50 delegate split. And all this ought to happen NOW. Things are only going to heat up.

Mark Shields is a good guy. Howard Dean would be wise to listen to him. Shields is a liberal who has always maintained a certain sense of independence as evidenced by the fact that he is one of that rare breed: A pro-life Democrat.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If anybody wants to understand SuperDelegates, listen to this radio show:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080218_a_main.asp

But don't everybody listen at once, it will swamp their server. :lol:

[Partial]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4298321&page=1

Take a look at that and still tell me we should still give handouts to the poor. Just goes to show you that even with nothing but 25 dollars and a gym bag, you can give yourself a good life. In my opinion, he was successful because he wanted to be successful. The same cannot be said for many, many others.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://clarke.cmich.edu/ann50/images/raggeddick.jpg

[Freak Out]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4298321&page=1

Take a look at that and still tell me we should still give handouts to the poor. Just goes to show you that even with nothing but 25 dollars and a gym bag, you can give yourself a good life. In my opinion, he was successful because he wanted to be successful. The same cannot be said for many, many others.

We should still help the poor.
Just because there are slackers in the world doesn't mean we stop helping people.

[Freak Out]

http://clarke.cmich.edu/ann50/images/raggeddick.jpg

Ha ha.....I was wondering when someone was going to throw a Ragged Dick story out there.

[MJZiggy]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4298321&page=1

Take a look at that and still tell me we should still give handouts to the poor. Just goes to show you that even with nothing but 25 dollars and a gym bag, you can give yourself a good life. In my opinion, he was successful because he wanted to be successful. The same cannot be said for many, many others.

Not to get technical about it, but he did it with 25 dollars, a gym bag, a homeless shelter and food stamps.

Not to mention being articulate which likely helped his cause (his communcation skills were very evident in his answers in the interview.).

[Harlan Huckleby]

Horatio Alger, Jr. (January 13, 1832 – July 18, 1899) was a 19th-century American author who wrote approximately 135 dime novels. Many of his works have been described as rags to riches stories, illustrating how down-and-out boys might be able to achieve the American Dream of wealth and success through hard work, courage, determination, and concern for others. This widely-held view involves a significant simplification, as Alger's characters do not typically achieve extreme wealth; rather they attain middle-class security, stability, and a solid reputation — that is, their efforts are rewarded with a place in society, not domination of it. He is noted as a significant figure in the history of American cultural and social ideals, even though his novels are rarely read these days. As bestsellers in their own time, Alger's books rivaled those of Mark Twain in popularity.

The Horatio Alger mythology that poor people can all just pull themselves up by the bootstraps remains strong in the minds of some Americans. (Mostly people who aren't poor! :) )

[SkinBasket]

Shut up with your book talk blue dog. Where's my birdhouse?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I spent all afternoon on my first project.
I'm still getting the hang of it, I'll do much better one for you later.
I have plenty of time now to work on my new hobby.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bird_house.gif

[Harlan Huckleby]

For Ickes to claim that the people have spoken when Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan requires a special brand of chutzpah. I think it is a big part of the reason why a lot of people don't like the Clintons even when they agree with them politically.

Overall the Clintons might be a bit dirtier than OBama. But it's by a shade. Hillary is not the new Richard Nixon that the Obama crowd are painting her as.

The Obama threats & gamemanship with SuperDelegates is not a lesser evil than the Clinton noise about Florida/Michigan. And BTW, Obama is funneling large sums of money from his overflowing warchest into the campaign funds of the SuperDelegates. "Yes We Can", indeed. I notice that titan of "Politics as Usual", Senator Robert Byrd, is first in line at the Obama trough.

The WI tracking polls took a swing in Obama's favor yesterday, up 13.
I need to stick to the birdhouses, I'm unenthusiastic about OBama representing the democrats, and there is no ethical leadership coming from Obama, Clinton or Dean. i would be excited about a Clinton upset today, but honestly, that would just lead the party into a meltdown. :(

[Scott Campbell]

I'm enjoying the meltdown of the Democratic party. It's entertaining, and takes the focus off our fearless leader George.

[sooner6600]

H.H.

Thanks for your Ragged Dick story; however do you have one on
spotted dick?

--------- -------- -------- -------- ----------

Open Question:

Are super delegates more equal that other delegatges?

Or is it just that the central committe of the supreme democrates
do not enjoy the great unwashed exercising their will?

Sign Me

Waiting for the meltdown

Oh by the way;

How many carbon credits will I have to buy to watch this remake of the
1968 convention?

[Freak Out]

I'm enjoying the meltdown of the Democratic party. It's entertaining, and takes the focus off our fearless leader George.

Melt down? Not really. The mud and knives may start to fly but in the end it will all come together.

Either way we'll be better off when it's all said and done and "the decider" and his gang of thugs gets the fucking boot.

[Partial]

yeah, and it will be great when the middle class gets smaller and smaller when the middle class pays for all the poor class' health insurance and all the government jobs get a pay increase.

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.

With dems in office and socialized health care we just might see Karl Marx proven wise as the masses become the proletariat and the rich become richer.

[Freak Out]

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.


They're paid to well? Ask Joe about that.

[Partial]

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.


They're paid to well? Ask Joe about that.

My city recently had a lottery for the position with over 400 applicants. They're paid far too well for what they do, the risks involved, and the amount of education required. You can live very, very, very comfortably on the income of a postal worker, especially when you factor in the government benefits and fat pension.

[Freak Out]

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.


They're paid to well? Ask Joe about that.

My city recently had a lottery for the position with over 400 applicants. They're paid far too well for what they do, the risks involved, and the amount of education required. You can live very, very, very comfortably on the income of a postal worker, especially when you factor in the government benefits and fat pension.

You have a problem with a postal worker living comfortably? I think the person that delivers my mail deserves more money! :lol:
As for the people that work in the sorting facilities I have no idea what they do but the person that delivers my mail does not have an easy job.

[Partial]

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.


They're paid to well? Ask Joe about that.

My city recently had a lottery for the position with over 400 applicants. They're paid far too well for what they do, the risks involved, and the amount of education required. You can live very, very, very comfortably on the income of a postal worker, especially when you factor in the government benefits and fat pension.

You have a problem with a postal worker living comfortably? I think the person that delivers my mail deserves more money! :lol:
As for the people that work in the sorting facilities I have no idea what they do but the person that delivers my mail does not have an easy job.

I have no problem with them living comfortably. 30k is comfortably on their own, or if they want to have a family have another working partner. Maybe more depending on what city. In Milwaukee, 30k is plenty, though. They have very easy jobs because they don't require education or a higher level of understanding of complex systems to work. I'm not ripping on mail men by any means, I know plenty of people who would take that job and that life in a heart beat!!

[GBRulz]

Partial, if you think post officer workers make too much, you would be appalled at what the state pays custodial jobs. $12-15 an hour plus bennies. Where as, if they didn't work for the government, they would probably make half that amount. To me, it sounds like you have a problem with the salaries the gov pays people more than anything else. I'm with you on that one. Especially in our fine state where Doyle can't manage a budget to save his life and it means one fee raise after the other.

[Freak Out]

Partial, if you think post officer workers make too much, you would be appalled at what the state pays custodial jobs. $12-15 an hour plus bennies. Where as, if they didn't work for the government, they would probably make half that amount. To me, it sounds like you have a problem with the salaries the gov pays people more than anything else. I'm with you on that one. Especially in our fine state where Doyle can't manage a budget to save his life and it means one fee raise after the other.

So how cheap would you clean a toilet for?

[swede]

Partial, if you think post officer workers make too much, you would be appalled at what the state pays custodial jobs. $12-15 an hour plus bennies. Where as, if they didn't work for the government, they would probably make half that amount. To me, it sounds like you have a problem with the salaries the gov pays people more than anything else. I'm with you on that one. Especially in our fine state where Doyle can't manage a budget to save his life and it means one fee raise after the other.

So how cheap would you clean a toilet for?

As recently as '96 I did it as summer work for $6.50 an hour.

Explosive diarrhea was a problem in the southwest men's toilet. Every time I left the john with my cleaning stuff I'd look out on the factory floor and wonder which guy was the shlmiel that was making my life miserable.

[Partial]

Partial, if you think post officer workers make too much, you would be appalled at what the state pays custodial jobs. $12-15 an hour plus bennies. Where as, if they didn't work for the government, they would probably make half that amount. To me, it sounds like you have a problem with the salaries the gov pays people more than anything else. I'm with you on that one. Especially in our fine state where Doyle can't manage a budget to save his life and it means one fee raise after the other.

So how cheap would you clean a toilet for?

My friend does it for 7.75 from Kohls. I did it for 6.75 from Pick 'n' Save. If I wasn't talented enough to get a better job, I would take whatever they were willing to pay me as it is a no-talent mindless job.

[Partial]

Partial, if you think post officer workers make too much, you would be appalled at what the state pays custodial jobs. $12-15 an hour plus bennies. Where as, if they didn't work for the government, they would probably make half that amount. To me, it sounds like you have a problem with the salaries the gov pays people more than anything else. I'm with you on that one. Especially in our fine state where Doyle can't manage a budget to save his life and it means one fee raise after the other.

So how cheap would you clean a toilet for?

My friend does it for 7.75 from Kohls. I did it for 6.75 from Pick 'n' Save. If I wasn't talented enough to get a better job, I would take whatever they were willing to pay me as it is a no-talent mindless job.

[Harlan Huckleby]

H.H.

Thanks for your Ragged Dick story; however do you have one on
spotted dick?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mspotteddick.html





Are super delegates more equal that other delegatges?

Or is it just that the central committe of the supreme democrates
do not enjoy the great unwashed exercising their will?

Sign Me

Waiting for the meltdown

Oh by the way;

How many carbon credits will I have to buy to watch this remake of the
1968 convention?

Its like this:

nah, never mind, back to the workshop.

[Freak Out]

So what the fuck Harlan? Did you go fight through the addoring crowd to see Hilary? Did you cast a pretty pink rose her way? Pitch a little Blue Dog woo?

We know you would love to have her.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Today's project went a little better, "progress not perfection" is my motto.
Has a whimsicl flair, don't you think?
I did nick a finger on the bandsaw, not as bad as it sounds, it's on my left hand so will have no impact on my various activities.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bird_house2.gif

[SkinBasket]

Is that a hooker with a unibrow smoking two fags at once?

[red]

Today's project went a little better, "progress not perfection" is my motto.
Has a whimsicl flair, don't you think?
I did nick a finger on the bandsaw, not as bad as it sounds, it's on my left hand so will have no impact on my various activities.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bird_house2.gif

lol, i nicked the tip of my thumb last week, and IT DID have an impact on my various activities

[Harlan Huckleby]

So what the fuck Harlan? Did you go fight through the addoring crowd to see Hilary? Did you cast a pretty pink rose her way? Pitch a little Blue Dog woo?

We know you would love to have her.

Hey Freak Out, thanks much for your interest.

I do look back on my days when I was interested in politics with some nostalgia. But the wounds are still a little too fresh to actually get too close to her now, and it would kinda be wierd for both of us. I understand there is some sort of vote going on, perhaps I'll glance at the news capsule in the USA Today weekend edition.

No rest for the weary! Gonna put on a coat of protective lacquer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is that a hooker with a unibrow smoking two fags at once?

bingo

[b bulldog]

Bye bye Hillary :lol:

[SkinBasket]

LOL. Obama's giving his, "I'm going to give everyone everything they want" speech. Except people who happen to fall above the poverty line. You're screwed. The time honored Democratic right of passage.

Hillary's flogging herself in some hotel room right now.

[BallHawk]

C'mon, Barack, rap it up. Jesus, he repeats himself 50 times each speech.

[Freak Out]

LOL. Obama's giving his, "I'm going to give everyone everything they want" speech. Except people who happen to fall above the poverty line. You're screwed. The time honored Democratic right of passage.

Hillary's flogging herself in some hotel room right now.

Just because it's been staged bullshit for the past few cycles doesn't mean that it still can't come down to the convention....and you and Partial can stop with the head for the hill's the Commies are coming BS. We still have a Congress to.....oh wait. :oops:

[swede]

LOL. Obama's giving his, "I'm going to give everyone everything they want" speech. Except people who happen to fall above the poverty line. You're screwed. The time honored Democratic right of passage.

Hillary's flogging herself in some hotel room right now.

Starting tomorrow she needs to start promising to kill rich people and hand their money to "real Americans".

Her new campaign motto can be, "More than change, real cash money from dead white folks you can believe in!"

I'll bet she closes the gap in a month.

[SkinBasket]

That motherfucker just said we have to put our video games away. Fuck Obama and his self righteous cocksucking self. Time for him to put the crackpipe down. Until he stops making a scapegoat out of video games, I won't stop making a scapegoat out of half black crack smokers and his anti-American wife.

go Hillary!

[Freak Out]

C'mon, Barack, rap it up. Jesus, he repeats himself 50 times each speech.

I tried to find a link...bad eh?

[Freak Out]

That motherfucker just said we have to put our video games away. Fuck Obama and his self righteous cocksucking self.

:shock:

That's it for me.

"From my cold dead hands"

[Joemailman]

Today's project went a little better, "progress not perfection" is my motto.
Has a whimsicl flair, don't you think?
I did nick a finger on the bandsaw, not as bad as it sounds, it's on my left hand so will have no impact on my various activities.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bird_house2.gif

If you don't have health care, you will soon. :D

[Joemailman]

The system is screwed up enough already. There should not have to be a lottery of hundreds and hundreds of people to be a mail man. That means they're paid far too well and the benefits are far too good that that many people are interested in it.


They're paid to well? Ask Joe about that.

I certainly don't think I need to justify the salary I receive to the likes of Partial. I'll leave it at that.

