Wisconsin Primary

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Actually, they are happy to have me as their mouthpeace. ;)

Race: Of course it is an issue, but if Obama gets the nod..the young voters are going to negate that.

Also, if we are going to talk race...the brown ones are leaving the repubs in droves.

Economy: I'm sorry you dont' understand the basics of politics, but the admin with the bad econ always gets blamed. Bush is repub, McCain is repub...simple campaigning is do you want more of this bad policy. Pretty standard stuff. Most americans buy that train of thought..they aren't economist. Clinton easily exploited that with Bush.

Closer: I think you missed the point. You said he was closer to american values. I used 2000 to illustrate that repub values aren't closer. McCain is a repub and every day that he goes to the right to court the far right he drifts further from the mainstream.

The mainstream favors keep pro choice, the mainstream favors some sort of exit strategy, the mainsteam favors a pathway to citizenship for illegals.

Mod Dems: To much media about the selection process. Mod dems aren't going to be alienated enough to vote for McCain. Not a chance. You are looking at it the wrong way. The mods and most dems are in a great position..they had a great candidate in HC (their view) and now have another great candidate. It is like having Favre and Aikman on the same team. Sure, it causes a QB controversy, but once you trade one..you rally behind the one you kept.

Sure there will be a smattering of those who think the decision was bad, but they still will be GB fans. Unless they are loons like Merlin who are pining for Craig Nall, ie, Kucinich. :)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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!

You really think the repubs wanna open that door?

Single male, married for SEVEN months...no children.

In the words of bobby z..you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[The Leaper]

Economy: I'm sorry you dont' understand the basics of politics, but the admin with the bad econ always gets blamed. Bush is repub, McCain is repub...simple campaigning is do you want more of this bad policy. Pretty standard stuff. Most americans buy that train of thought..they aren't economist. Clinton easily exploited that with Bush.

I don't necessarily agree. Yeah, I will admit that people usually do hold the guys in office accountable...but our current economic woes aren't really the fault of the White House per say, and most everyone knows that. The credit crunch resulting from the housing mess has nothing to do with White House policy...and all this harping on how NAFTA is killing us? That was on Bill Clinton's watch...and I'm not on the NAFTA is the death of us bandwagon anyway.

Your point relating to Bush Sr. and Clinton is pointless...Bush Sr was an incumbent president running on his own record, and he lied. McCain isn't running on the Bush Jr. record, and he hasn't lied. Americans might be dumb, but they are smart enough to recognize the difference there.

[Scott Campbell]

I think the Republicans are huge underdogs in this presidential election. If the Dems can't win this one after Bush Jr., I don't know when they'll ever win one.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Economy: I'm sorry you dont' understand the basics of politics, but the admin with the bad econ always gets blamed. Bush is repub, McCain is repub...simple campaigning is do you want more of this bad policy. Pretty standard stuff. Most americans buy that train of thought..they aren't economist. Clinton easily exploited that with Bush.

I don't necessarily agree. Yeah, I will admit that people usually do hold the guys in office accountable...but our current economic woes aren't really the fault of the White House per say, and most everyone knows that. The credit crunch resulting from the housing mess has nothing to do with White House policy...and all this harping on how NAFTA is killing us? That was on Bill Clinton's watch...and I'm not on the NAFTA is the death of us bandwagon anyway.

Your point relating to Bush Sr. and Clinton is pointless...Bush Sr was an incumbent president running on his own record, and he lied. McCain isn't running on the Bush Jr. record, and he hasn't lied. Americans might be dumb, but they are smart enough to recognize the difference there.

Well, i disagree. Voters aren't just voting for a candidate..they are voting by party. The swing voters are going to look and say, "we gave these guys a chance...its the dems turn now."

And the point isn't pointless. The point was about campaign strategy. And, if you don't think that a barrage of ads and on point messages won't work, well, i think you are being naive.

As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Or an econ prof.
http://hnn.us/articles/41985.html


And, he has been slow to address the problem. Either way, it ain't gonna look good for conservatives.

Bush, touted his administration's goal as creating an "ownership society," may now go down in history as the president on whose watch ownership declined. The nation's homeownership rate has fallen during the last two years and will plummet further next year. Moreover, Bush's unwillingness to take bold steps to regulate lenders, brokers, and investors will guarantee that the next president will inherit a much bigger mortgage mess.

[Freak Out]

Moreover, Bush's unwillingness to take bold steps to regulate lenders, brokers, and investors will guarantee that the next president will inherit a much bigger mortgage mess.

Congress pushed Greenspan before things really got out of hand to do just that....and he basically told them to fuck themselves and that the market would regulate itself. There will be blood.....

[Freak Out]

As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns


I had never seen the Spitzer piece but had read numerous stories about the pressure the States had been putting on the Feds.....there was a pretty concerted effort in Alaska to pressure our 3 members of Congress to work towards that end even though the situation here is not very bad at all. Another reason why he should be be......ah forget it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.


And then there was Mrs. Clinton on “60 Minutes,” being interviewed by Steve Kroft. He had shown a clip on the program of a voter in Ohio who said that he’d heard that Senator Obama didn’t know the national anthem, “wouldn’t use the Holy Bible,” and was a Muslim.

Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

As far as I know.

The "progressives" won't let this story go. It was a big nothing, and Hebert calls it "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date."

The personal assault on Clinton by Obama's supporters in the media has been relentless. They always start by saying how dirty Clinton in, and then this justifies their own dirty attack that follows.

I have to disagree with Tyrone's take that the Dems will come together next fall as usual. I see that as increasingly unlikely, and it's a LONG way to August. There is plenty of precedent for the Democratic party fracturing and losing, Mark Shields pointed out 1968 where Humphrey was roasted by the left, and in 1980 where Carter & Ted Kennedy had a bitter primary.

[MJZiggy]

I think the Republicans are huge underdogs in this presidential election. If the Dems can't win this one after Bush Jr., I don't know when they'll ever win one.

You make a good point. The frightening thing is that somehow he got reelected...

[Harlan Huckleby]

The drumbeat continues, day 8. Nicholas Kristof of NY Times in today's column:

When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly — but then added, most unfortunately, “as far as I know.” To his credit, Mr. McCain scolded a radio host who repeatedly referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” and later called him a Manchurian candidate.

Kristoff neglects to mention that Clinton went on to again repudiate the muslim rumors AFTER the "as far as I know" coment.

Does any sane person think Clinton's comment has feed the Hussein Obama rumor mill? Its ridiculous to imagine this was her intention. It would have gone unnoticed if a thousand zealous Clinton antagonists hadn't latched on to it and spun it darkly.

[Joemailman]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-foster-wins-hasterts-seat-080308,0,7539185.story


Democrat Foster wins Hastert's seat

In a stunning upset Saturday that could be a harbinger of trouble for the GOP this fall, a little-known Democratic physicist won the special election for a seat drawn to re-elect former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis, who lost his fourth high-profile election in six years, following an expensive and highly negative contest.

The win gives Democrats another House seat until at least the end of the year. It also could serve as an omen for November, when two other Illinois congressional seats are up for grabs following Republican retirements and Sen. Barack Obama could bring out a huge turnout if he's the Democratic presidential nominee.

This is a shocker. I lived in this district until I moved to Wausau in 1996, and the only time I remember a Democrat winning was right after Watergate. It could mean a lot of normally safe Republican seats will be up for grabs this year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

who gives a shit. I want to read about people calling each other nasty names.

[The Leaper]

Well, i disagree. Voters aren't just voting for a candidate..they are voting by party.

Maybe the dumbasses you know vote by party line...but I think that is a massive generalization on your part for which you can provide not one shred of evidence to back up.

Sure, if things aren't going well, it is never good for incumbents. It also stands to reason the incumbent's party will suffer as well to some extent.

However, to claim people just vote by party line based on how well things are going? Huge stretch IMO.


And the point isn't pointless. The point was about campaign strategy. And, if you don't think that a barrage of ads and on point messages won't work, well, i think you are being naive.

Yep...it worked HORRIBLE for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Negative campaigning isn't looked upon highly...however, bringing up VALID points of contention is fair and logical in a political contest. McCain is not likely to resort to negative campaigning...painting Obama as a liberal due to his voting record and questioning some of his odd/bad choices in relationships is not negative campaigning. Those are facts or questions that demand answering. Claiming Obama is a Muslim, or that you aren't completely sure whether or not he is or isn't Muslim, is negative campaigning...and is the kind of useless crap that people get tired of.

McCain will be smart to paint himself as the more logical choice to represent bringing the country together. He's moderate...closer to the middle of the aisle than most in Washington who are nothing but party whores. Showing your opponent as a party whore...when the facts back it up...is appropriate.


As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:

I could care less what Spitzer has to say...he's too busy screwing prostitutes and destroying whatever shred of credibility he has left.

I also seem to forget Bush coming out and telling lenders to plunge their standards...or perhaps I just recognize that GREED, not Bush, was responsible for predatory lending practices.

This election is not about Bush...he's gone, and I think just about everyone is thankful for that. McCain has never been close to Bush, nor was he a part of his administration...and as such I think most voters will consider him based on his views and thoughts for what he would like to accomplish, not where we are currently because of Bush. This is the first time in 50+ years that we don't have an incumbent president or vice-president running for office. That is noteworthy...and the American public recognizes that.

So if Bush is responsible for the housing crash, then I guess Clinton is to blame for Enron and the other corporate scandals that hit just after he left office?

Personally, I don't hold either accountable for the actions of those in the corporate world who knew better. Is the president responsible for every crime committed on his watch? Of course not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, i disagree. Voters aren't just voting for a candidate..they are voting by party.

Maybe the dumbasses you know vote by party line...but I think that is a massive generalization on your part for which you can provide not one shred of evidence to back up.

Sure, if things aren't going well, it is never good for incumbents. It also stands to reason the incumbent's party will suffer as well to some extent.

However, to claim people just vote by party line based on how well things are going? Huge stretch IMO.


And the point isn't pointless. The point was about campaign strategy. And, if you don't think that a barrage of ads and on point messages won't work, well, i think you are being naive.

Yep...it worked HORRIBLE for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Negative campaigning isn't looked upon highly...however, bringing up VALID points of contention is fair and logical in a political contest. McCain is not likely to resort to negative campaigning...painting Obama as a liberal due to his voting record and questioning some of his odd/bad choices in relationships is not negative campaigning. Those are facts or questions that demand answering. Claiming Obama is a Muslim, or that you aren't completely sure whether or not he is or isn't Muslim, is negative campaigning...and is the kind of useless crap that people get tired of.

McCain will be smart to paint himself as the more logical choice to represent bringing the country together. He's moderate...closer to the middle of the aisle than most in Washington who are nothing but party whores. Showing your opponent as a party whore...when the facts back it up...is appropriate.


As for the current housing mess...are you kidding? He encouraged all manner of other preditory lending practices as well.

Read what Elliot Spitzer has to say:

I could care less what Spitzer has to say...he's too busy screwing prostitutes and destroying whatever shred of credibility he has left.

I also seem to forget Bush coming out and telling lenders to plunge their standards...or perhaps I just recognize that GREED, not Bush, was responsible for predatory lending practices.

This election is not about Bush...he's gone, and I think just about everyone is thankful for that. McCain has never been close to Bush, nor was he a part of his administration...and as such I think most voters will consider him based on his views and thoughts for what he would like to accomplish, not where we are currently because of Bush. This is the first time in 50+ years that we don't have an incumbent president or vice-president running for office. That is noteworthy...and the American public recognizes that.

So if Bush is responsible for the housing crash, then I guess Clinton is to blame for Enron and the other corporate scandals that hit just after he left office?

Personally, I don't hold either accountable for the actions of those in the corporate world who knew better. Is the president responsible for every crime committed on his watch? Of course not.

Dude, what planet are you on. Most voters are by party. that is why we call the others swing votes, etc. Very few people cross party lines.

I guess the term registered repub or dem means nothing to you..or all this campaigning. Sigh.

Approx say that party matters to them, while 1/3 say it doesn't. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that those who care VOTE at a higher percentage.

Roughly 73% of people indentify themselves as either R or D.

Campaing ads: Huh? They worked great for Bush. You don't think the Swift boat ads didnt' work? You don't think Willie Horton didn't work? I guess the concept and efficacy of advertising is beyond you.

Whether is is looked upon favorably or not is not relevant. The only relevance is that they work. And, you make a stupid conclusion..the ads don't have to come from the candidate..they have others do their dirty work.

McCain as moderate...great. Except everything he is doing now goes against that image...kowtowing the far right...illegals..sorry but the american public favors a pathway to citizenship..and mccain was for that now he isn't, new found opposition to the roe v. wade, war, sudden change of heart regarding the RR..falwell was an "agent of intolerance," now he hired his debate coach, McCain against bush tax cuts..now with bush on them, reconciles with Norquist, was against torture..now not so much, was anti ethanol..now for it, can't even keep track of his thougts on the confed flag,

If he doesn't court them he loses in a landslide. Who's zooming who?

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

Spitzer: Right, throw the baby out with the bathwater. What was the problem with the economist? If we disregard everyone based on their sexual peccadilloes their would be few to listen to, if any at all.

Enron: Right. Sorry, but i don't remember any closed door meetings with Bill about energy policy. BTW, i dont' think you'll ever find a dem that isnt for more corporate governance...less is squarely on the repub side.

Enron was caused, if we wanna examine the roots by...deregulation..oops, leaper..who was in favor of that.

Government regulations and rules need to be updated for the new economy, not relaxed and eliminated. Guess which side the repubs fall on?

[The Leaper]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

His voting record suggests otherwise...unless you think towing the Dem line 99% of the time is the middle of the country.

I'm not hobnobbing with known domestic terrorists that plotted to blow up government buildings, nor would I ever consider doing so. I'm not dealing with sleazy criminals to obtain a million dollar mansion either. My wife and family are quite proud of America, despite its flaws. I wouldn't THINK of saying "this is the first time I am proud of my country"...and if I did say it, I would IMMEDIATELY correct it.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle. McCain doesn't really represent the middle either, but he is closer to the middle than either Obama or Clinton based on his record. Sure, he has to court the right-wing if he is going to win the election...that is called politics, Ty. How many politicians actually do what they say they will?

[swede]

I think the Republicans are huge underdogs in this presidential election. If the Dems can't win this one after Bush Jr., I don't know when they'll ever win one.

You make a good point. The frightening thing is that somehow he got reelected...

That's what'll happen when you put up John Kerry as your candidate for POTUS.

Better the fool you know.

[swede]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle.

Since by all rational measures Obama is a fully inspected and certified Grade A liberal I think what Tyrone means is that Obama is closer to fooling the middle that he's in the middle than McCain is to demonstrating to the middle that he's in the middle.

And I think he's right.