[Patler]

Today's project went a little better, "progress not perfection" is my motto.
Has a whimsicl flair, don't you think?
I did nick a finger on the bandsaw, not as bad as it sounds, it's on my left hand so will have no impact on my various activities.

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/bird_house2.gif

Wow! A duplex!
Is it low-income housing?

[Scott Campbell]

Starting tomorrow she needs to start promising to kill rich people and hand their money to "real Americans".


Bet that one would put an end to Harlan's birdhouse building.

[Freak Out]

February 21, 2008

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.

“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.”

Mr. Cheshire added, “That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator,” Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.

During his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. McCain has played down his attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics, aware that the stricter regulations he championed are unpopular in his party. When the Senate overhauled lobbying and ethics rules last year, Mr. McCain stayed in the background.

With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centerpiece of his own pitch to voters.

“I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor can be bought,” Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For.” “From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life.”

A drive to expunge the stain on his reputation in time turned into a zeal to cleanse Washington as well. The episode taught him that “questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics,” he wrote, “and because they incite public distrust they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption.”

A Formative Scandal

Mr. McCain started his career like many other aspiring politicians, eagerly courting the wealthy and powerful. A Vietnam war hero and Senate liaison for the Navy, he arrived in Arizona in 1980 after his second marriage, to Cindy Hensley, the heiress to a beer fortune there. He quickly started looking for a Congressional district where he could run.

Mr. Keating, a Phoenix financier and real estate developer, became an early sponsor and, soon, a friend. He was a man of great confidence and daring, Mr. McCain recalled in his memoir. “People like that appeal to me,” he continued. “I have sometimes forgotten that wisdom and a strong sense of public responsibility are much more admirable qualities.”

During Mr. McCain’s four years in the House, Mr. Keating, his family and his business associates contributed heavily to his political campaigns. The banker gave Mr. McCain free rides on his private jet, a violation of Congressional ethics rules (he later said it was an oversight and paid for the trips). They vacationed together in the Bahamas. And in 1986, the year Mr. McCain was elected to the Senate, his wife joined Mr. Keating in investing in an Arizona shopping mall.

Mr. Keating had taken over the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association and used its federally insured deposits to gamble on risky real estate and other investments. He pressed Mr. McCain and other lawmakers to help hold back federal banking regulators.

For years, Mr. McCain complied. At Mr. Keating’s request, he wrote several letters to regulators, introduced legislation and helped secure the nomination of a Keating associate to a banking regulatory board.

By early 1987, though, the thrift was careering toward disaster. Mr. McCain agreed to join several senators, eventually known as the Keating Five, for two private meetings with regulators to urge them to ease up. “Why didn’t I fully grasp the unusual appearance of such a meeting?” Mr. McCain later lamented in his memoir.

When Lincoln went bankrupt in 1989 — one of the biggest collapses of the savings and loan crisis, costing taxpayers $3.4 billion — the Keating Five became infamous. The scandal sent Mr. Keating to prison and ended the careers of three senators, who were censured in 1991 for intervening. Mr. McCain, who had been a less aggressive advocate for Mr. Keating than the others, was reprimanded only for “poor judgment” and was re-elected the next year.

Some people involved think Mr. McCain got off too lightly. William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain’s investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple’s assets.) He should not be able to “put this behind him,” Mr. Black said. “It sullied his integrity.”

Mr. McCain has since described the episode as a unique humiliation. “If I do not repress the memory, its recollection still provokes a vague but real feeling that I had lost something very important,” he wrote in his memoir. “I still wince thinking about it.”

A New Chosen Cause

After the Republican takeover of the Senate in 1994, Mr. McCain decided to try to put some of the lessons he had learned into law. He started by attacking earmarks, the pet projects that individual lawmakers could insert anonymously into the fine print of giant spending bills, a recipe for corruption. But he quickly moved on to other targets, most notably political fund-raising.

Mr. McCain earned the lasting animosity of many conservatives, who argue that his push for fund-raising restrictions trampled free speech, and of many of his Senate colleagues, who bristled that he was preaching to them so soon after his own repentance. In debates, his party’s leaders challenged him to name a single senator he considered corrupt (he refused).

“We used to joke that each of us was the only one eating alone in our caucus,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who became Mr. McCain’s partner on campaign finance efforts.

Mr. McCain appeared motivated less by the usual ideas about good governance than by a more visceral disapproval of the gifts, meals and money that influence seekers shower on lawmakers, Mr. Feingold said. “It had to do with his sense of honor,” he said. “He saw this stuff as cheating.”

Mr. McCain made loosening the grip of special interests the central cause of his 2000 presidential campaign, inviting scrutiny of his own ethics. His Republican rival, George W. Bush, accused him of “double talk” for soliciting campaign contributions from companies with interests that came before the powerful Senate commerce committee, of which Mr. McCain was chairman. Mr. Bush’s allies called Mr. McCain “sanctimonious.”

At one point, his campaign invited scores of lobbyists to a fund-raiser at the Willard Hotel in Washington. While Bush supporters stood mocking outside, the McCain team tried to defend his integrity by handing the lobbyists buttons reading “ McCain voted against my bill.” Mr. McCain himself skipped the event, an act he later called “cowardly.”

By 2002, he had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning “soft money,” the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws.

One of his efforts, though, seemed self-contradictory. In 2001, he helped found the nonprofit Reform Institute to promote his cause and, in the process, his career. It collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited donations from companies that lobbied the Senate commerce committee. Mr. McCain initially said he saw no problems with the financing, but he severed his ties to the institute in 2005, complaining of “bad publicity” after news reports of the arrangement.

Like other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them — including his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain’s Senate panel — have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain’s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.

Mr. McCain’s friends dismiss questions about his ties to lobbyists, arguing that he has too much integrity to let such personal connections influence him.

“Unless he gives you special treatment or takes legislative action against his own views, I don’t think his personal and social relationships matter,” said Charles Black, a friend and campaign adviser who has previously lobbied the senator for aviation, broadcasting and tobacco concerns.

Concerns in a Campaign

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.

It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

Ms. Iseman acknowledged meeting with Mr. Weaver, but disputed his account.

“I never discussed with him alleged things I had ‘told people,’ that had made their way ‘back to’ him,” she wrote in an e-mail message. She said she never received special treatment from Mr. McCain’s office.

Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper’s inquiries.

The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December. He also would not comment about the assertions that he had been confronted about Ms. Iseman, Mr. Black said Wednesday.

Mr. Davis and Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s top strategists in both of his presidential campaigns, disputed accounts from the former associates and aides and said they did not discuss Ms. Iseman with the senator or colleagues.

“I never had any good reason to think that the relationship was anything other than professional, a friendly professional relationship,” Mr. Salter said in an interview.

He and Mr. Davis also said Mr. McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients’ hopes.

The McCain aides said the senator sided with Ms. Iseman’s clients only when their positions hewed to his principles

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history.

“Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter,” he wrote, “would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy.”

Statement by McCain

Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

Barclay Walsh and Kitty Bennett contributed research.

[Deputy Nutz]

That motherfucker just said we have to put our video games away. Fuck Obama and his self righteous cocksucking self. Time for him to put the crackpipe down. Until he stops making a scapegoat out of video games, I won't stop making a scapegoat out of half black crack smokers and his anti-American wife.

go Hillary!

I think just the kids need to put the video games down, not us old fucks that have no life. He doesn't care about you anyways, your white.

[hoosier]

That motherfucker just said we have to put our video games away. Fuck Obama and his self righteous cocksucking self. Time for him to put the crackpipe down. Until he stops making a scapegoat out of video games, I won't stop making a scapegoat out of half black crack smokers and his anti-American wife.

go Hillary!

I'm pretty sure it was blow, not crack. And if that's true, you need to focus on the other half of Barack--what he was doing was the rich white boy's drug of choice.

[packinpatland]

The REAL news to come out of the WS primary: :lol:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/10409-NFL-Green_Bay_Packers-Brett_Favre_Sweeps_Wisconsin_Primary-200208

[SkinBasket]

That motherfucker just said we have to put our video games away. Fuck Obama and his self righteous cocksucking self. Time for him to put the crackpipe down. Until he stops making a scapegoat out of video games, I won't stop making a scapegoat out of half black crack smokers and his anti-American wife.

go Hillary!

I think just the kids need to put the video games down, not us old fucks that have no life. He doesn't care about you anyways, your white.

For all you know I'm half black too. It's where I get my mad skillz from.

[hoosier]

¡Viva Obama! I like Obama as much as the next guy (his best quality may be that he's not Hillary), but this is getting to be a bit much. In the immortal words of Gertrude Stein, it makes you wonder if there's any there there.
http://www.amigosdeobama.com/

[Joemailman]

Si, se puede!

[Freak Out]

¡Viva Obama! I like Obama as much as the next guy (his best quality may be that he's not Hillary), but this is getting to be a bit much. In the immortal words of Gertrude Stein, it makes you wonder if there's any there there.
http://www.amigosdeobama.com/

That's a top notch band Gringo! Viva Obama!

[Harlan Huckleby]

When people argue whether a candidate has experience, they usually pull-out a resume and count years in this or that role. But this is just a rough indication. The important thing is how experience has changed and matured a person. Experience should show-through in the way that a person explains their positions. It's not a question of knowing a lot of facts, it's knowing which facts matter most and why. That comes from experience.

When you hear a speech or argument from top-shelf Senators like Richard Lugar or Joe Biden, their thoughtfulness comes through like a freight train. Whether you agree with them or not, it's obvious that they have achieved some wisdom.

I formed my opinion about Barack Obama before the campaign. He's bright & likeable, but that's it. He's an empty suit.

People have compared Obama to Abraham Lincolm, who became president after just one term in Congress. The comparison is absurd. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates showed that Lincoln brought a mature mind, he was a heavyweight.

Obama's main appeal is his electability. Maybe so.

It bothers me when people say that things will be alright because the President is surrounded by many smart advisors. That's what was said about George Bush in 2000. It's hard to remember and believe now, but Bush was also elected largely for likeability reasons, people said they'd rather have a beer with Bush than Al Gore, he had more charisma.

Presidential elections are not that different from American Idol contests.
Of course the winner of an American Idol contest is likely to be an excellent ambassador for the U.S. overseas, that is a real benefit.

I may be completely wrong about Obama, maybe he will be good. I think McCain is a far better person to handle the job. I really don't know what I will do in the fall, Obama, McCain, not vote for presidential slot. Most likely I will just pull the lever with the picture of the donkey on it.

[Freak Out]

Eeyore.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you suggesting that you can judge a Senator by the number or type of bills they cosponsor? Seems like a quick & easy way for an ambitous politician to build credibility. It counts for something, though, I suppose.

I spoke to a couple people this past week who said they chose between Clinton & Obama completely on the basis of their television commercials. They both voted for Obama, one said he seemed stronger, the other said the story of his mother dying of cancer would make him better with healthcare.

[Freak Out]

Are you suggesting that you can judge a Senator by the number or type of bills they cosponsor? Seems like a quick & easy way for an ambitous politician to build credibility. It counts for something, though, I suppo

I spoke to a couple people this past week who said they chose between Clinton & Obama completely on the basis of their television commercials. They both voted for Obama, one said he seemed stronger, the other said the story of his mother dying of cancer would make him better with healthcare.

The work they did in the Senate does count for something. Should you base your decision just on that? If you want to. The old girl can still pull it off...stranger things have happened before. Any of the three remaining (sorry Huck) candidates will be an improvement over the current office holder.

But that's not saying much.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The work they did in the Senate does count for something.

Sure, but how do you evaluate it? Being a cosponsor of a bill is largely window dressing. I look at votes on big issues. Most importantly (to me) is how they express themselves on committees. But that is hard, not many people are gonna watch CSPAN.

One reason I like experienced people is they get TV time explaining positions on the various news shows. Then you get to know them. Once a campaign gets going, the politicians are too guarded to learn anything. I know this favors the estabilished politicians, but the public knowing a candidate well is a very good thing.


The old girl can still pull it off...stranger things have happened before.

I'm not sure stranger things have happened. Ohio is not that different from Wisconsin. Clinton may win some big states, but expecting several giant landslides is not credible. Obama has a huge and widening edge in advertising dollars. It's all over but the shoutin.

[The Leaper]

I formed my opinion about Barack Obama before the campaign. He's bright & likeable, but that's it. He's an empty suit.

I agree. He will face problems going against McCain...Obama's strength against Hillary among Democrats has been that he is more of a "uniting force" that will work with the Republicans.

Yet in reality, he has no credible evidence that is the case. His record is arguably more liberal than Clinton's...there is no evidence that Obama can reach across the aisle and bring together the blue and red states as he suggests.

Meanwhile, McCain's record is full of accomplishments where he did precisely what Obama claims...reached across the aisle and found compromise.

Obama is a great orator, but he might find it difficult to continue to banter about change and reconciliation when he is up against McCain...and McCain will have the ability to really call out Obama's lack of credibility on the world stage, even more so that Hillary. Barack's anti-war mantra also won't wear nearly as well against a former POW as it does against Clinton, who I think Obama has done very well against in that regard due to Clinton's initial vote of support for action in Iraq.

Obama is surging right now...but has he peaked too early? It is kind of like a sports team who is playing really well just after the All-Star break, but you wonder if they can continue that kind of run all the way through the postseason.

Obama needs to wrap this up before the convention...a convention battle would do quite a bit to damper his momentum.

[The Leaper]

Good article on the question that will face Americans this year in November...from a European viewpoint by Gerard Baker of the London Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3412540.ece

"There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party."

"While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson."

I have no problem moving back to the center after 8 years of Bush. However, tipping the scales 180 degrees the opposite way IMO isn't going to make things better. In fact, especially in regards to foreign policy, they could make things a lot worse.

What we need is someone who is willing to listen to people and build a consensus on the critical issues facing this country. If you are honest and straightforward about it, the best candidate right now in that regard is John McCain...who certainly has a proven willingness to follow his own ideals and beliefs rather than a party line.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Obama will beat McCain in a HUGE landslide. People are really, really fed-up with Republicans, not least of all the Republicans.

I don't expect that Obama's inexperience will matter that much. There is such a fever for change, people will see that McCain is a person with more depth and still vote for Obama. The only wildcard is if there is a big terrorist incident, or some such event.

Some really smart people think that Obama will wilt next fall, they could be right. I'm just saying my gut instinct.

[Harlan Huckleby]

when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson."

I don't think that angle is going to work for the Republicans. Americans are ready for liberal agenda - wind down Iraq, big change in health care.

Obama is vulnerable more on personal issues, especially his judgement/toughness on national security, if things get more unsettled.

[The Leaper]

I don't think that angle is going to work for the Republicans. Americans are ready for liberal agenda - wind down Iraq, big change in health care.

I don't think most Americans favor a dramatic, immediate pull out in Iraq, as Obama advocates...and as Clinton pointed out last night, Obama's health care platform is creaky.

Americans favor a planned withdrawal from Iraq and a commitment to bipartisan health care debate and compromise on a fair plan of action. Obama's lack of evidence in terms of his ability to reach a consensus among political colleagues in terms of ANY legislation...let alone sweeping legislation such as our health care industry requires...could pose issues for him.

If I had to bet, obviously I'd take Obama over McCain right now. However, I highly doubt this election will be a landslide for Obama. The last 4 elections have all been relatively close...Clinton never won in a landslide, and obviously Bush has squeaked in twice. The country is pretty much split down the middle in terms of those who lean left and right. The difference comes in which side is more energized...and obviously the Dems have that advantage in spades right now.

However, a convention brawl would hurt that a lot IMO...which is why I believe Obama would do the Dems good by wrapping this up in TX and OH.

[Freak Out]

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party."

"While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson."



More fear mongering but whatever.....that's why we have a Congress and if it does it's job they don't give the President free reign. All this talk about huge tax increases and rampant liberalization is a load of BS. Don't get me wrong....I would love to see a much more liberal approach to things but it's not going to happen.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think most Americans favor a dramatic, immediate pull out in Iraq, as Obama advocates..

:lol: The republicans have been making the "precipitous withdrawal" argument for 5 years. For how many years/decades can a withdrawal continue to be precipitous?

It is not going to be easy to draw-down troops now, or 5 years from now.
I suspect Obama will have 50,000 troops in Iraq 3 years from now. Maybe more troops. He is stuck between rock and hard place, as we all are, but he will be more aggressive than McCain in drawing-down.

Obama & Clinton's talk of a quick withdrawal is BS for voters. They also say more quietly that everything is contingent on developments.


Americans favor a planned withdrawal from Iraq and a commitment to bipartisan health care debate and compromise on a fair plan of action.

McCain offers nothing on either of these.


Obama's lack of evidence in terms of his ability to reach a consensus among political colleagues in terms of ANY legislation...let alone sweeping legislation such as our health care industry requires...could pose issues for him.

I think there is a strong consensus developing on healthcare.

In general, I agree. I think the notion that Obama is going to usher-in an era of bipartisian cooperation is far-fetched. I fear he is going to be a failed president like Bush, I don't trust his judgement, even if he starts with a large mandate. I will gin-up a positive attitude and hope for best once he gets in office, I always do that for any president.

[Freak Out]

Is Nader going to announce another run this weekend? I read that he was going to be on Meet the Press.

[swede]

Is Nader going to announce another run this weekend? I read that he was going to be on Meet the Press.

Nader is way right of Obama. There'll be no need for a liberal independent this year.

[Freak Out]

Is Nader going to announce another run this weekend? I read that he was going to be on Meet the Press.

Nader is way right of Obama. There'll be no need for a liberal independent this year.

:lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Is Nader going to announce another run this weekend? I read that he was going to be on Meet the Press.

I heard that, sounds likely. Maybe I'll become one of Nader's Raiders. although he doesn't see through his own bullshit, he's certainly good at identifying the bullshit in the two political parties. He helps people understand in detail how special interests control government.

[Freak Out]

Is Nader going to announce another run this weekend? I read that he was going to be on Meet the Press.

I heard that, sounds likely. Maybe I'll become one of Nader's Raiders. although he doesn't see through his own bullshit, he's certainly good at identifying the bullshit in the two political parties. He helps people understand in detail how special interests control government.

Have you seen the documentary "An unreasonable man"? I like Nader...voted for him once.....he was the only candidate that came to Alaska in 2000 and I met him at a rally....well we'll call it a small group. He's a good man.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, I saw that documentary.

I heard an hour interview with him recently, sounds like he is running. He clearly knows what he's talking about when it comes to good government. His argument that he had no effect on the 2000 election strains credulity, which is the "his own bullshit" part that I referred to.

[swede]

Quite seriously, I think a Nader campaign would hurt McCain as much as Obama in this election.

The hard left has their hero in BHusseinObama. The middle of the road independent voters would be fought over in a three-way battle royale between Nader's rumpled "the emperor has no clothes" shtick, a candidate whose best days of moderate maverick military masculinity were in the 90's, and Obama's "a chicken in every pot and a hybrid vehicle in every garage" charm.

[Joemailman]

Obama is hardly the hero of the "hard left". They preferred Kucinich, or at the outside, Edwards. Nader had kind words for Edwards earlier, and probably wouldn't consider running if Edwards were going to be the Dem nominee.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is hardly the hero of the "hard left".

They have enthusiastically adopted him.

Obama has a broad and strange coalition.

[Joemailman]

They have adopted him because he's not Hillary. Their choices are someone limited.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They have adopted him because he's not Hillary. Their choices are someone limited.

Ya, I think the left's hatred of all things Clinton fuels a lot of their Obamamania. And of course Raol Castro is not American born and therefore ineligible for the presidency. But when an idealogue makes a choice, it's all or nothing, so Barack's shit now has a lovely bouquet.

The left are cuckoo over two old wounds that draw them to Obama, especially as compared to Clinton:

1) An emotional desire to seek revenge and vindication over the Iraq War. As far as I can tell, Obama's policy on Iraq is that he was against it before it started. (To me, this is a little like a head coach applicant saying that he is qualified because he picked the Giants to win the Super Bowl.) The Left are anxious to punish people who thought differently than themselves.

2) They never got over NAFTA. Nevermind that there has been no giant sucking sound of jobs draining south, NAFTA was made ineffective and irrelevant by the rise of Asia. NAFTA has become the symbol of globalization. As in EVERY issue, Obama is a clean slate, no paper trail that prevents him from taking the popular position. He's the enemy of NAFTA in his Ohio advertisements.

Don't get me started on free trade. Too late. The left's argument that we can somehow opt out of globalization without causing a depression, or negotiate trade deals on far more favorable terms than NAFTA, this is a fraud. What we need to do is mitigate the impact of globalization with a generous safety net, starting with health care.

[hoosier]

The left are cuckoo over two old wounds that draw them to Obama, especially as compared to Clinton:

1) An emotional desire to seek revenge and vindication over the Iraq War. As far as I can tell, Obama's policy on Iraq is that he was against it before it started. (To me, this is a little like a head coach applicant saying that he is qualified because he picked the Giants to win the Super Bowl.) The Left are anxious to punish people who thought differently than themselves.

Iraq War and Superbowl: very strange analogy. I don't speak for anyone else, but for me Hillary's Iraq vote is tainted by one of two flaws: either she bowed to political pressure in giving W everything he wanted (knowing full well that the decision to invade had already been made, and that the littany of "threats" and "violations" that Bush-Cheney were enumerating was just a long list of excuses) or she actually believed one or more of the excuses (whether it was "fight tyranny and install democracy," "fight terrorism" or "defend US interests" is anyone's guess). My dislike of Hillary is not a desire to punish anyone who doesn't think like me, it's a wariness about her holding elected office when she has shown herself to be little more than an opportunist.

[Harlan Huckleby]

"opportunist" is a strange epithet to hurl at a politician, they are all so calculating, most leave a heavy trail of opportunistic votes and statements. Remember Bill Richardson's plan to withdraw all troops by December 07? :lol: Its really not their fault, if they don't play the game they have no chance. I don't see how Clinton has set the bar any lower than the others.

Both Obama & Clinton voted to fund the Iraq War through several budgets and supplemental funding bills. Until, until last spring when we got heavy into election season. Obama & Clinton & Dodd all joined a symbolic, small minority of Democrats in cutting off funding for the war last May. The only Democratic candidate with the integrity to support funding was Joe Biden, and he explained the practical necessity very eloquently.

Biden was the best Democrat in the field.

If you want steadfast forthrightness, your field is Joe Biden, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kusinich, Duncan Hunter. e.g., the candidates who have no chance.

[hoosier]

"opportunist" is a strange epithet to hurl at a politician, they are all so calculating, most leave a heavy trail of opportunistic votes and statements. Remember Bill Richardson's plan to withdraw all troops by December 07? :lol: Its really not their fault, if they don't play the game they have no chance. I don't see how Clinton has set the bar any lower than the others.

Yes, calculation will always have a part to play in politics, just like compromise. But what are the points or principles that a politician won't compromise on? To me, for the early 90's version of Hillary there was a clear answer to this question (she nearly commited political suicide over universal health care), but in the 00's version I'm not sure there are any principles she wouldn't pimp out to get elected. The end of getting elected justifies everything that comes before it. I'm not saying Obama is a shining beacon of principled, uncalculating politics--far from it--but I think the drastic change that has come over Hillary in the last decade makes it hard to have any respect what she is today.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i don't see much change in hillary in terms of her values, priorities. I see a more mature, wise and intelligent version of 92 Hillary.

I never criticize people for their evaluation of a politician's character. If you think xyz politician is a sleazebag, that's fine.

I see that Clintons as very pragamatic, pro-business politicians who also care about people who are struggling. I identiy with them.

[Scott Campbell]

I see that Clintons as very pragamatic, pro-business politicians who also care about people who are struggling.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/TCSOIL/ralphing.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

not sure what that dog is up to.

edit: oh I get it, you are using the suffering of an animal to express your displeasure at my support of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton. Just how low will you sink?

[BallHawk]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Speaking of ralphing, I watched Nader's presidential announcement on "Meet the Press." Who would have thought that guy could be 74 years old? That's a long time to avoid marriage.

I am notoriously hostile to spoilers, so I have mixed feelings about a Nader candidacy. But I'm sticking tenuously to my prediction that Obama will win in a landslide, so maybe it won't be a problem.

Nader is a national treasure, really, I don't know anybody else that speaks so clearly about what REALLY needs to change. They will have the interview online:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

I disagree with him on a few points of emphasis, like the holdup in solving the Palestinean problem is not really due to the Isreali lobby, but mostly he is on the mark.

[Freak Out]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And you said I needed to go back to Russia.

[Harlan Huckleby]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

The intercourse you really have to be concerned with involves Larry Sinclair. Polygraph results in later today:
http://www.whitehouse.com/index.aspx

Actually I am just harassing Obamaphiles with links to that sex scandal, such behavior is in my nature. :twisted: I think there is zero to scant chance that Barack's midnight flings will make the news. From my standpoint, a little gay sex and cocaine in Obama's past is a point in his favor. :D But more importantly, I think the Clinton impeachment has sapped all the public's taste for political sex scandals. Most people don't care, and most of those who might care would prefer not to know.

[BallHawk]

The media wouldn't touch that story if they were paid to. Sex and drugs with a media darling like Obama? No way.

Of course, the story has absolutely no basis behind it, but so does the NYT story about McCain. :roll:

[BallHawk]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And you said I needed to go back to Russia.

You just like him because he was the only dude that came to visit your icebox of a state. :lol:

And the only reason Alaska is in this country is so we can have an even number of states. 49 is an ugly number. 50 is much better.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Of course, the story has absolutely no basis behind it, but so does the NYT story about McCain. :roll:

The meat of the NYT story is that McCain favored a lobbyist with writing letters for her client. That is true. And its probably true that some of his aids were suspicious that McCain was diddling the lady. All in all, not a huge story, but I think it is OK to report the above. People can draw their own conclusions, most won't care much.

I listened to the extended interview with Larry Sinclair on youtube, he sounds rather specific and credible. He's donating his polygraph dough to charity, and I do think that test is strong evidence.

I suspect that Obama/Sinclair tryst happened. And I think most people would believe it if they looked into it. Few would care.

My main reason to doubt the story is that if Obama did some dick smoking with one guy, there would be more out there coming forward.

[Harlan Huckleby]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And you said I needed to go back to Russia.

You just like him because he was the only dude that came to visit your icebox of a state. :lol:

And the only reason Alaska is in this country is so we can have an even number of states. 49 is an ugly number. 50 is much better.

I would trade Alaska for Cuba in a heart beat. (A friend of mine who was in Cuba recently said many people there told him they would like to be a U.S. state.) The only trouble with cutting Alaska loose would be we'd lose all that oil. Wait, we could invade alaska and take their oil! lets do it, it's a win-win.

[Freak Out]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And you said I needed to go back to Russia.

You just like him because he was the only dude that came to visit your icebox of a state. :lol:

And the only reason Alaska is in this country is so we can have an even number of states. 49 is an ugly number. 50 is much better.

Hawaii was the 50th dark Barney...Alaska was the 49th.

BTW...Cuba has some proven oil reserves.

[Freak Out]

F*ck Ralph Nader.

And you said I needed to go back to Russia.