One doesn't have to imagine a more poorly prepared candidate because the peanut farmer from Georgia--the modern standard for shitty presidents--had far better credentials than Obama. Obama has nothing to offer but ambition and hate dressed in fuzzy feel-good platitudes.

Lord help me--even Hillary would be a better President.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Obama is hardly middle. Look up the first things he's said he'd push if elected President.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama is much closer to the middle of this country.

His voting record suggests otherwise...unless you think towing the Dem line 99% of the time is the middle of the country.

I'm not hobnobbing with known domestic terrorists that plotted to blow up government buildings, nor would I ever consider doing so. I'm not dealing with sleazy criminals to obtain a million dollar mansion either. My wife and family are quite proud of America, despite its flaws. I wouldn't THINK of saying "this is the first time I am proud of my country"...and if I did say it, I would IMMEDIATELY correct it.

Sorry, but Obama is hardly representative of the middle. McCain doesn't really represent the middle either, but he is closer to the middle than either Obama or Clinton based on his record. Sure, he has to court the right-wing if he is going to win the election...that is called politics, Ty. How many politicians actually do what they say they will?

Congress.org lists both as centrists. And pretty close to each other.

You can argue till you're blue the face but america favors pro choice, pathway to citizenship, isn't in favor of "bomb, bomb, bomb, iraq," etc.

Are you really going to talk about sleazy friends? Hello Keating 5!

As for what YOU would say...you have conflated the argument. That would be what you wife woud do. Who cares what she did? She isn't going to be the president..and she has fully explained what she meant. Should I view Bush better because Laura appears to be a fine woman? No, Bush stands on his record.

Domestic terrorist..you mean in Egypt..because you sentence is misleading.

But, let's take you example and run with it. McCain is being endorsed by Southern Baptists. The vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention who publicly endorsed the assasination of a doctor by a member of an underground terror organization is a McCain supporter. So, i guess McCain is associated with domestic terrorism...in THE GOOD OL' US of A.

What about a candidate that admits he "went after" an endorsement from a "man" who spews both hate and bigotry? John McCain did exactly that. And his reward? An endorsement from one of the most warped and twisted religious figures around: John Hagee. We all know him for the horrific statements that fly out of mouth but apparently not McCain or his BFF Joe Lieberman, who actually compared Hagee to Moses! A pastor who condemns women and blacks, who says New Orleans suffered Katrina because of their sins and wants the US to start a war with Iran - to bring about the subsequent return of Jesus Christ compares to Mosses? God help us all.

How about some of Hagee's greatest?

Catholic church
Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." From his book, Jerusalem Countdown

Women aka bitches
The feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." He also shows his lack of respect for us women in these "jokes" in his very own book, What every man wants in a women. Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." And don't forget in his wife's (2nd wife) part of the book where she says women should submit to their husbands even if they feel strongly that it's wrong!

Blacks..aka, those uppity negroes
In Hagees' church bulletin "The Cluster" there was a fund raiser for their high school seniors. No bake sale here they held a "slave sale" It was announced that 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and told the church members to "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."

Islam
When Terry Gross (Fresh Air host) asked if "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."

McCain on Hagee
Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."

Why doesn't McCain tell us exactly what he doesn't endorse? And, while he is at it, why don't you tell us why you went after this vile, hatefult bigot's endorseement?

Do what they say? So, you are basically saying that Mccain is lying to us? But, then, what makes you feel that standard shouldn't be applied to Obama?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have been hearing from Obama supporters that there is no way that they would accept Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket in either position. Nancy Pelosi has stated that a combined ticket is an impossibility because of Hillary's dirty tactics (an oddly divisive comment from the Speaker of the House.) The Obama supporters are treating her pronouncement as definitive.

Obama has stated many times that he is confident that he can capture Hillary's supporters, but the reverse is not necessarilly true. I think the Obama camp greatly misunderstands the landscape, a great number of Clinton voters are politically moderate and will find McCain palatable.

I am personally in a state of turmoil. I am so turned-off by the dishonest propaganda of Obama supporters. And I do not think Obama is ready to be president, we should be choosing from people who have a longer track record. I like John McCain. I'm readying my "Democrats for McCain" bumper stickers and buttons.

But can I REALLY vote for a Republican!? Damn, I'd rather go on a two-week fishing trip with Scott Campbell.

Apologies for baring my tortured soul. Thank you for your support in these trying times.

[BallHawk]

Perhaps one could base their vote off who McCain picks as the nominee? McCain's odds at croaking in his first term are 50%, so if he picks somebody like Charlie Crist.....

[Harlan Huckleby]

Perhaps one could base their vote off who McCain picks as the nominee? McCain's odds at croaking in his first term are 50%, so if he picks somebody like Charlie Crist.....

My brief exposure to Crist has been unimpressive - guy seems like a real worm.

Randy Rhodes on Air America claims that Hillary is cutting Obama down to size so that McCain will win presidency, and Hillary can run again before she is old and shriveled.

I will hate whoever McCain picks because I hate all republicans. (only kidding, sort of, but there aren't that many who would be acceptable to me. )

[Joemailman]

Ranting Randy loses it a bit at times, but I think she's right about this one. If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

I don't know what McCain will do for a running mate. Picking Romney would shore up some of his problems with conservatives, but most people think McCain stand stand Romney. Picking a woman would be a bold move, and might draw a lot of moderate women who are mad Hillary didn't get the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

It's possible, at least if she feels anything like I do! :lol:

I'm really down on Obama. Not on the man, but his campaign. He might make a good president, I can't claim a crystal ball.

It's a long shot that Hillary would be able to get nomination & presidency in a future race.

Rush Limbaugh thinks that Hillary will want VP so she can assasinate Obama, send him to join Vince Foster in heaven. You might think Rush is joking.

Barack would be wise to risk assasination and work with Hillary as his VP. Short of that, I think Barack should do what's best for the Democratic Party and (by extension) America and drop out of the race. :lol:

[Joemailman]

If Hillary can't get the nomination, the last thing she wants is for Obama to win.

Barack would be wise to risk assasination and work with Hillary as his VP.

I'd be ok with that, as long as he calls her at 3 A.M. to offer her the position. :butt:

[Harlan Huckleby]

God, I love the smell of dirty politics in the morning!!

Michigan Dems are trying to move ahead with a full primary in June.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080315/NEWS07/803150317
It requires legislative action, the bill is written and will be voted on this week. Hillary is agreeable. The Obama side, who have spoken of accepting any fair resolution, won't make a statement, they need to "study the proposal further." :lol:

The likely nominee of the democratic party won't endorse a vote to determine MI's fate. Obviously BHO is delaying and praying for the legislature to drop the ball and take the heat. Too rich. :lol:

[sooner6600]

H.H.;

Are you sure that Rush Limbaugh said that Hilary would Fosterize the big O?

Sounds Clintonistic; maybe you picked it up on Air America or some
National Public Radio Station?

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

Here in Oklahoma we have an NPR station. The only time I listen is when
the folks from Lake Woebegone are on.

- - - - - - - - - --

Remember; don't be insane vote McCain.

[Joemailman]

Remember; don't be insane vote McCain.

Don't embarrass your Momma, vote Obama. :P

We'll let Harlan some up with a bad rhyme for Hillary.

[Harlan Huckleby]

dirty tricks - we got um.
to the top with Rodham!

[Joemailman]

If Hillary finds out you've crossed her
You'll end up like Vince Foster.

[BallHawk]

Hussein's a liar, it's he you should ditch
Hilary '08- Vote for the Bitch!

[Freak Out]

Now we got something here.

[digitaldean]

I find it terribly humorous the dilemma the Democrats find themselves in.

First they set the rules if MI and FL went ahead of their regular primary date. If they did their delegates didn't count. Both candidates agreed to the DNC's ruliing. Now that Billary is behind the rules are good enough to change?

On top of that, the DNC thinks it's OK to have the people vote and not have their voices recognized. If the RNC (which is no group of choirboys) tried this the howls of injustice would be even louder.

Absolutely none of the candidates remaining is remotely palatable to me. I will not stay home, but I will be picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Where's Pat Paulson when you need him????

[Harlan Huckleby]

First they set the rules if MI and FL went ahead of their regular primary date. If they did their delegates didn't count. Both candidates agreed to the DNC's ruliing. Now that Billary is behind the rules are good enough to change?

It's inaccurate to say that the rules are being changed. It's completely within the rules for the states to hold new primaries and caucuses in June if their votes were invalidated earlier on.

The Clintonites are not misbehaving (other than their hollow talk about counting the voided earlier votes.) What's going on is a strained attempt to renegotiate a process in midstream. It does smack of illegitimacy, but the various parties really have no choice. They can't just ignore FL & MI, they have to correct the mistake of the original plan, stay within the rules, and appease all sides to the conflict. Miserable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

On top of that, the DNC thinks it's OK to have the people vote and not have their voices recognized. If the RNC (which is no group of choirboys) tried this the howls of injustice would be even louder.

I do agree that the Democrats have thoroughly disgraced themselves. This is worse than the federal government's performance in Katrina.

[Joemailman]

First they set the rules if MI and FL went ahead of their regular primary date. If they did their delegates didn't count. Both candidates agreed to the DNC's ruliing. Now that Billary is behind the rules are good enough to change?

It's inaccurate to say that the rules are being changed. It's completely within the rules for the states to hold new primaries and caucuses in June if their votes were invalidated earlier on.

The Clintonites are not misbehaving (other than their hollow talk about counting the voided earlier votes.) What's going on is a strained attempt to renegotiate a process in midstream. It does smack of illegitimacy, but the various parties really have no choice. They can't just ignore FL & MI, they have to correct the mistake of the original plan, stay within the rules, and appease all sides to the conflict. Miserable.

I don't think Michigan will be much of a problem. Obama will likely agree to the plan on the table, especially since he has enough of a delegate lead to absorb a moderate loss. Florida doesn't seem to know what they want to do, although I suspect a primary will be held there too.



On top of that, the DNC thinks it's OK to have the people vote and not have their voices recognized. If the RNC (which is no group of choirboys) tried this the howls of injustice would be even louder.

I do agree that the Democrats have thoroughly disgraced themselves. This is worse than the federal government's performance in Katrina.

I suspect there are thousands of current and fprmer New Orleans residents who might disagree with that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think Michigan will be much of a problem. Obama will likely agree to the plan on the table, especially since he has enough of a delegate lead to absorb a moderate loss. Florida doesn't seem to know what they want to do, although I suspect a primary will be held there too.

I think the candidates are still fighting tooth and nail. There is perhaps a 10 delegate swing at stake in MI, and more importantly, an opportunity for momentum if a contest is held. Obama is maneuvering to get the revote killed in Michigan, otherwise he would help the process along by saying he agrees in principle with a revote. The Michigan legislature is waiting to hear this. The revote could EASILY die in a stalled negotiation this week, over money, or eligibility, it is far from a done deal.

Obama desperately doesn't want more primaries in June! He wants to wrap-it-up before then.



I do agree that the Democrats have thoroughly disgraced themselves. This is worse than the federal government's performance in Katrina.

I suspect there are thousands of current and fprmer New Orleans residents who might disagree with that.

Ya, the consequences are different. Honestly, I think the Dems have been exceptionally incompetent. The trainwreck was predictable a long time ago. The REpublicans had far better foresight.

[BallHawk]

The Dems have been incompetent, but it is the Republicans' fault that there is a mess in Florida.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Dems have been incompetent, but it is the Republicans' fault that there is a mess in Florida.

ya, sort-of true.

The worst villian is Howard Dean (and the people who authorized him) for imposing such draconian punishments. DEan left the party vulnerable to mischief from the Florida Republicans. Dean's ego got in the way, he could have devised a more sensible compromise, something like what the Republicans did. He behaved like Joe Stalin, enforcing mass punishment on people who had nothing to do with a procedural fight.

[BallHawk]

Howard Dean really comes across as an ass in interviews.

[Joemailman]

The Dems have been incompetent, but it is the Republicans' fault that there is a mess in Florida.

ya, sort-of true.

The worst villian is Howard Dean (and the people who authorized him) for imposing such draconian punishments. DEan left the party vulnerable to mischief from the Florida Republicans. Dean's ego got in the way, he could have devised a more sensible compromise, something like what the Republicans did. He behaved like Joe Stalin, enforcing mass punishment on people who had nothing to do with a procedural fight.

Agreed. When I first heard that Florida and Michigan were to be stripped of their delegates, my immediate reaction was that I couldn't believe that Dean would let it come to that. But he did.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Listened to Bill Bradley, one of BHO's leading surrogates, on the Sunday news shows for people who don't go to church. He said that a revote would violate the spirit of the earlier agreement that MI & FL should not count, and splitting the delegates 50-50 is the only fair way.

Oh, and he also denounced Hillary for her saying "Obama is a Muslim as far as I know." I'm not making this up. :lol:

I thought the Clintonites were the undemocratic dirty birds.

Several MI legislators are quoted as saying they aren't going to approve a revote unless both candidates are onboard. I'll be very surprised if Obama allows a MI revote. That would likely spur a FL revote too. Obama is damaged FAR more by June revotes in two major states than he would be by some spinnable mudslinging over "who disenfranchised the voters." No revote means the Clinton nomination goes from remote to dead.

[BallHawk]

But, Harlan, you heard what Nita, the Clinton Supporter, was spewing out of her mouth. Both spew their bullshit in equal volume.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But, Harlan, you heard what Nita, the Clinton Supporter, was spewing out of her mouth. Both spew their bullshit in equal volume.

I thought that lady was a nothing, a toothless tiger. I'd be interested in what points you heard that she scored against Obama. Did she mentioned his pink penis, validating the gay tryst accusation?

She went along with equating Geraldine Ferraro with Jeremiah "the Bullfrog" Wright - "lets just move on." Dopey. She didn't challenge Bradley's line about Hillary tarring Hussein. But forget the mudslinging, she wasn't even any good as a positive advocate. Hillary needs to forget her old friends and get some of her new friends on TV, like Rush Limbaugh. :lol:

BTW, I heard that a deal is being brokered in Florida to give Hillary some delegates and make the problem go away. I doubt she will go for that, hell, even if they agreed to fully count the January vote it doesn't help her enough. Clinton needs both MI & FL primaries in June to gain momentun prior to the convention. (Obama won't let it happen.)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kristol was a big Obama promoter up until the moment that Obama became the likely nominee.

Generation Obama? Perhaps Not.
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: March 17, 2008

Sunday evening, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner held a “Generation Obama” fund-raiser at Boston’s Rumor Nightclub. In case you’re not up on the Boston club scene, I should tell you that Rumor “brings together the sexiest and hippest people from around the globe” and “has raised the bar in Boston’s night life” (if Rumor may say so itself). Presumably, Ben and Jennifer raised the bar a notch further on Sunday.

Which is fine. Obama supporters are allowed to have fun. And celebrities are entitled to headline fund-raisers. But one has the sense that elsewhere in this great land the bloom is coming off the Obama rose.