You just like him because he was the only dude that came to visit your icebox of a state. :lol:

And the only reason Alaska is in this country is so we can have an even number of states. 49 is an ugly number. 50 is much better.

I would trade Alaska for Cuba in a heart beat. (A friend of mine who was in Cuba recently said many people there told him they would like to be a U.S. state.) The only trouble with cutting Alaska loose would be we'd lose all that oil. Wait, we could invade alaska and take their oil! lets do it, it's a win-win.

I've been to Cuba and nobody told me they wanted to join the US....almost everyone said they wanted an open relationship with the US. Free trade, borders and so on.

[Joemailman]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/sun_sets_on_cold_war_mentality.html

February 24, 2008
Sun Sets on Cold War Mentality
By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON -- "When it comes to foreign policy, experience is a highly overrated asset." So says a former British foreign service officer named Jonathan Clarke, who has created a blog called theswoop.net that has dedicated itself to undermining Washington's fondness for conventional wisdom.

What my friend Clarke means is that the set of issues and strategies that shaped the Cold War generation has passed. He's a product of that generation himself, having served at the sharp end of the spear for the British government in various Cold War hot spots. But that era is over. The intellectual matrix formed by the Soviet threat, and before that by Hitler's rise in Germany, needs to be reworked. There is a new set of problems and personalities -- and if America keeps trotting out the same cast of characters and policy papers, we will fail to make sense of where the world is moving.

The experience issue will dominate the final weeks of the Democratic primary campaign. Hillary Clinton's only remaining trump card is that she has been in the White House before and will be ready, as she repeats so tirelessly, from Day One. But ready for what? For a recapitulation of the people and policies that guided the country in the past? That's an attractive proposition only if you think that the world of the 1990s -- or '80s, or '70s -- can be re-created.

The experience gap will overshadow even more the general election race against John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. With his every sinew, McCain embodies the idea of a wise, battle-tested man. "I'm not the youngest candidate, but I am the most experienced," he said after winning the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night. It's clear he hopes this pitch will carry him all the way to the White House. He's the tough old fighter pilot; he has fought the Cold War battles; he knows how to protect the nation in a time of danger. That's the McCain strategy in one compound sentence.

The assumption that experience equates with good judgment is a hard one to shake. We tend naturally to defer to the person who has been there before, measured the adversary, learned how the game is played. Yet if ever there were a test of the efficacy of experience, it was the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and its subsequent management of the postwar occupation. Bush's national security advisers were arguably the most experienced in modern times. But their performance was often very poor. That was partly, I think, because they overlaid the post-9/11 challenges on a Cold War template about the uses of military power.

We are the last major nation to make the transition from Cold War thinking to something new. China and India are rising thanks to new leadership elites that understand how to succeed in global markets; Russia is about to elect a new president whose formative experiences came after the fall of the Soviet Union; Pakistan has just rebuffed its own durable Cold Warrior, Gen. Pervez Musharraf; even Fidel Castro, perhaps the iconic survivor of the Cold War, has decided to step down. Only in America could John McCain seriously campaign for leadership as a symbol of the past.

The utility of inexperience was explained to me this week by Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russia's President Putin. He said that what's attractive for Russians about Dmitry Medvedev, who is certain to be elected as Putin's successor in presidential elections March 3, is that he embodies "a generation that was not shaped by the Soviet Cold War way of thinking."

Putin himself is a transition figure, a man formed by his experiences as a KGB officer. But after him, explained Peskov, comes a generation of Russians who don't carry the same baggage. They have traveled the world, seen things their parents could never imagine, looked at problems with fresh eyes.

To prepare for the next stage of the U.S. presidential campaign, try this thought experiment: Imagine the television footage of Barack Obama's first trip abroad as president -- the crowds in the streets of Moscow, Cairo, Nairobi, Shanghai, Paris, Islamabad. Now try to imagine the first visit by President John McCain to those same cities. McCain is a great man, and he would be welcomed with respect, deference, perhaps a bit of fear.
Obama would generate different and more intense reactions -- surprise and uncertainty, to be sure, but also idealism and hope. Now tell me which image would foster a stronger and safer America in the 21st century.

Obama has liabilities as a candidate, but his inexperience paradoxically may actually bolster one of his core arguments -- that he would give America a fresh start.
davidignatius@washpost.com

Ignatius explains better than I could why many of us prefer Obama over Clinton or McCain. His lack of experience does not scare me off because what is needed is for our leaders to start thinking differently. Absent that, I think the decline in U.S. prestige and power is likely to continue.

[Harlan Huckleby]

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Larry Sinclair has failed his polygraph.



Retest! Retest!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The assumption that experience equates with good judgment is a hard one to shake.

Especially since 10,000 years of recorded human experience documents that experience is required for good judgement. Not to mention that we know this to be true from our own lives.

Ahhh, but we have a tricky statement: "experience EQUATES with good judgement" Well, of course not. The saying "there's no fool like an old fool" didn't get popular for nothing.

Barack Obama is a beginner as a leader. There is every reason to believe that he will be a wiser and more capable person 5 or ten years from now. From what I've seen of him in the Senate, there's no way he should be running for president now.

[Scott Campbell]

There is every reason to believe that he will be a wiser and more capable person 5 or ten years from now.


I see. So you're saying that he should be even better during his second term?

[Joemailman]

The assumption that experience equates with good judgment is a hard one to shake.

Especially since 10,000 years of recorded human experience documents that experience is required for good judgement. Not to mention that we know this to be true from our own lives.

Ahhh, but we have a tricky statement: "experience EQUATES with good judgement" Well, of course not. The saying "there's no fool like an old fool" didn't get popular for nothing.

Barack Obama is a beginner as a leader. There is every reason to believe that he will be a wiser and more capable person 5 or ten years from now. From what I've seen of him in the Senate, there's no way he should be running for president now.

First of all, I better point out that the quote in bold isn't actually my quote. Wouldn't want any Hillary backers accusing me of plagiarism. I don't think it would take Obama 5-10 years to become wiser. He seems like a pretty quick study to me who will learn very quickly. Some people act like he's some kid just out of college. He's the same age Bill Clinton was when he became President, and is older than Kennedy was. He has more Washington experience (for what it's worth) than either Reagan or Clinton had when they became President. But I guess for some there's a certain comfort level in riding an old plowhorse instead of a young stallion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I see. So you're saying that he should be even better during his second term?

A lot of people have compared Obama to Bill Clinton in 1992, a fresh, energetic, youthful new face talking about change, the future.

i'd say a more apt comparison is to Michael Jackson after his Thriller album came out. Obama is exciting people world-wide, in that same way.

Politicians have jumped on the Obama train because he is electable, he's a winner. They have a strong personal stake in backing the winner. That's not to say this is the only reason, many must think he will be a good president.

I don't know what to make of Obama. Ya, I would expect he will be better after the first couple of years, sure.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think it would take Obama 5-10 years to become wiser. He seems like a pretty quick study to me who will learn very quickly.

His improvements in the debates have been dramatic.


Some people act like he's some kid just out of college. He's the same age Bill Clinton was when he became President, and is older than Kennedy was. He has more Washington experience (for what it's worth) than either Reagan or Clinton had when they became President.

We've been through this, Reagan & Clinton had relatively massive executive experience. Kennedy had a more distinguished record.

But my problem with Obama is not his experience on paper. Its what I've seen of him on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is among the group of relatively dopey Senators who never ask any good questions. I know he is smart, but its clear to me he is immature.

Why is he running now? Because there is a great opportunity, its a down year for the republicans. OK.


certain comfort level in riding an old plowhorse instead of a young stallion.

I find your homoerotic imagery to be unnecessary and somewhat offensive. Lets just stick to politics.

[Joemailman]

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Larry Sinclair has failed his polygraph.



Retest! Retest!

There must be easier ways to get your 15 minutes of fame. :roll: On the other hand, failing this polygraph test probably isn't the worst thing considering what he was claiming. Unless it means he'll lose his job with the Hillary campaign. :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, we don't know for sure whether Larry actually did smokum peace pipe.

He gave an interview describing Obama's member in some detail: said its about 8" long erect, and oddly it has a pink flesh color like a white man! :lol: :lol: I'm not making this up.

So, we now know that Michele OBama and all the guys who shower with Barack at the basketball gym know whether Larry the Fable Guy is lying or not! :lol: :lol: :lol: Poor Barack and his incriminating pink cock if it is true. :lol:

[Joemailman]

Where is Ken Starr? His country needs him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bill Kristol is a right-wing pundit who's all over TV and major publications. He's very smart and a bit devious. For months he's been talking about Obama like he's a great man, a sure winner, and treating the Clintons like Bonnie & Clyde. (Kristol is of the minority view that the fall election will be decided on national security issues, and I infer that he thinks McCain will beat Obama easier than Clinton.)

Anyway, so now that Obama has the nomination virtually sewed-up, Kristol does an about-face and attacks Obama with a very snarky column. I knew this would happen - what a snake in the grass! (You can see his earlier columns at NY Times for words of love.)

I print the column as a reminder to Obama fans that their new Republican friends may not be so reliable.

It’s All About Him
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: February 25, 2008, NY Times

Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

[Joemailman]

No one was more consistently wrong about what would happen when we invaded Iraq than Bill Kristol. His commentaries on Obama are no more impressive to me.

[hoosier]

Well, we don't know for sure whether Larry actually did smokum peace pipe.

He gave an interview describing Obama's member in some detail: said its about 8" long erect, and oddly it has a pink flesh color like a white man! :lol: :lol: I'm not making this up.

Sounds like ol' Larry is just speculatin' on a hypthosis, that Obama gets half of who he is from his father and the other half from his mother. I don't see any smoking gun here..... :)

[The Leaper]

No one was more consistently wrong about what would happen when we invaded Iraq than Bill Kristol.

Kristol is an asshat...which merely makes it very convenient that the NYT hired him. If you are a lefty asshat organization looking to "show a conservative side", you will hire a righty asshat.

If anyone gives any credibility to anything written in the NYT, they are delusional.

I'm all for Obama having to answer some hard questions though...especially relating to foreign policy and specifics on change. IMO, if he is elected without a barrage of serious questions on those issues, this country is worse off than I thought.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No one was more consistently wrong about what would happen when we invaded Iraq than Bill Kristol. His commentaries on Obama are no more impressive to me.

I wouldn't dismiss Kristol (although of course I don't expect you to swoon over this latest turn.) He was the very first pundit to specifically diagnose the strategy failures in Iraq. He correctly saw that the surge would work politically for the republicans, way back when it looked like a dog. He correctly predicted that Obama would be the nominee last fall when Clinton was still riding high.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kristol is an asshat.

Could you be a little more specific?


If you are a lefty asshat organization looking to "show a conservative side", you will hire a righty asshat.


So you think David Brooks & Bill Kristol at the NEw York Times are second rate conservative columnists? Who's better?


:lol:

[The Leaper]

Barack Obama is a beginner as a leader. There is every reason to believe that he will be a wiser and more capable person 5 or ten years from now. From what I've seen of him in the Senate, there's no way he should be running for president now.

So Obama compares well to...Colledge?

[Harlan Huckleby]

PRobably he's more like Adrian Peterson in highschool - if Adrian had a pink dick.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Stewart's best line at Oscars: "Julie Cristie was amazing in the moving story of a woman who forgets her husband. Hillary Clinton called it the feel-good movie of the year."

[The Leaper]

So you think David Brooks & Bill Kristol at the NEw York Times are second rate conservative columnists? Who's better?

I never suggested they were second rate columnists.

To me, asshats are smug and holier-than-thou...and I put Kristol in that category. He might even be right a majority of the time, but he's still an asshat.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To me, asshats are smug and holier-than-thou...and I put Kristol in that category.

I don't know about holier-than-thou, but I agree that Kristol is in a class all by himself when it comes to smugness. He has a sneer permanently painted on his face.

[swede]

To me, asshats are smug and holier-than-thou...and I put Kristol in that category.

I don't know about holier-than-thou, but I agree that Kristol is in a class all by himself when it comes to smugness. He has a sneer permanently painted on his face.

It comes from having to speak and write to people that are not particularly smart in comparison. Carlos Williams is a good example of an intellectual lightweight that says stoopid stuff around Bill Kristol louder than the smarter people that said the stoopid stuff first.

Carlos Williams as a political analyst is like one of those customers holding up the line at McDonalds demanding two fries and two fish sandwiches for three dollars:

"I'm sorry, sir. You may match any two for three dollars."

"Look at the sign! Two fries and two fish sandwiches for three dollars! Where's the manager?"

"(sigh) Bob! We've got another fry and fish problem out front!"

If you want a right-wing a$$hat you've got to go with Tucker Carlson. If I could trade him to the liberals for George Stephanopoulos I would.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You must mean Juan Williams. I don't think he is stupid. He has unique point of view sometimes.

The only pundit I ever thought was stupid is a local guy named Neil Heinen. Oh, twist my arm, guess I find Mona Charon to be robotic.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44452000/jpg/_44452265_obama_ap_203b.jpg


This disturbing photo of Barack Hussein Obama has just arrived over my transom.

OH MY GOD !!!

[swede]

You must mean Juan Williams. I don't think he is stupid. He has unique point of view sometimes.

The only pundit I ever thought was stupid is a local guy named Neil Heinen. Oh, twist my arm, guess I find Mona Charon to be robotic.

Inside joke. Juan hates it when I call him Carlos.

[Harlan Huckleby]

what side would he be fighting for in West Side Story?

[Freak Out]

The Wisconsin primary is over people. The cheeseheads have spoken so move this over to the FYI thread.

[hoosier]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44452000/jpg/_44452265_obama_ap_203b.jpg


This disturbing photo of Barack Hussein Obama has just arrived over my transom.

OH MY GOD !!!

Your transom wouldn't be directly connected to the Hillary campaign now, would it? :shock: They're denying involvement but, in view of the fact that two of her campaign workers were involved in circulating the Obama-the-camel-driver rumor, it's not far fetched that this photo's circulation has a similar origin. In the end, though, I'm sure it's nothing compared to what he'll face after the primaries.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Wisconsin primary is over people. The cheeseheads have spoken so move this over to the FYI thread.

you just want to attract Tex back to the forum.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2008/02/25/12/Obama_2008_Photo.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.81. jpg

He's a camel thief too!

Hoozier, it doesn't surprise me that a Clinton campaign worker would repost the picture. I don't see anything too dirty about it.

I really don't think that picture is much of a smear. He tried on traditional clothes while on a visit, big Whoop. I doubt Clinton campaign sees much advantage here.

I did hear that Republicans are starting-up about Obama's segregated church. Alan Colmes went ape-shit over this on his radio show last night, calling it racism. I want to talk about it some more, but not on an empty stomach, time for a healthy cheeseburger.
.

[BallHawk]

If Hillary comes out nice and bubbly tonight I'll be sick. If you're gonna be a bitch, be a bitch all the time. If you're shaking hands one night and the next day you're raving mad at the dude you come across as two-faced. Decide how you're going to run your campaign and stick with it.

She needs to bring the bitch tonight.

[Joemailman]

He's a camel thief too!

Hoozier, it doesn't surprise me that a Clinton campaign worker would repost the picture. I don't see anything too dirty about it.

I really don't think that picture is much of a smear. He tried on traditional clothes while on a visit, big Whoop. I doubt Clinton campaign sees much advantage here.

I did hear that Republicans are starting-up about Obama's segregated church. Alan Colmes went ape-shit over this on his radio show last night, calling it racism. I want to talk about it some more, but not on an empty stomach, time for a healthy cheeseburger.
.

I think the reason the Obama people had a problem with it is that they feel there was an attempt to tie it in with the internet rumors that Obama is a Muslim. I'm inclined to think they overreacted thgough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Hillary comes out nice and bubbly tonight I'll be sick. If you're gonna be a bitch, be a bitch all the time.

When a female candidate turns up the heat, she's a bitch. And then you demand that they be one dimensional!?

[hoosier]

I think the reason the Obama people had a problem with it is that they feel there was an attempt to tie it in with the internet rumors that Obama is a Muslim. I'm inclined to think they overreacted thgough.

But assuming the Hillary campaign did distribute the photo, what reason would they have other than to smear him in some general anti-American vein? Touting Obama's multiculturalism?

[Harlan Huckleby]

On Alan Colmes' radio show, the issue of Obama belonging to a segregated church came up. Colmes made an angry speech saying this is race-card playing that the republicans will regret, and he explained that blacks had to form their own institutions because of white racism. Not the same as a white-only church, he said.

The historical reasons for minorities forming segregated institutions makes sense, but the question is, what about the future? Obama's theme is change, the future, unity, letting-go of the divisiveness of the past. Are we condemned to forever worship in segregated churches because of the slavery and racism of the past?

Obama is vulnerable to criticism on this issue, its not going to go away. Maybe not overt criticism, but many will be surprised and disapproving.

And I also think that Michele Obama's comment that she is proud of her country for the first time in her life further indicates an alienation from mainstream culture.

[hoosier]

And I also think that Michele Obama's comment that she is proud of her country for the first time in her life further indicates an alienation from mainstream culture.

Yes, they're going to regret that having come out.

[The Leaper]

The historical reasons for minorities forming segregated institutions makes sense, but the question is, what about the future? Obama's theme is change, the future, unity, letting-go of the divisiveness of the past. Are we condemned to forever worship in segregated churches because of the slavery and racism of the past?

That is the ENTIRE problem with Obama's campaign.

He claims to value change and unity, but his life and voting record suggests he wants nothing to do with unity...and only wants change if it reflects the values of the liberal elite.

That is PRECISELY way John McCain still is beating BOTH Democratic rivals in polling head-to-head right now, albeit by slim margins. Despite Obama's surge in popularity, I think a majority of Americans still have deep concerns about him. I just don't see how those concerns are going to be eliminated as we move to November, as Obama just has nothing to point to on his political resume to convince people he can do what he says he wants to do.

[The Leaper]

More Obama problems...via CNN

- - -

(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.

McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have to right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence.

"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Obama responded to the latest attacks from McCain, saying his comments were taken out of context.

Obama said the question he was asked during the debate was a "big hypothetical."

- - -

The only big hypothetical I see at this time is Obama's ability to lead this nation in foreign policy. The guy is a dope when it comes to international affairs. That is to be expected of a guy his age. A young JFK nearly put us into a nuclear war with the USSR, and there is no reason to expect Obama will show any better reasoning on the international stage. The guy was only a STATE SENATOR a few years ago...he SHOULDN'T have vast international experience. Unfortunately, being president of a world power requires some foreign policy experience.

Obama can try to backtrack all he wants...but to hold the stance that you want an immediate withdrawl of troops now, then say (even hypothetically) that you would support going back in if al Qaeda had a base in Iraq...when al Qaeda ALREADY is operating out of Iraq currently...borders on ridiculous.

Obama's lack of seasoning in foreign affairs is going to be a major weakness in his campaign this summer.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton utilizes Obama's comments against him. This was a slip by Obama, and McCain called him on it. Will Clinton also use it to her advantage?

[Harlan Huckleby]

to hold the stance that you want an immediate withdrawl of troops now, then say (even hypothetically) that you would support going back in if al Qaeda had a base in Iraq...when al Qaeda ALREADY is operating out of Iraq currently...borders on ridiculous.

Neither of the democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal from IRaq. They are ambiguous.

[Freak Out]

When the fuck did big media take control of the debates from the League of Women voters? Was it 2000 or 2004? What a joke it's become....not once have they talked about the defense budget as far as I have seen.

[Joemailman]

More Obama problems...via CNN

- - -

(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.

McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have to right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence.

"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Obama responded to the latest attacks from McCain, saying his comments were taken out of context.

Obama said the question he was asked during the debate was a "big hypothetical."

- - -

The only big hypothetical I see at this time is Obama's ability to lead this nation in foreign policy. The guy is a dope when it comes to international affairs. That is to be expected of a guy his age. A young JFK nearly put us into a nuclear war with the USSR, and there is no reason to expect Obama will show any better reasoning on the international stage. The guy was only a STATE SENATOR a few years ago...he SHOULDN'T have vast international experience. Unfortunately, being president of a world power requires some foreign policy experience.

Obama can try to backtrack all he wants...but to hold the stance that you want an immediate withdrawl of troops now, then say (even hypothetically) that you would support going back in if al Qaeda had a base in Iraq...when al Qaeda ALREADY is operating out of Iraq currently...borders on ridiculous.

Obama's lack of seasoning in foreign affairs is going to be a major weakness in his campaign this summer.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton utilizes Obama's comments against him. This was a slip by Obama, and McCain called him on it. Will Clinton also use it to her advantage?

Obama was absolutely right about it being a "big hypothetical". The whole scenario was based on the premise, based on a previous Russert question, that the Iraqi government would tell the U.S. to get all of their troops out of Iraq. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government would do that as long as Al-Qaeda is operating there. Hence the hypothetical. Obama has consistently said he intends to keep a small force in Iraq to protect the embassy, and to deal with Al-Qaeda. Obama didn't "backtrack" one bit and skewered McCain today for being part of the reason that there is an Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Obama would be for people like you and McCain to continue to underestimate him.

[Freak Out]

More Obama problems...via CNN

- - -

(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.

McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have to right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence.

"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Obama responded to the latest attacks from McCain, saying his comments were taken out of context.

Obama said the question he was asked during the debate was a "big hypothetical."

- - -

The only big hypothetical I see at this time is Obama's ability to lead this nation in foreign policy. The guy is a dope when it comes to international affairs. That is to be expected of a guy his age. A young JFK nearly put us into a nuclear war with the USSR, and there is no reason to expect Obama will show any better reasoning on the international stage. The guy was only a STATE SENATOR a few years ago...he SHOULDN'T have vast international experience. Unfortunately, being president of a world power requires some foreign policy experience.

Obama can try to backtrack all he wants...but to hold the stance that you want an immediate withdrawl of troops now, then say (even hypothetically) that you would support going back in if al Qaeda had a base in Iraq...when al Qaeda ALREADY is operating out of Iraq currently...borders on ridiculous.

Obama's lack of seasoning in foreign affairs is going to be a major weakness in his campaign this summer.

It will be interesting to see how Clinton utilizes Obama's comments against him. This was a slip by Obama, and McCain called him on it. Will Clinton also use it to her advantage?

Obama was absolutely right about it being a "big hypothetical". The whole scenario was based on the premise, based on a previous Russert question, that the Iraqi government would tell the U.S. to get all of their troops out of Iraq. It is highly unlikely that the Iraqi government would do that as long as Al-Qaeda is operating there. Hence the hypothetical. Obama has consistently said he intends to keep a small force in Iraq to protect the embassy, and to deal with Al-Qaeda. Obama didn't "backtrack" one bit and skewered McCain today for being part of the reason that there is an Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Obama would be for people like you and McCain to continue to underestimate him.

I listened to it all and your correct Mailman...typical political spin on McCains part. Smart move though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama has consistently said he intends to keep a small force in Iraq to protect the embassy, and to deal with Al-Qaeda.

This is not a serious idea, it is flim-flam. If we learned anything in Iraq, it is that to "deal with Al-Qaeda" means to protect the civilians from Al-Qaeda intimidation. That is not done with a small force.

I can't say any of the Democratic candidates, with exception of Joe Biden, have spoken honestly or seriously about Iraq.

Obama is going to be stuck with a lot of troops in Iraq for his first term. He will do his best to draw down, probably more aggresively than McCain would. But until the Iraqi Army & provincial forces can provide security, we'll have 100K troops there. And they'll need air/logistical support for several years after that, requiring maybe 50K troops.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Obama will have an advantage over McCain in Iraq - he can more credibly pressure the Iraqis to compromise and get on with it. McCain has already offered a permanent security blanket. But the humanitarian situation will keep a lot of troops there for many years.

Staying to Help in Iraq
We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact.
By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008

The request is familiar to American ears: "Bring them home."

But in Iraq, where I've just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don't know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they've all gone, or how they're managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country -- without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man's land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

I'm not a security expert, but it doesn't take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can't expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan's population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

The Iraqi families I've met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don't want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes -- or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR's need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis "to the maximum extent possible" -- which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR's presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

[The Leaper]

Neither of the democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal from IRaq. They are ambiguous.

Come to Ohio and watch some campaign advertisements and tell me how ambiguous Obama is. When you are campaigning under slogans such as "END THE WAR", I find it difficult to agree with your "ambiguous" opinion.

[The Leaper]

I think Obama will have an advantage over McCain in Iraq - he can more credibly pressure the Iraqis to compromise and get on with it.

How does Obama have any ability to credibly pressure anyone? He's a fucking joke in terms of the world stage...while McCain is a former POW and has decades of experience in terms of national security and foreign relations.

He HOPES he can do something. He doesn't have one shred of evidence that he can credibly do anything on an international stage.

You honestly look like an idiot by saying that Obama will have an advantage over McCain in any foreign relations matter. As the campaign wears on, that will actually be one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think Obama will have an advantage over McCain in Iraq - he can more credibly pressure the Iraqis to compromise and get on with it.

How does Obama have any ability to credibly pressure anyone? He's a fucking joke in terms of the world stage...while McCain is a former POW and has decades of experience in terms of national security and foreign relations.

He HOPES he can do something. He doesn't have one shred of evidence that he can credibly do anything on an international stage.

You honestly look like an idiot by saying that Obama will have an advantage over McCain in any foreign relations matter. As the campaign wears on, that will actually be one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.

Leaper,

Puhlease. McCain is a joke on foreign relations as well.

McCain's whole career has dedicated to the idea that America must always have the right to solve problems using force.

He has NEVER argued against force. He has argued for increased military force in virtually every engagement.

1. He complained about Clinton's "excessively restricted air campaign" in Kosovo. Campaigning vehemently for a ground invasion.

2. During the 94 flap over Pyongyang's nuclear program, he called for "more forceful, coercive action."

3. In 99, he argued THE ONLY WAY to deal with Saddam was "to strike disproportionate to the provocation."

Ever read his book? Very frightening. He complains about the pols who refused to allow pilots like himself to attack, say, Soviet ships unloading arms to the vietnamese port cities. "We thought our civ commanders were complete idiots."

Great..bomb the ships...WW3.

There is enough evidence that points to mccain seeing war as righteous and necessary, a tonic for the national soul. "Noble" irrespective of the context.

It ain't a joke when he casually says, "There's gonna be other wars," or sings "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran."

Perhaps you are unaware that the same campaign speeches he now gives he said back in 99 at a commencement at Phillips Exeter. So, HE KNEW THE ANSWER TO THE IRAQ MESS before it even happened.

I for one, would appreciate someone who is going to think about the situation and doesn't think they have the answer before the problem.

I for one don't appreciate his attitude that only military commanders like petraeus can decide when we leave Iraq...and don't appreciate his sneering attitude that it shouldn't be some "civilian running for president."

[MadScientist]

I think Obama will have an advantage over McCain in Iraq - he can more credibly pressure the Iraqis to compromise and get on with it.

How does Obama have any ability to credibly pressure anyone? He's a fucking joke in terms of the world stage...while McCain is a former POW and has decades of experience in terms of national security and foreign relations.