For one thing, it’s becoming clear that Obama has been less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. For example, Obama claimed Friday that “the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity.”

It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, not God bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

This doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Wright’s thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives. Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church. Obama’s behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted “present” in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.

The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.

Which brings us back to the “Generation Obama” event. If you go to the Obama campaign Web site and click on “people,” you’ll see 14 categories of people you can choose to hook up with — women, labor, people of faith ... and “Generation Obama.”

What is Generation Obama? It’s a “grass-roots movement led by young activists with a simple goal: electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States of America,” the Web site says, adding that “you and other members can utilize the many talents of our country’s next great generation in support of the campaign in a variety of meaningful ways.”

So in fact, “Generation Obama” is just a fancy name for young activists for Obama. But the (remarkable) conceit is this: The “next great generation” of Americans can appropriately be called “Generation Obama.”

Now I’m actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation. Many of its members seem more serious and impressive than we baby boomers were when our elders were foolishly praising us, 40 years ago, as the best-educated, most idealistic generation ever. Many of the best of this young generation are serving their country — either in the military or otherwise. Some are in politics, working for various causes, liberal and conservative, and for various candidates, Democrats and Republicans. But surely there’s something creepy about a campaign claiming them as “Generation Obama.”

With no particular dog in the Democratic fight, many conservatives have tended to think it would be good for the country if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, freeing us from the dreary prospect of the return of the House of Clinton. Now I wonder. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama?

[digitaldean]

The Dems have been incompetent, but it is the Republicans' fault that there is a mess in Florida.

ya, sort-of true.

The worst villian is Howard Dean (and the people who authorized him) for imposing such draconian punishments. DEan left the party vulnerable to mischief from the Florida Republicans. Dean's ego got in the way, he could have devised a more sensible compromise, something like what the Republicans did. He behaved like Joe Stalin, enforcing mass punishment on people who had nothing to do with a procedural fight.

if the FL Democratic committee was that concerned about not having the delegates seated and not able to get the GOP legislature to compromise, they had the legal right to hold a caucus for just the Democrats.

Michigan's situation is sheer stupidity, since the Dem. gov., Jennifer Granholm, could have easily avoided this.

In future,the government could have a national primary day and allow a window (say 45 days) to campaign. No front loading primaries or caucuses. Set aside a legal national holiday so all could vote. Businesses could afford to close or allow workers to take part of their day off to vote. It's not a perfect solution, but maybe it might cut down on some of this wrangling.

[Joemailman]

But, Harlan, you heard what Nita, the Clinton Supporter, was spewing out of her mouth. Both spew their bullshit in equal volume.

I thought that lady was a nothing, a toothless tiger. I'd be interested in what points you heard that she scored against Obama. Did she mentioned his pink penis, validating the gay tryst accusation?

She went along with equating Geraldine Ferraro with Jeremiah "the Bullfrog" Wright - "lets just move on." Dopey. She didn't challenge Bradley's line about Hillary tarring Hussein. But forget the mudslinging, she wasn't even any good as a positive advocate. Hillary needs to forget her old friends and get some of her new friends on TV, like Rush Limbaugh. :lol:

BTW, I heard that a deal is being brokered in Florida to give Hillary some delegates and make the problem go away. I doubt she will go for that, hell, even if they agreed to fully count the January vote it doesn't help her enough. Clinton needs both MI & FL primaries in June to gain momentun prior to the convention. (Obama won't let it happen.)

Can we maybe just nuke all the surrogates? They seem to be the problem here.

[The Leaper]

Howard Dean really comes across as an ass in interviews.

I don't think it is just interviews...

[Harlan Huckleby]

It appears that the idea of a mail-in revote has died in Florida.

I'm relieved, I had visions of hundreds of Joemailmen holding ballot envelopes up to the light and misplacing Hillary votes.

[Joemailman]

Probably not. My union, I'm sorry to say, has endorsed Hillary.

[The Leaper]

No revote means the Clinton nomination goes from remote to dead.

Not so...nothing will be decided until the convention. The superdelegates can change their mind at any point up until then...and with serious questions popping up regarding Obama's judgment and background, it isn't ridiculous to think that they would find Clinton more electable.

Don't overlook Puerto Rico's change from a caucus to a primary either...Clinton will garner a lot of votes in PR in a primary and could challenge Obama in terms of the popular vote when all is said and done even without MI/FL.

Either way, I don't think the Dems will be riding a wave of goodwill into the election as it looked like they would just 2 months ago.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No revote means the Clinton nomination goes from remote to dead.

Not so...nothing will be decided until the convention. The superdelegates can change their mind at any point up until then...and with serious questions popping up regarding Obama's judgment and background, it isn't ridiculous to think that they would find Clinton more electable.

it's far fetched that the Obama march to nomination could be derailed.

Dems are not particularly upset about Obama's church, Obama could probably choose Jeremiah Wright as a running mate. Obama's challenge will be in general election.

Clinton needs the additional bump of press hype and popular vote in FL and MI in June to help her cause. I seriously doubt that would be enough anyway to swing enough Superdelegates.

Obama won. I hate Nancy Pelosi's guts for unethically changing the rules by declaring the Superdelegates null and void. Perhaps Nancy will take up a torch and join Governor Wilder's riot if Clinton gets the nomination. Pelosi is probably accurate in declaring the race over, but it's not her role to change the rules to favor her prefered candidate.

I think it's time for me to become a Republican. My hatred for Nancy Pelosi, Bill Bradley, Randi Rhodes, JoeMailman, NAtional Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Radio, all black columnists, moveon.org, the Daily Kos, every voter under 30, and all the other unethical surrogates is pushing me out of the Democratic party.

[The Leaper]

In future,the government could have a national primary day and allow a window (say 45 days) to campaign. No front loading primaries or caucuses. Set aside a legal national holiday so all could vote. Businesses could afford to close or allow workers to take part of their day off to vote. It's not a perfect solution, but maybe it might cut down on some of this wrangling.

I agree with most of what you say, but 45 days to campaign is hardly enough time IMO.

I think a better idea is to break the nation into 4 regions and hold regional primaries. Hold one primary at the end of FEB, MAR, APR and MAY. That still gives you 5 months between the end of the primaries and the Nov election.

I also would prefer if the regional primaries were held on a Saturday rather than taking a holiday during the week.

[The Leaper]

it's far fetched that the Obama march to nomination could be derailed.

Dems are not particularly upset about Obama's church, Obama could probably choose Jeremiah Wright as a running mate. Obama's challenge will be in general election.

Sure Huck, but the superdelegates will vote almost exclusively based on electability in the GENERAL ELECTION. If Obama's numbers head-to-head with McCain start taking a plunge, do you really think the superdelegates are still going to give Obama the nod...especially if Hillary wins PA and closes the popular vote difference to what is a virtual tie?\

That's my point. The superdelegates care about WINNING IN NOVEMBER...they could care less what has happened in the primaries to this point.

[swede]

In future,the government could have a national primary day and allow a window (say 45 days) to campaign. No front loading primaries or caucuses. Set aside a legal national holiday so all could vote. Businesses could afford to close or allow workers to take part of their day off to vote. It's not a perfect solution, but maybe it might cut down on some of this wrangling.

I agree with most of what you say, but 45 days to campaign is hardly enough time IMO.



Forty-five days would be enough if what you mean by campaigning is defining your political positions and elucidating a platform.

I should think it would even be enough time to communicate to the voters any number of meaningless platitudes that conceal one's actual agenda with a few days left over for pandering in key states.

[Joemailman]

It appears that the idea of a mail-in revote has died in Florida.

I'm relieved, I had visions of hundreds of Joemailmen holding ballot envelopes up to the light and misplacing Hillary votes.

Sounds like it will be a compromise backroom deal. Hillary will get half of the delegate plurality she would have gotten if delegates had been apportioned based on the primary vote. That is what MSNBC is saying.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It appears that the idea of a mail-in revote has died in Florida.

I'm relieved, I had visions of hundreds of Joemailmen holding ballot envelopes up to the light and misplacing Hillary votes.

Sounds like it will be a compromise backroom deal. Hillary will get half of the delegate plurality she would have gotten if delegates had been apportioned based on the primary vote. That is what MSNBC is saying.

There are about 12 parties to this negotiation, and I would guess 11 of them find this to be just fine. Hillary needs a vote in June much more than a few delegates. The way I see it, (cue Jeremiah) THEY'RE RIDIN HER DIRTY!

[Harlan Huckleby]

No revote means the end of the line for Hillary 08.

Queen Pelosi and every Obama voice (except Joemailman) says they won't abide Hillary in the VP chair.

I saw a survey of Democrats that showed only 20% would support a shared ticked regardless of who was on top. 20% would not vote democratic party if Obama was on top. 40% would not vote democratic if Hillary was on top. It was an online survey, skewed towards zealots and punks, but still.

It's over. Time to think of the future.

[Joemailman]

When you go to your first Democrats For McCain rally, be sure to say hi to Hillary.

On second thought, there may be hope for Hillary yet.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey, it occurs to me that I'm a McCain man, and I cast a cross-over vote for Hillary. So I can't be too critical of others.

I doubt that the Republican mischief makers had a huge impact, but they had some effect. Some Republicans voting for Obama now will abandon him in the fall too, even if they are a degree more sincere.

NY Times reports that Obama will likely oppose a revote in Michigan, the rationale being that some of his supporters voted republican in the primary, and are therefore ineligible for a revote. :roll: There is some justification to this, but mainly he is killing the revote because it benefits his opponent. A guy from the MI legislature says they will wait a day or two for his buy-in.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When you go to your first Democrats For McCain rally, be sure to say hi to Hillary.

Clinton has been treated shabbily by the Obama half of the Democratic Party. ( Obama himself made a couple gaffs, but he & his campaign have been above board. ) The Obama followers have been very dirty, they don't see the damage they did and only blame Clinton for splitting the party. Pelosi has been a disgrace.

I'd like to see a McCain-Clinton ticket, will put out feelers to the group and HRC at first meeting.

[Joemailman]

If McCain were to pick Hillary, I would fear for his life at the convention.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If McCain were to pick Hillary, I would fear for his life at the convention.

We'll probably have to form a new party. (Note to self: make sure there are extra Ladies Rooms at convention hall, no shortage of incontinent 50+ women.)

[Scott Campbell]

If McCain were to pick Hillary, I would fear for his life at the convention.


That would be a couple of steps below her last White House gig.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rush Limbaugh said that Hillary is sitting in her hotel room watching Obama's speech, and hearing the news that revotes in MI & FL are a lost cause, and wailing, "I'm melting, I'm melting!"

I think I'm going to like mixing with the Republicans better than I thought.

I doubt Clinton will agree to any delegate deal on either MI or FL. Since Obama pushed a 50-50 deal that nullifies the voters, and now that he has worked to deep-six legitimate revotes, Clinton's position to count the earlier votes manages to be relatively less evil. Counting the January vote is now the least unfair option. At worst, she can plant in the Superdelegates' minds that the numbers from MI & FL should be factored.

Clinton gains the most from defending the voters, and the coming train wreck only works to her favor.

I hear the train a comin'
It's rollin' 'round the bend,
Bringin the worst shitstorm
Since, I don't know when
Dems went with Tony Robbins,
And time keeps draggin' on,
But that train keeps a-rollin',
On down to denver town

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama will pay a big price for blocking the revotes in MI & FL. It wasn't totally his fault, but it's going to be played that way in the coming 6 months. Obama is now just another grubby politician.

Hillary is in MI today giving a Civil Rights speech. She's invoking the long struggle to gain vote for blacks and women. (Subtext: and now it's all taken away by that politician with the innocent face, fancy way with words, and lust for power.) :lol: :lol:

This is disaster for the democrats, and it's Howard Dean's fault. You can't expect the candidates to fairly renegotiate an election midstream, and they were blackmailed into signing the original pledge. Death to Howard Dean.

[SkinBasket]

Obama will pay a big price for blocking the revotes in MI & FL. It wasn't totally his fault, but it's going to be played that way in the coming 6 months. Obama is now just another grubby politician.

I sure wish Democrats could figure out how to fucking vote one of these elections.

You managed to fit lust and blackmail into another political post Harlan. I'm disappointed you left out "hypocracy" though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I sure wish Democrats could figure out how to fucking vote one of these elections.

I don't think your heart was in that comment. I'm not feeling the passion.


You managed to fit lust and blackmail into another political post Harlan. I'm disappointed you left out "hypocracy" though.

Zing! Got me good, again. :flm:

[SkinBasket]

I sure wish Democrats could figure out how to fucking vote one of these elections.

I don't think your heart was in that comment. I'm not feeling the passion.

I don't think I want you feeling my passion.

[Harlan Huckleby]

New national gallup poll numbers:
Clinton 49 Obama 42
McCain 48 Clinton 45
McCain 47 Obama 43

I hear that train a comin
It's coming round the bend

[Harlan Huckleby]

Will Howard Dean Cost the Dems Florida? (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724374,00.html)

[Freak Out]

March 24, 2008

2 McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain never fails to call himself a conservative Republican as he campaigns as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He often adds that he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan revolution and that he believes in the bedrock conservative principles of small government, low taxes and the rights of the unborn.

What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.

Either way, the episodes shed light on a bitter period in Mr. McCain’s life after the 2000 presidential election, when he was, at least in policy terms, drifting away from his own party. They also offer a glimpse into his psychological makeup and the difficulties in putting a label on his political ideology over many years in the Senate.

“There were times when he rose to the occasion and showed himself to be a real pragmatist,” said Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader who was one of those who met with Mr. McCain in 2001 about switching parties and who is now supporting Senator Barack Obama. “There were other times when he was motivated by political goals and agendas that led him to be much more of a political ideologue.”

Such swings are common in politics, but for Mr. McCain, Mr. Daschle said, “those swings have been far more pronounced and far more frequent.”

In the spring of 2001, Mr. McCain was by most accounts still angry about the smear campaign that had been run against him when he was campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in the South Carolina primary the previous year. He had long blamed the Bush campaign for spreading rumors in the state that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock, which Bush aides denied. Mr. McCain was also upset that the new White House had shut the door on hiring so many of his aides.

“Very few, if any, of John’s people made it into the administration,” Mr. Daschle later wrote in his book “Like No Other Time.” “John didn’t think that was right, that his staff should be penalized like that.”

Mr. McCain had begun to ally himself with the Democrats on a number of issues, and had told Mr. Daschle that he planned to vote against the Bush tax cuts, a centerpiece of the new president’s domestic agenda. Mr. McCain often made “disparaging comments” about Mr. Bush on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Daschle recalled.

Still, Democrats were stunned one Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downey’s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a question to him over lunch that left him stunned.