He HOPES he can do something. He doesn't have one shred of evidence that he can credibly do anything on an international stage.

You honestly look like an idiot by saying that Obama will have an advantage over McCain in any foreign relations matter. As the campaign wears on, that will actually be one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.

Simple, Obama is coming in with a mandate to get out of Iraq, whereas McCain would have on to "win the war". We are propping up the regime in Iraq and if they are about to lose their prop, they will be under enormous and desperate pressure to get their own security working at least to a base level, for their own personal survival. (Sen. Evan Bayh was just on the radio saying basically the same thing).

[SkinBasket]

We are propping up the regime in Iraq and if they are about to lose their prop, they will be under enormous and desperate pressure to get their own security working at least to a base level, for their own personal survival. (Sen. Evan Bayh was just on the radio saying basically the same thing).

Evan Bayh also said this: "We will need to stay the course, and not just remove the yoke of Saddam Hussein, but ensure that that yoke is not replaced by another."


So which is it? Stay the course or pull the prop? Or is it just a matter of whichever response polls better?

[Joemailman]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

Irony at its finest.

[The Leaper]

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

How does McCain sound like Bush? He's not a cowboy...he's a respected politician who has been on the forefront of American foreign policy and national security for two decades.

Where did W have that on his resume?

I would agree that a lot of political elites in Europe probably think Obama is right up their alley.

Obama has zero international credibility. He's done nothing on the world stage to achieve respect. I'm not saying that he is incapable of achieving something...just that with respect to McCain, Obama comes up woefully short in terms of foreign policy experience. His statements claiming we should attack Pakistan and have open dialog with dictators like Mr. Nutjob in Iran and Fidel's little wanker in Cuba only proves that point.

[The Leaper]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

What? If we aren't ready to give Obama a blow job, then we are off the deep end?

[The Leaper]

Irony at its finest.

Bush has never moved quickly in his life...except to grab beer at a kegger while at Yale.

[swede]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

Irony at its finest.

Their objective, post-hostilities, won't be to assist an entire nation in the process of forming, sustaining, and securing a new democracy after a half century of despotism.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

What? If we aren't ready to give Obama a blow job, then we are off the deep end?

Of course not, we want you to go slow. Just touch it..it won't bite. Maybe you could stroke it. :twisted:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

Irony at its finest.

Their objective, post-hostilities, won't be to assist an entire nation in the process of forming, sustaining, and securing a new democracy after a half century of despotism.

I forgot that was our goal going in. Must have missed the part about nation building. :roll:

[Joemailman]

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

How does McCain sound like Bush? He's not a cowboy...he's a respected politician who has been on the forefront of American foreign policy and national security for two decades.

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Excellent point.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Neither of the democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal from IRaq. They are ambiguous.

Come to Ohio and watch some campaign advertisements and tell me how ambiguous Obama is. When you are campaigning under slogans such as "END THE WAR", I find it difficult to agree with your "ambiguous" opinion.

Just for instance, Clinton's line on the stump is she will begin withdrawing troops with six weeks of her inauguration. :lol: What does THIS mean?

Obama has talked about removing troops within two years, but he has also convened a study group to examine contingencies, come up with policies to avoid chaos.

Look, the U.S. is boxed-in. I do think the Democrats are better positioned to draw-down troops, but it will be slow.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You honestly look like an idiot by saying that Obama will have an advantage over McCain in any foreign relations matter. As the campaign wears on, that will actually be one of Obama's greatest weaknesses.

I was not suggesting that he had an advantage politically. I mean as president he will have a stronger postition with the Iraqis, his intention to withdraw is more credibile.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just heard dueling McCain-Obama speeches: McCain makes point that Obama ignores fact that Al-Qaiada is in Iraq. Obama comes back to inform McCain that they weren't there before Bush invaded.

I think Obama is going to have to come-up to 2008. His remark played well with the faithful, but the election is about the future.

[Scott Campbell]

Did Hillary drop out yet?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton is toast. Unless Obama is caught in bed with a dead woman or live boy, she can't catch-up in delegates.

McCain is still technically in the running, but as soon as the public figures out he is a card-carrying Republican, he will be out too.

Obama is our new president. But here's one guy who doesn't get it yet:

Why I’m Afraid of the Clintons
By Dan Schnur
February 28, 2008

If it’s not the first rule of Republican politics, it should be: never, ever, ever underestimate anybody whose last name is Clinton. Not Bill, not Hillary. Not Chelsea, not even George. They’re very good at what they do, and when they’re about to be written off for dead, that’s when they’re at their very best.

We’ve counted out the Clintons before: during the New Hampshire primary in 1992, after the death of health care reform and the Republican takeover of Congress, and at the height of the impeachment brawl a few years after that. On each of those occasions, we had convinced ourselves that this was going to be the end of this unique family’s political journey. Each time, we were wrong.

When Hillary Clinton decided to run for president, I promised myself I would not be fooled again. As an equally loyal fan of the Republican Party and of the Green Bay Packers football team, I had come to regard the Clintons the same way I’ve always thought about the Dallas Cowboys. I don’t like them. I root against them. I want them to lose and occasionally find myself wanting bad things to happen to them. But they are very good at what they do. And if someone can knock them out in the playoffs — whether it’s the New York Giants or a senator from Illinois — I’m just as happy not to have to go up against them when the stakes are at their highest.

So throughout the Democratic primaries, I’ve been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She’s certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we’ve been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I’d still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

There’s something other than superstition at work here: there’s also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don’t believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate’s 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.

Without yet knowing the specifics of his record in office, general election voters are beginning to display an instinctual awareness of Senator Obama’s potential shortcomings. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll released earlier this week showed Senator Clinton defeating John McCain on the question of which candidate would best handle issues relating to the economy and immigration, while Senator Obama came up short against Senator McCain on both questions. While the differences were not as notable, Hillary Clinton also matched up better than Barack Obama against John McCain on questions relating to health care and on terrorism. (Senator Obama ran three points better than Senator Clinton against John McCain on Iraq, the only issue on which he outpaced her.)

Which brings us back to the question of change versus experience. While Senator McCain is an insurgent and a maverick, he is also 71 years old and he has been a member of Congress for roughly a quarter of a century. Not surprisingly, both Democrats defeated Senator McCain on the question of which candidate would bring necessary change to Washington, Senator Obama more decisively than Senator Clinton.

But the debate over change — and perhaps age — may be overshadowed by the overwhelming margin (53 percent to 22 percent) by which voters say that Senator McCain has “the right experience” instead of Senator Obama, almost three times as large as his advantage over Clinton. American voters have made it clear that they want change, but in the middle of a difficult war and an impending recession, they want reassurance as well. Far more than against Senator Clinton, a McCain campaign against Senator Obama could benefit from the perception among voters that John McCain is better prepared for the presidency.

(In the overall matchups, Senator McCain edged both Democrats by small margins. In the interest of full disclosure, his margin of victory against Senator Clinton was four points larger, providing a statistically insignificant talking point to those who disagree with my assessment.)

Just as the Giants proved a tougher foe for my Packers than I’d anticipated, there’s no question that Senator Obama’s considerable strengths as a candidate and as a communicator would present a huge challenge to Senator McCain this fall. An unpopular war, an increasing likelihood of a recession and an eight-year itch that has returned the same party to the White House in three consecutive elections only once since World War II (1980-1988) make this an uphill fight for Senator McCain against either Democratic candidate. Most of my fellow Republicans, consumed with 16 years of Hillary hatred and awestruck by Senator Obama’s political skills, are still hoping Senator Clinton can come back and claim her party’s nomination. Only she, they think, can unify the Republicans and mobilize our voters to the polls in November.

But I’ve been burned by the Clintons too many times before, so I’m rooting for the new guy from Illinois to take her out in the playoffs next week. Forgive me for holding off on the eulogies, but I’d just as soon wait until Wednesday morning before performing last rites on the Clinton-for-president campaign.

[swede]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

Irony at its finest.

Their objective, post-hostilities, won't be to assist an entire nation in the process of forming, sustaining, and securing a new democracy after a half century of despotism.

I forgot that was our goal going in. Must have missed the part about nation building. :roll:

Your ability to deflect meaningful information allows you to carry on with your shallow world view.

[Harlan Huckleby]

hey, the old-time FYI spirit is back!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Leaper's starting to sound a little cranky. We may be in the process of finding our own Tex. :P

I find it hard to believe that McCain, who is sounding more and more like Bush, would have more credibility internationally than either Obama or Clinton given Bush's international reputation. Most of the rest of the world is looking for a separation from the Bush policies, not more of the same.

My new fav Bush idiocy, "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

Irony at its finest.



Their objective, post-hostilities, won't be to assist an entire nation in the process of forming, sustaining, and securing a new democracy after a half century of despotism.

I forgot that was our goal going in. Must have missed the part about nation building. :roll:

Your ability to deflect meaningful information allows you to carry on with your shallow world view.

Meaningful information? Are you presenting something new? Something that hasn't been said umpteens times.

Regardless, it is highly ironic (and you can forget about all your other points because they have nothing to do with IRONY) since we were going to go in, be feted with roses, have the whole thing paid for by their oil..and be out lickety split.

Now we are there nation building and FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR...which we have been told may last years.

The Turks also also fighting a war on terror..and yet, bush wants them out quickly.

You can't see the irony?

P.S. That half century of despotism was at one time SPONSORED BY US. Don't show up to gunfight with a knife.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/rumsfield-saddam.gif

"As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, 1983

"We don’t have an opinion on inter-Arab disputes such as your border dispute with Kuwait, and we have directed our official spokesman to reiterate this stand, and I have a directive from the President, personally, that I should work to expand and deepen relations with Iraq."
– April Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, transcript of meeting with Iraqi leadership a week before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/post911/shelbysaddamsm.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's a terrible thing to wake up on a Saturday morning all grumpy. I heard Obama's new radio commercial late last night. Obama will have good judgement when he picks up the ringing red phone, since he had the judgement to oppose the Iraq war.

This man's credibility evidently revolves around an opinion he expressed in 2002. And please note that Britney Spears also passes this litmus test, she too was against the war. This from the change campaign that looks to the future.

I could argue until I am blue in the face that the vote to authorize Bush was a defensible decision. The past failure of weapons inspections ... Hussein's own inner circle thought there was a nuclear program ... blah blah blah. Doesn't matter. Those who opposed the war see it as a cut-and-dried credibility test. They aren't stupid, they are being child-like, as people can be.

If Obama gets the presidency it will show America has largely moved passed racism. Hillary - people will trust a woman. If McCain wins, it shows a triumph of substance over marketing. I'm not sure which of the three results would be most surprising & encouraging.

[Freak Out]

It looks like Hussein is going to go for the head shot in Texas with an all out last minute add blitz. They have started to spend some huge money now.

[MJZiggy]

They have democrats in Texas?

[Freak Out]

They have democrats in Texas?

Shocking I know......but they must with all the money that is being spent.

[MJZiggy]

But going after the democrats does no good. They're illegal and can't vote anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It looks like Hussein is going to go for the head shot in Texas with an all out last minute add blitz. They have started to spend some huge money now.

I don't really care what happens Tuesday. The most Clinton could accomplish would be to drag-out the inevitable a little longer.


http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hillary is prettier than Amy Poehler and she's 30 years older.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/02/us/02clintonSNL-533.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

The weighted-average of multiple polls that Real Clear Politics tracks has Clinton surging in both Ohio and Texas. She has even pulled slightly ahead in Texas.

Apparently those pics of Hussein Obama in A-rab terrorist garb that I sent to Matt Drudge are working their magic. :twisted:



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html

[Joemailman]

They have democrats in Texas?

Sure, just not white ones.

[Scott Campbell]

Hillary is prettier than Amy Poehler and she's 30 years older.



Maybe, but Amy Poehler would make a better President.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama has run a pretty squeeky clean campaign. His advocates, not so much.

I've read several commentators repeat as fact that "the Clinton Campaign" distributed the pics of Obama in Somalia. Those pics were on a right-wing website for months, and the person who alerted the Drudge Report to them might have worked for Hillary somewhere. (BTW, why would somebody reveal this association?)

Today, I heard on Air America show that Hillary deviously used weasle-words, tried to suggest that Obama might be a Muslim. When you hear the referenced interview, Clinton is unequivocal, this is a ridiculous slur.

The number one trick of dirty politics is to accuse your opponent of dirty politics. By this measure, there's been a lot of mud.

There have been a few instances of actual dirty politics in this campaign. I count two instances where Barak made foolish accusations. Bill Clinton has dropped some bombs. Most of the "dirty politics" have been attempts at point scoring, mostly by Clinton. Criticism, even petty criticism, is not dirty.

[Scott Campbell]

Shame on you Barrack Obama????

Did she really say that? Is that what her lifetime of government and foreign affairs experience has taught her?

What's next?

Shame on you Kim Jong II.
Shame on you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Shame on you Stephen Harper.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for my Grandma.

[hoosier]

Shame on you Barrack Obama????

Did she really say that? Is that what her lifetime of government and foreign affairs experience has taught her?

What's next?

Shame on you Kim Jong II.
Shame on you Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Shame on you Stephen Harper.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for my Grandma.

What do you want her to say? "The bombing of Barack Obama begins in five minutes"?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Texas has both primary & a caucus, so it presents an opportunity to compare the two formats. With about 75% of the votes counted, Clinton leads the total popular vote by 4%, yet Obama leads the caucus vote by 12%.

This is an eye-popping discrepency. Frank Rich dismissed questions about the fairness of caucuses as whining by Bill Clinton. But this is head-in-the-sand analysis, many journalists have pointed out the skewed results of the caucuses. Obama's delegate lead is built largely on his organizational edge rather than a huge advantage in popular support. (The so-called "popular vote" nation-wide totals include caucus votes.)

I expect there will be a revote in Michigan & Florida. Still, Obama is going to get the nomination in the end. He needs to select Clinton as his vice president to unify the democratic party. Obama will be a stronger candidate, and a better president, if he respectfully co-opts Clinton. I'm sure he is tempted to pick a lower status person from outside Washington.

[hoosier]

I expect there will be a revote in Michigan & Florida. Still, Obama is going to get the nomination in the end. He needs to select Clinton as his vice president to unify the democratic party. Obama will be a stronger candidate, and a better president, if he respectfully co-opts Clinton. I'm sure he is tempted to pick a lower status person from outside Washington.

Do you really think Hillary would accept the VP in this situation? I think her ego is going to be bruised if Obama gets the nomination (on that I'm less certain than you), and I can't see her agreeing to play second fiddle after this primary season.

[SkinBasket]

I didn't think Hill could pull back within striking distance like she did last night. She must have spent the last 7 nights sacrificing goats and bulls to the caucus gods.

It'll be fun to watch Harlan run back under her suit pants if she manages to build some momentum again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you really think Hillary would accept the VP in this situation? I think her ego is going to be bruised if Obama gets the nomination (on that I'm less certain than you), and I can't see her agreeing to play second fiddle after this primary season.

I go back to Huckabee's comment: the Vice Presidency is the job that everybody says they don't want, but nobody turns down.

The VP is a very powerful & prestigous job (at least in cases where the P greatly respects the VP.) The VP has direct input in decisions, sometimes is delegated important authority. Cheney was practically a co-president. A VP is potentially much more influential than a Senator.

The problem with ego comes with the asking part. I can't say whether Clinton or OBama would ask for the help of the other; I am far more confident that either would accept.

Clinton would really strengthen Obama, and I don't just mean by appeasing Clinton supporters. Clinton has deep respect, including grudging admiration, for her strength & intelligence from politicians & middle America. He might delegate health care project to her. And the process of working-out things with Clinton will show a tempering of Obama's achilies heel - his arrogance.

The campaign is going to get more negative. But I don't think either side will cross a certain line, attacking the integrity of the other. Coming together on the same ticket will prevent lasting damage.

(BTW, in the first few presidencies, the winning side would take the losing candidate as VP. Imagine Bush adopting Swift Boat Captain Kerry as his VP. And campaigns used to be even dirtier than they are now.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

In another televised interview, Mrs. Clinton said her close race with Mr. Obama might result in a shared ticket. Speaking on CBS’s Early Show, she said, “Well, that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket.” She said her victory in Ohio indicated that the choice should be her.

[The Leaper]

Hillary is tired of being second fiddle. She, like Favre, is mentally fatigued of it. She wants to be numero uno. She's run a pretty aggressive campaign against Obama...more or less claiming he isn't as fit to be president at this point.

There is a growing hostility between Obama and Hillary supporters...and I'm not entirely sure having Hillary as VP, even if it were to occur, is going to cure all those ills.

For all the blabber on the left about bringing people together, it is clear that the Democrats are just as fractured by class and race lines as the GOP...and maybe more so after this heated contest.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Been listening to progressives on Air America. Oh my god. The theme is indignity that Clinton is continuing her campaign. I've never heard such vitriol. The left's party line is that Clinton is Richard Nixon-like, and they repeat over-and-over that Hillary is winning by the dirty trick of casting Obama as a Muslim. Here is the 60 Minutes interveiew that precipiated this line of attack:

STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?

HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...

CLINTON: Right, right..

KROFT: …you don't believe that he's a Muslim.

CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous…?

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

:lol: :lol: THIS is the crime. When she said "as far as I know", I take it she meant she has heard nothing specific, true or false. Politicians & lawyers reflexively speak this way. The Obama Youth say she is deviously encouraging a smear.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is a growing hostility between Obama and Hillary supporters...and I'm not entirely sure having Hillary as VP, even if it were to occur, is going to cure all those ills.

You're right about the hostility, and I'm living proof. I don't think the bad feeling will endure, but we'll see.

Clinton is waging a negative campaign, in the sense that she is criticizing Obama. This is not dirty politics, she is hitting Obama on legitimate vulnerabilities. I heard one angry Obamaniac say that Hillary's ringing-phone commercial about experience/reliability was out of the Carl Rove playbook. Obama is NOT the Messiah, he is not above criticism.

[Freak Out]

Been listening to progressives on Air America. Oh my god. The theme is indignity that Clinton is continuing her campaign. I've never heard such vitriol. The left's party line is that Clinton is Richard Nixon-like, and they repeat over-and-over that Hillary is winning by the dirty trick of casting Obama as a Muslim. Here is the 60 Minutes interveiew that precipiated this line of attack:

STEVE KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?

HILLARY CLINTON: Of course not. I mean that's, you know, that, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: You said you take Sen. Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim...

CLINTON: Right, right..

KROFT: …you don't believe that he's a Muslim.

CLINTON: No! No! Why would I? There's nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous…?

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

:lol: :lol: THIS is the crime. When she said "as far as I know", I take it she meant she has heard nothing specific, true or false. Politicians & lawyers reflexively speak this way. The Obama Youth say she is deviously encouraging a smear.

Air America is bashing her over that? Ha ha...this race is far from over and the Obama people know that. It's could come down to a convention battle royal.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Air America is bashing her over that? Ha ha...this race is far from over and the Obama people know that. It's could come down to a convention battle royal.

Not just Air America, several Obama-leaning microphone jocks have picked-up on this "story."

I think Obama will enter the convention with a small delegate lead, and he will be ahead in national popularity polls. I don't see the convention denying him the nomination. Clinton is also going to have a STRONG case that she is the best candidate. An Obama-Clinton ticket is the only happy outcome.

[The Leaper]

I think Obama will enter the convention with a small delegate lead, and he will be ahead in national popularity polls. I don't see the convention denying him the nomination. Clinton is also going to have a STRONG case that she is the best candidate. An Obama-Clinton ticket is the only happy outcome.

It will be difficult for Obama to claim he is the best candidate when he did not carry any of the major states that usually determine success in a Presidential election...NY, CA, OH, TX, FL.

It will be difficult for Clinton to claim she is the best candidate when she could not win the overall popular vote and consistently trends lower in head-to-head polling against McCain when compared to Obama.

An Obama-Clinton ticket may seem like a happy outcome, but in reality it could also turn into a disaster if the two individuals really do not like each other...and their supporters don't really get along either. Suddenly, the wave of enthusiam on the Dems side hits a wall of discontent and pointless class/race bickering.

If anything, it would be fun to watch.

[Scott Campbell]

For the Republicans, this has to be la little like the US watching the Nazis fight the Russians on the Western front. Let em kick the crap out of each other.

:lol:

[Joemailman]

I expect there will be a revote in Michigan & Florida. Still, Obama is going to get the nomination in the end. He needs to select Clinton as his vice president to unify the democratic party. Obama will be a stronger candidate, and a better president, if he respectfully co-opts Clinton. I'm sure he is tempted to pick a lower status person from outside Washington.

Charlie Crist, the Republican Florida governor, has said he is fine with Florida having Democratic primary. Hillary would be favored. Obviously the Republicans would rather face Hillary. I wonder where Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic Michigan governor stands on having a primary there.

I'm not sure Hillary wants to be anyone's VP. If the Dems win control of the Senate and Obama wins the Presidency, she might be able to wield more power as Senate majority leader than she would as VP. Any health care plan Obama would propose would have to have her seal of approval.

[Harlan Huckleby]

March 5, 2008,
Fla. and Mich. Governors: Give Us Our Delegates
By Sarah Wheaton

Florida’s Republican governor and Michigan’s Democratic governor have one major gripe in common: the national parties have punished both of their states by limiting delegates to the national conventions. They released a joint statement today asking for their delegates to be seated.

From Govs. Charlie Crist of Florida and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan:
The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy. This primary season, voters have turned out in record numbers to exercise that right, and it is reprehensible that anyone would seek to silence the voices of 5,163,271 Americans. It is intolerable that the national political parties have denied the citizens of Michigan and Florida their votes and voices at their respective national conventions.

Although the appeal is directed at both the Republican and Democratic National Committees, significantly more is at stake in the case of the Democrats. Both parties punished the states for holding their primaries earlier than allowed by party rules (Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29), but the G.O.P. only docked the states half of their delegates, and the race appears to have been decided without them. The D.N.C., on the other hand, stripped the states of their entire delegations, and the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state. Senator Barack Obama did not even appear on the Michigan ballot.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won both the Michigan and Florida constests, and as the race becomes a delegate-by-delegate brawl, her campaign has been working to get the delegates seated. There is growing unease with the situation in the Democratic Party, especially given Florida’s election history, and there’s even talk of a revote in those states.

“Today, we each will call upon our respective state and national party chairs to resolve this matter and to ensure that the voters of Michigan and Florida are full participants in the formal selection of their parties’ nominees,” the governors’ statement continued.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton’s Mission Not-Impossible
By David Brooks

A friend of mine observed this morning that this campaign has gone through several four-month phases. On the GOP side, there was the McCain-will-win-the-nomination phase, followed by the McCain-is-doomed phase followed by the Mac-is-back phase. On the Democratic side, the Hillary-is-invincible phase was followed by the Obama-is-magical phase.
That’s a useful way to think about the race because it reminds us that there are at least two more lifetimes to go until November. It also helps us think dynamically over the next several weeks.

We’ve entered another phase. The period of Obama-mania is ending. You can feel the press turning more negative and the Hope speech settling into middle age. Moreover, for the first time, Clinton has a moral narrative to rival Obama’s. If he’s the healer, she is the struggler. She leads a life like regular mortals. Things are tough. She has flaws, but she pushes on. She wouldn’t put it this way, but she’s like the old pickup you can depend on. She has some dents, but you and she got those dents together. And when you need her, she is there for you.

I’m far from the biggest Hillary-lover on the planet, but her resilience and courage is moving. Everybody around her was glum and backbiting through the hard times, but she kept going. This is a useful trait in a president.
Obama is still by far the likely nominee. He has a pledged delegate lead virtually locked up. But she has the ability to seize the debate over the next few weeks. She can do it in a few ways. First, she will have drawn the lesson from Texas and Ohio that attacking works. She can keep up the barrage on him.

Second, she can push for a majority of the overall vote. She’s unlikely to win that without re-votes in Florida and Michigan, so she’ll have to push for that. She’ll have to make the case that everybody’s vote should count. She should offer to split the $15 to $20 million cost of a Florida re-vote with Obama. If he says no, she can ask why he is against democracy. Why does he like the small turnout caucuses over the big turnout primaries?

Finally, she can move to Pennsylvania. It’s a long time before April 22nd. Over the next few weeks, media interest in that primary will build and build. Obama’s string of primary victories will recede into the deepest recesses of memory. Pennsylvania will begin to look like the crucial deciding state and a win there will carry climactic weight. We are used to narratives in which the climax comes at the end of the story, not the middle.

It’s a long shot. It could be Obama will decide he’s tired of being a sitting target and will produce something new. But it’s a plausible way forward for Clinton. It reinforces the notion that she should fight on. It reinforces the notion that the superdelegates should sit on their hands for a little while longer.

By historic standards, close primary contests are not settled in early March. This one could go on without doing terrible harm to the party.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think Obama will enter the convention with a small delegate lead, and he will be ahead in national popularity polls. I don't see the convention denying him the nomination. Clinton is also going to have a STRONG case that she is the best candidate. An Obama-Clinton ticket is the only happy outcome.

It will be difficult for Obama to claim he is the best candidate when he did not carry any of the major states that usually determine success in a Presidential election...NY, CA, OH, TX, FL.

It will be difficult for Clinton to claim she is the best candidate when she could not win the overall popular vote and consistently trends lower in head-to-head polling against McCain when compared to Obama.

An Obama-Clinton ticket may seem like a happy outcome, but in reality it could also turn into a disaster if the two individuals really do not like each other...and their supporters don't really get along either. Suddenly, the wave of enthusiam on the Dems side hits a wall of discontent and pointless class/race bickering.

If anything, it would be fun to watch.

You are way overreacting to the situation. It is no different than every other campaign. No different than Mccain supporters having to adopt bush after he took out Mccain. Or Reagan tapping Bush after Bush ridiculing voodoo econ.

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

It will be very easy as the economy will still be floundering, gas prices will still be high..and memories of summer prices will be nightmares...and in the fear of high heating costs for the winter, immigration policies that don't favor the repubs, and a surge that still won't have met the stated goals.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure Hillary wants to be anyone's VP. If the Dems win control of the Senate and Obama wins the Presidency, she might be able to wield more power as Senate majority leader than she would as VP. Any health care plan Obama would propose would have to have her seal of approval.

Of course she doesn't want to be a VP. But once an offer is on the table, that's a new situation. To me, the remaining drama before next fall is whether Obama will have the broad-mindedness (no pun intended) to invite Clinton into the White House.

Obama is not shoe-in in the general election, it's not clear that Clinton won't be stuck in the Senate under a Republican Adminstration. I believe, and certainly she believes, that Clinton could help make difference as VP in general. I know you have low opinion of Clinton, but I actually beleive she is civic-minded, and will be attracted to a role where she can do the most good for the country.

I think Jim Webb (Virginia?) would be an interesting VP choice for Obama. He has open/direct personality, both pro-military and anti-war, not in Washington very long. Even though he looks young, he was former Secretary of the Navy, or something at top of Pentagon at one time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Air America is bashing her over that? Ha ha...this race is far from over and the Obama people know that. It's could come down to a convention battle royal.