“He says, ‘John McCain is wondering why nobody’s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,’ ” Mr. Downey said in a recent interview. “My reaction was, ‘When I leave this lunch, your boss will be called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.’ ”

Mr. Weaver recalls the conversation differently. He said that Mr. Downey had told him that Democrats, eager to find a Republican who would switch sides and give them control of the evenly divided Senate, had approached some Republican senators about making the jump. “I stated they couldn’t be so desperate as they hadn’t reached out to McCain,” Mr. Weaver said in an e-mail message last week.

Whatever transpired, Mr. Downey raced home and immediately called Mr. Daschle. It was the first step in what became weeks of conversations that April between Mr. McCain and the leading Democrats, among them Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and John Edwards, then a senator from North Carolina, about the possibility of Mr. McCain’s leaving his party. One factor driving Mr. McCain, Mr. Downey said, was his bad relations with the Republican caucus.

“They had booed him once when he came in,” Mr. Downey said. “It was bad stuff in the caucus. He didn’t see his future with these guys.”

Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers, said that Mr. McCain, although flattered, never took the idea of leaving the party seriously. The topic was in any case overtaken in May when Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont abandoned the Republicans and changed the balance of power. By June, when Mr. Daschle spent a long-planned weekend with Mr. McCain at Mr. McCain’s Arizona ranch, the question of changing parties was moot.

But less than three years later, Mr. McCain was once again in talks with the Democrats, this time over whether he would be Mr. Kerry’s running mate. In an interview with a blog last year, Mr. Kerry said that the initial idea had come from Mr. McCain’s side, as had happened in 2001.

Mr. Kerry, reacting to reports in The Hill newspaper last year about Mr. Weaver’s 2001 approach to Mr. Downey, said he saw a pattern. “It doesn’t surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as vice president,” Mr. Kerry told Jonathan Singer of MyDD.com, a prominent liberal blog, in remarks that are available in an audio version online and that Mr. Kerry’s staff said last week were accurate. “So his people were active — let’s put it that way.”

Two former Kerry strategists said last week that Mr. Weaver went to Mr. Kerry’s house in Georgetown a short time after Mr. Kerry won the Democratic nomination in March and asked that Mr. Kerry consider Mr. McCain as his running mate. (Mr. Weaver said in his e-mail message that the idea had come from Mr. Kerry.) Whatever the case, both sides say that Mr. Kerry was so enthusiastic about the notion that he relentlessly pursued Mr. McCain, even to the point of offering him a large part of the president’s national security responsibilities.

Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the vice-presidential offer out of hand. “He is, as he describes himself, a liberal Democrat,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a participant at a public forum in Atlanta. “I am a conservative Republican. So when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

Mr. Kerry declined last week to discuss his conversations with Mr. McCain, but three former Kerry strategists said that Mr. McCain had not immediately dismissed the notion of sharing the Democratic ticket. “McCain did not flat-out say no, regardless of what he’s saying now,” said one strategist who asked not to be named. “He was interested in this discussion.”

But however Mr. McCain reacted, he ultimately decided, Mr. Salter said, that the idea would never work. At one point Mr. McCain told Mr. Kerry, Mr. Salter recalled, “What if something happens to you? Your party’s going to be pretty surprised about the kind of president they’re going to have.”

Still, that did not stop a number of Kerry strategists from thinking that Mr. McCain might have helped propel the Democrats to the White House in 2004. “It was a way to extend the reach of the candidacy,” said Mike Donilon, who was one of Mr. Kerry’s media advisers and had been a college roommate of Mr. Salter’s. “I thought it could have been a very strong ticket.”

[Harlan Huckleby]

Welcome aboard the McCain Train, Freaky!

[Scott Campbell]

Obama wants to eliminate the Social Security cap. Screw him.

[Freak Out]

We all know what kind of a guy Mac is...he just likes to talk dirty sometimes to get the Evangelical vote fired up and in his camp.

[packinpatland]

I worry about someone who lies, when there's no need to. Guess living with Slick Willy would do that.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=971290

[SkinBasket]

I think you've got the wrong link there PIP. Unless Hillary's into football MMORPGs.

[packinpatland]

I think you've got the wrong link there PIP. Unless Hillary's into football MMORPGs.


:lol: :lol: :lol: No kidding.......!!! Hmmm.......could we use this to 'build' presidential candidates?

I meant this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

She's getting the sniper fire now to make up for it.

PIP, have you ever thought about taking John McCain into your heart?

He's old, but spry.

[packinpatland]

She's getting the sniper fire now to make up for it.

PIP, have you ever thought about taking John McCain into your heart?

He's old, but spry.

I agree with the old....but 'spry'? :lol:

I don't want to sound like one of the polls.......but the only way I would vote for McCain right now, was if he were running against Hillary......

[Scott Campbell]

If Obama truly sucks, at least the Republicans would get a shot at beating him in 4 years.

[Scott Campbell]

If Obama truly sucks, at least the Republicans would get a shot at beating him in 4 years.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't want to sound like one of the polls.......but the only way I would vote for McCain right now, was if he were running against Hillary......

I think Obama might be your guy. You seem a little downbeat about politics, and Barack's just the guy to give you a little pep in your step.

Yes you can!
You are the one you've been waiting for, you are the change you seek!

[packinpatland]

That bore repeating. :lol:

......in reference to SC double post.

[packinpatland]

I don't want to sound like one of the polls.......but the only way I would vote for McCain right now, was if he were running against Hillary......

I think Obama might be your guy. You seem a little downbeat about politics, and Barack's just the guy to give you a little pep in your step.

Yes you can!
You are the one you've been waiting for, you are the change you seek!

'Downbeat'? That's an understatment..........I'm ready to suggest we pull a 'Dave' off the street and put him/her in office.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Obama truly sucks, at least the Republicans would get a shot at beating him in 4 years.

ya, but if you go with McCain, he'll probably be dead then. go for the surer bet for change.

Obama is not going to truly suck. He will be a good president someday I expect. McCain is a better man, certainly right now.

[Freak Out]

I don't want to sound like one of the polls.......but the only way I would vote for McCain right now, was if he were running against Hillary......

I think Obama might be your guy. You seem a little downbeat about politics, and Barack's just the guy to give you a little pep in your step.

Yes you can!
You are the one you've been waiting for, you are the change you seek!

'Downbeat'? That's an understatment..........I'm ready to suggest we pull a 'Dave' off the street and put him/her in office.

I was thinking the same thing....he was far to practical for the American people though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 25, 2008

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.

[Scott Campbell]

Fight Hillary, fight!!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Fight Hillary, fight!!!

Another McCain man checks in. Man, this is a big tent.

[Bossman641]

Fight Hillary, fight!!!

Another McCain man checks in. Man, this is a big tent.

Got room for more?

[MadtownPacker]

http://www.sequelsolutions.biz/mac.jpg

At least this guy earned his stripes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I can say without exaggeration that public radio (national & WI) spent four days hyperventilating over Barack Obama's Great Speech. Today they changed the subject:

Does John McCain Get Favorable Coverage from the Media? (http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/03/20080325_a_main.asp)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Got room for more?

The McCain Train is always looking for new riders, Big Bossman.

So far, there's Freaky, since he's an unwitting conscript I won't dwell on him. I speak for disaffected Democrats. Madtown is typical of minorities who hate blacks. And of course Scott is a voice for the idle rich.

What can you bring to the party?

[packinpatland]

.......damn, I wanta be the 'idle rich'.........

[Scott Campbell]

I speak for disaffected Democrats.


Disaffected Demmocrats? Sounds like codespeak for the the entitled underachievers.

[Scott Campbell]

And of course Scott is a voice for the idle rich.