It is really hard to see how Clinton wins the convention battle. She would have to get close in pledge delegates, less than 50. I'm not sure that's possible. AND Obama would have to accept the VP, or it would be phyrric victory. Clinton is a very long shot.

We're in uncharted waters.

[The Leaper]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

I think you also have to factor in the race card...sure, this country has come a long ways, but racism will always exist to some extent. Some of Clinton's largest support comes from old rural whites...and those are some of the same people who are most likely to NOT vote for a black man if they have any doubt whatsoever about his character. That variable has not existed before in terms of uniting the party against a "common enemy".

McCain is in a better position...because he is moderate, and it is the more conservative wing of his party that he needs to court. Ultimately, McCain is far closer to the values of those voters than either Obama or Clinton is...so they likely will still vote for him.

Obama and Clinton already have the more liberal wing of the Dems locked up. To win the presidency, they need to court the more moderate Dems...and that is where they will have a tougher sell compared to McCain in ensuring a majority of those votes...because their weakest group will be smack inbetween McCain and the eventual Dem nominee.

[Harlan Huckleby]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

This is very true. The Republicans have accidently landed a very attractive candidate, despite their inherently evil instincts.

[The Leaper]

It is really hard to see how Clinton wins the convention battle.

I think I agree with that. It will be tough for Clinton to win.

Her greatest hope is that Obama shows weakness. I think you saw a sign on Tuesday that Obama has that capacity. His message on Tuesday was not uplifting and soaring...he got sucker punched, and you could sense it.

The prevailing logic is that Obama is the stronger candidate against McCain due to polling and his ardent support network. However, his inability to carry the crucial major states has to be a concern to the superdelegates. There is a very real possibility that Obama could lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote count...but have lost all of the major electoral treasure troves in the process. He has lost in NY, CA, TX, and OH...and the potential for him to also lose PA as well as FL and MI in a re-vote is very real.

In a presidential election, the popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing...so IMO, you can toss that out as a basis for being the stronger nominee, even though it makes sense to do so. Thanks, electoral college.

Clinton's experience and connection to Bill's presidency (where many moderate reforms were made due to the GOP sweep of Congress in 1994) allow her to be a more attractive candidate when compared to McCain. Obama is a socialist leftist...who is fortunate enough to be so eloquent that most of his supporters don't even realize that is what he is. He's for "hope" and "change"...not governmental income redistribution and protectionism. In the election, most serious Dems know that Obama's dirty little secret is going to be revealed...and he will have no way of escaping the "ultra liberal" tag, despite his eloquence.

Clinton is also relatively liberal, but she KNOWS how that is a disadvantage...and will use her husband's presidency that advanced not-so-liberal agendas (eliminating welfare, increasing free trade, etc) and her own record in Congress (where she purposefully tried to be more moderate knowing that it would serve her well in an election) to be able to distance herself from any GOP claim that she is a nut-so lefty. She's played the game, and knows how it is played. Obama is a rookie in that regard.

So, in the end, the Dems may have a situation where the better candidate TO RUN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN is actually slightly behind the better candidate TO RUN A PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. Choosing Hillary over Obama in that situation would alienate African Americans and deal a massive blow to the huge tide of voter interest and enthusiasm that Obama has brought the party. Yet, it might be the best choice if the Dems really want to win the White House in November.

It is going to be an incredibly interesting plot to watch unfold.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

By the time it is settled, all the dems will come together against the common enemy.

I agree the true diehard Dems will. The issue will be the moderates who are supporting Hillary or Obama...because McCain to them is also a respectable choice.

I think you also have to factor in the race card...sure, this country has come a long ways, but racism will always exist to some extent. Some of Clinton's largest support comes from old rural whites...and those are some of the same people who are most likely to NOT vote for a black man if they have any doubt whatsoever about his character. That variable has not existed before in terms of uniting the party against a "common enemy".

McCain is in a better position...because he is moderate, and it is the more conservative wing of his party that he needs to court. Ultimately, McCain is far closer to the values of those voters than either Obama or Clinton is...so they likely will still vote for him.

Obama and Clinton already have the more liberal wing of the Dems locked up. To win the presidency, they need to court the more moderate Dems...and that is where they will have a tougher sell compared to McCain in ensuring a majority of those votes...because their weakest group will be smack inbetween McCain and the eventual Dem nominee.

You are projecting your filter unto others. You are clearly not a dem and no matter how much you keep wishing, the repubs are in major trouble. Their own party realizes it. That is what happens when you have only two issues.

McCain is far from being closer...are you forgetting the popular vote in 2000?

Believe me, the mod dems aren't voting for McCain. Mod dems..like the rest of this country favor a pathway to citizenship for illegals, keeping abortion safe and legal, and having a plan to get outta Iraq.

By election time the economy is going to make today's economy look robust.

[The Leaper]

You are projecting your filter unto others. You are clearly not a dem and no matter how much you keep wishing, the repubs are in major trouble. Their own party realizes it. That is what happens when you have only two issues.

I would agree the GOP is in trouble. However, it is naive to assume that the Dems don't have their own potential issues brewing as well...and claiming I am projecting a "filter" onto others.

FACT: Exit polling in Ohio suggested that 20% of voters suggested RACE was important in who they voted for...and 59% of those voters selected HILLARY CLINTON, not Obama. The "Bradley" effect, where mostly elderly whites have a tough time pulling the level for a black person, remains in effect. That is something Dems have to think about if Obama is their nominee.


McCain is far from being closer...are you forgetting the popular vote in 2000?

This isn't 2000. McCain was supposed to be out of the race six months ago too. Past performance is never indicative of future results.


Believe me, the mod dems aren't voting for McCain.

I'm glad you speak for all of them...I'm sure they are very glad you are their mouthpiece.

The reality is that in most polls of DEMOCRATS, McCain is viewed favorably. I freely admit that doesn't mean the majority of them will vote for him...but to suggest none of them will is quite a leap.

My point is that McCain's problem area (ultra conservatives) are still highly likely to vote for him...they don't favorably view Obama or Clinton. A decent number (not a majority) of moderate Dems...if alienated by the potential mess that could occur in the upcoming selection process...could view McCain as a viable option. I'm not saying it is guaranteed to happen, but considering where this process COULD go, it isn't out of the question.


By election time the economy is going to make today's economy look robust.

I don't see how that hinders either side...it isn't McCain's or Obama/Clinton's mess. Hillary is the stronger Dem on the economy, and she probably won't be the one running for President.

[Joemailman]

I'm not sure Hillary wants to be anyone's VP. If the Dems win control of the Senate and Obama wins the Presidency, she might be able to wield more power as Senate majority leader than she would as VP. Any health care plan Obama would propose would have to have her seal of approval.

Of course she doesn't want to be a VP. But once an offer is on the table, that's a new situation. To me, the remaining drama before next fall is whether Obama will have the broad-mindedness (no pun intended) to invite Clinton into the White House.

Obama is not shoe-in in the general election, it's not clear that Clinton won't be stuck in the Senate under a Republican Adminstration. I believe, and certainly she believes, that Clinton could help make difference as VP in general. I know you have low opinion of Clinton, but I actually beleive she is civic-minded, and will be attracted to a role where she can do the most good for the country.

I think Jim Webb (Virginia?) would be an interesting VP choice for Obama. He has open/direct personality, both pro-military and anti-war, not in Washington very long. Even though he looks young, he was former Secretary of the Navy, or something at top of Pentagon at one time.

I think you underestimate the power of the Senate majority leader. Any major legislation that President McCain or Obama want to get through would have to go through her. I realize that it doesn't work that way now, but that is because Harry Reid is a weak leader. She would be much stronger. AS VP, she would have only as much power as Obama wants to give her.

I agree with you about Jim Webb. He would be an outstanding VP choice no matter who wins the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you underestimate the power of the Senate majority leader.

Oh, OK, guess I missed your suggestion on this. Ya, that is a big job, although not necessarily hers for the taking. I guess that position is comparable to a very empowered VP.

the dem convention is very late in the game, little time to mend fences. This is a unique situation, we got two candidates with deep support, two firsts, there never has been anything this dramatic and emotional. They both must be on the ticket.

[digitaldean]

This is election is gift wrapped for the Democrats.

The economy is faltering, the dollar is a joke, and the fuel prices will be even worse this summer.

If they have a 1968 moment at the convention and they botch this election, they only have themselves to blame.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The HUGE fight over Florida & Michigan gets more interesting every day. It seems like the only acceptable solution is to have a revote, yet there is no way to pay for it. I had no idea that a big state primary costs $15M - times two means a $30M conundrum.

The Republicans had a brilliant solution to the problem of states breaking party rules: penalize a misbehaving state half of its delegates. This is a sufficient incentive for states to tow the line, yet the primary goes forward and collects a legitimate vote.

Howard Dean may have been justified in severely penalizing MI & FL, but when you look at the consequences of 8 million excluded voters and the loss of $30M of irreplacable public funding, Dean should be taken to the public square and flogged. Or worse.

The Democratic candidates are raising money easily, but the party itself is doing badly compared to Republicans. They can't afford to pay for new primaries. Dean tells the state governments he’ll accept anything the states come up with, but they have to pay for it themselves. Not gonna happen.

In the end, the voters are going to get screwed. And maybe Clinton will get screwed too, we’ll see. The compromise is going to be some screwy deal that doesn’t involve a full revote. Ugly. The various higher ups (Howard Dean, Governor of Florida, Dem party of MI, etc., etc.) who mucked this up all talk about a fair resolution, but none will step forward and concede they made a mistake.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is election is gift wrapped for the Democrats.

The economy is faltering, the dollar is a joke, and the fuel prices will be even worse this summer.

If they have a 1968 moment at the convention and they botch this election, they only have themselves to blame.

I agree with your analysis, Digital, except how do you deal with the problem of two extremely popular candidates? Assasinate one of them?

[swede]

eeny meeny miny moe

[The Leaper]

I agree with your analysis, Digital, except how do you deal with the problem of two extremely popular candidates? Assasinate one of them?

The problem isn't two popular candidates.

The problem is the system that allows two popular candidates to basically duel to a draw no matter what...then gives 750 some people, selected who-knows-how, the ultimate decision in the matter. Some of them are 17 year old pimply geeks who CAN'T EVEN VOTE IN THE DAMN ELECTION!!!

The process to nominate a Democratic presidential candidate is fucked up. For all the whining about the electoral college, what the Dems have to pick a nominee is 100 times worse at this point. That is why the Dems are in trouble...their process is probably going to leave a lot of voters scratching their heads and disenfranchised no matter how it winds up.

It has nothing to do with the candidates.

[The Leaper]

In the end, the voters are going to get screwed. And maybe Clinton will get screwed too, we’ll see. The compromise is going to be some screwy deal that doesn’t involve a full revote. Ugly. The various higher ups (Howard Dean, Governor of Florida, Dem party of MI, etc., etc.) who mucked this up all talk about a fair resolution, but none will step forward and concede they made a mistake.

To some extent it isn't ENTIRELY their mistake. The system that basically splits the delegates in a state even if one person wins the popular vote by a 59-41 margin is ridiculous...and that was put into place a long time ago.

The superdelegate structure isn't their mistake either.

Their mistake is allowing a state to hold a meaningless primary...which obviously is a huge boo-boo. However, if the other factors weren't also in place, they probably could have gotten away with it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh, the FL-MI situation is somebody's fault, most notably Howard Dean. The Republicans found a wise compromise, it was his job to find one for the Dems. Thinking you could ruin the primaries of two big states and trust that things would just wash-out in the end was unforgivably stupid. I know he had a lot of co-conspirators, but he was guy at top.

This is a fascinating conflict, there are 4 parties to the dispute, the two campaigns, the DNC, and the states. Each party has taken a position that totally screws other parties and causes no pain to themselves. :lol:

Clinton camp: count the votes! (even though elections were bogus. :lol: )
Obama: split delegates 50-50! (to hell with the voters, they favor Clinton )
Dean/DNC - revote paid for by states.
States - count the old vote, or revote paid by DNC. (The states caused the problem by boldly breaking rules, now they accept no consequences. :lol: )

What fun to be Governor Crist of Florida! I expect he will be the Republican VP next fall. He covers his ass with the locals by saying he wants the old vote to count (a ridiculously unfair, party-destroyer for the Dems), or else the DNC should pay entirley for the revote (a financial killer for Dems.) And he is the guy who pushed the early voting! :lol: He's living the dream!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The process to nominate a Democratic presidential candidate is fucked up. For all the whining about the electoral college, what the Dems have to pick a nominee is 100 times worse at this point. That is why the Dems are in trouble...their process is probably going to leave a lot of voters scratching their heads and disenfranchised no matter how it winds up.

ya, I agree.


It has nothing to do with the candidates.

You went too far here. Most elections the Dems come up with some guy that the faithful just go along with. This year, there are two historic candidates that people are willing to riot in the streets over. The passion for these candidates, and the fact that their support is split right down the middle, has magnified the process deficiencies a thousand times.

[Scott Campbell]

And these are essentially the same incompetent boobs you want to authorize to steal money, skim their beaurocratic cut off the top, and then hand out what's left over out to people who are supposedly more worthy to spend it than the people who earned it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

they may be crooks, but they're our crooks.

[The Leaper]

This year, there are two historic candidates that people are willing to riot in the streets over. The passion for these candidates, and the fact that their support is split right down the middle, has magnified the process deficiencies a thousand times.

That's not a bad thing though Huck...that's my point. How can you possibly suggest that we should always have ONE real candidate and no real choice in every election?

It is GOOD to have a real choice for a change. The problem isn't the candidates...we should ALWAYS have multiple good choices to choose from on BOTH sides.

The problem is that the system is incapable of determining a clear winner between the candidates...not that we have too many candidates to choose from or too many valid candidates that energize the voting base.