I really don't speak for anybody but Scott.

[Freak Out]

Got room for more?

The McCain Train is always looking for new riders, Big Bossman.

So far, there's Freaky, since he's an unwitting conscript I won't dwell on him. I speak for disaffected Democrats. Madtown is typical of minorities who hate blacks. And of course Scott is a voice for the idle rich.

What can you bring to the party?

I could take Mac being the Chief when I could never take Dubya....but I'm not voting for him. Of course in Alaska the Republican candidate will win anyway...unless Obama comes out for opening ANWR. Then I would vote for Mac.

[Joemailman]

Obama Girl releases new video. Stop The Attacks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/obama-girl-is-back-and-s_n_93195.html

[Scott Campbell]

She can't sing, but who cares.

[SkinBasket]

Also note her alpha-assertion of pride of place: She was there before Chris Matthews felt a thrill run up his leg, there before Bill Richardson cut his vacation short to come back and endorse, there before will.i.am and the gang sang that yes, they could. Obama Girl, pioneer!

Now if they could only get Obama Girl to vote for Obama...

[Harlan Huckleby]

I found Obama girl's plea very moving.

[Joemailman]

I found Obama girl's plea very moving.

Yes, she stirred something in me too.

[Scott Campbell]

I found Obama girl's plea very moving.

Yes, she stirred something in me too.


You could almost hear her saying "my eyes are up here".

[texaspackerbacker]

Nice to see that there is some political discussion at this place.

It seems like the Obama/Hillary battle is becoming increasingly irrelevant as McCain takes the lead in the polls. I expected that, although this is even sooner than I would have thought. Both Gore and Kerry had leads in the polls this far out from the elections too, thanks mainly to the leftist mainstream media propping them up spewing hate for Bush. Then, as the election approached--ads, debates, etc., and people got the unfiltered messages to compare, they realized how horrendously far from the views and values of good normal Americans the Dems were. This time, the media hasn't been as rough on McCain as it was on Bush, and the leftist Dem candidates are even farther out on the lunatic fringe with their policies. Thus, McCain already has a lead.

Obama tried to snow people with his crap about transcending partisan politics and uniting. The trouble was, his policies were not uniting at all, but extreme left wing and anti-American. He was able to win enough primaries without getting into specifics that he undoubtedly will now win the nomination. That is partly because the media never called him on his vagueness. It is also partly Hillary's own fault because her own views and policies are virtually the same as Obama's.

The longer their battle continues and the longer they tear each other apart verbally, the better it is for McCain and the Republicans. And if Hillary DOES manage to "steal" the nomination from Obama, that's the best scenario of all for Republicans--and for America in general, as a lot of Obama voters would get disgusted and not even vote.

[Joemailman]

Considering the way the Obama and Clinton camps have been going after each other, it would be truly remarkable if McCain weren't ahead in the national polls. Especially considering the way the "left-wing" media as usual is giving McCain a free pass. Every detail of the Clinton/Obama campaign is under a microscope. McCain's apparent ignorance of the fact that it's not Al-Qaeda being aided by Iran was barely mentioned. Once the Dems choose a candidate however, the playing field will be more level.

[Bossman641]

I found Obama girl's plea very moving.

Was she talking? I didn't notice.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama Girl's theme is part of the rest of the barage this week from Obama's media pals: it's time for Hillary to drop out now.
Why now? Huh? No primaries for a while. Ahhh, Barack sealed the deal on his nominaiton by nixing the revotes in Florida & Michigan last week.

The punishment that Florida & Michigan recieved from the DNC for moving up their primaries was NOT to take away the vote from 5 Million people this primary season. The punishment was simply to invalidate the early primaries. The DNC enthusiasticly encouraged Florida & Michigan to hold new caucuses, primaries, dance contests - whatever the states wanted to bring legitimacy to the process.

The disenfranchisement of 5 million voters came at the hands of saintly Barack Obama and his lawyer, Robert Bauer. It is a measue of Obama's media support that criticism of him has been so muted, and the details of what went down scattered across mentions in news reports and blogs.

Can you imagine the media reaction if The Monster had used procedure and political allies to block two elections!!!!! Hillary'd be pilloried.

Obama's nomination is not going to be legitimate in many peoples eyes.

The Republican's argument for canceling the recounts in Florida 2000 was weak, (made even weaker by Skinbasket's inept defense a month ago), but they at least had some rationale to argue.

It is an uphill climb for the Dems to reconcile before next fall.

[packinpatland]

That theory is about as bad as Hillary's 'mispokes'. :roll:

[SkinBasket]

nixing the revotes...punishment...invalidate primaries....disenfranchisement of 5 million voters...criticism muted...details scattered...not legitimate....canceling recounts.

Same ol' same ol. Toss out the rules, ignore laws, and break out the tinfoil hats in the name of the cause!!!

http://fascistpsychlaws.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/hillary_tinfoil_hat.jpg
My minions will not be disenfranchised!

[SkinBasket]

Man Claims to Speak 'Australian' After Allegedly Being Raped by Wombat
Thursday, March 27, 2008



SYDNEY — A New Zealand man has been sentenced to community service after telling police he was raped by a wombat and the experience had made him speak "Australian".

Arthur Ross Cradock, 48, from the South Island town of Motueka, called police on February 11 and told them he was being raped at his home by the wombat and he needed help, The Nelson Mail newspaper reported.

The orchard worker later called back and said: "Apart from speaking Australian now, I'm pretty all right, you know."

Cradock pleaded guilty in the local court to using a phone for a fictitious purpose. He was sentenced to 75 hours' community work.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Chris Stringer told the court alcohol played a large role in Cradock's life.

[SkinBasket]

Secret sex life of wombats
December 12, 2005

http://www.prospect.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/images/2_Southern_hairy-nosed_wombat__photo_courtesy_BioCity.JPG

A complicated dance, a bite on the rump and ferocious backward kicks are all part of the wombat's lovemaking repertoire, a new study has revealed. Until recently, there were no recorded observations of mating between wombats. But the director of Nocturnal Wildlife Research Ltd, biologist Clive Marks, found wombats were more likely than the average Aussie male to emulate moves from the Kama Sutra.

Mr Marks, whose findings are to be published this week in Nature Australia magazine, says the first successful captive breeding of wombats was recorded in Hannover, Germany, in 1982.

"With absolute precision, details of the wombat's sex life were recorded and, surprisingly, it seemed anything but modest," he says. "It appeared to be a physically demanding process, complete with chasing, biting, grunting and loads of heavy breathing."

Then in 1990, Mr Marks filmed the first common wombat courtship and mating in captivity in Australia, at Tonimbuk Farm in south-eastern Victoria. "The female, after a prolonged period of copulation in the same position, broke away and began to trot in a pattern of circles and figures of eight. The male chased her, following closely behind, and then bit her on the rump," he says. "She immediately stopped just long enough to permit him to roll her on her side and begin copulating again. If the male was slow to mount, she would kick back aggressively and not let him roll her on her side again until she had run round in more circles and figures of eight. This happened seven times."

Space seems to be the key. Mr Marks says without the "hard to get" figure eight dance, the female will not allow the male to mount. But zoo keepers are catching on. Mr Marks says biologist Catriona MacCallum at the Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo has had spectacular wombat breeding success. "Joining and modifying the pen systems to permit a chase, she not only found that wombat breeding was possible in captivity, but she found herself with the first recorded case of wombat twins."

Mr Marks says he hopes his study will solve the sloth-like image problem of the common wombat, making the furry marsupials "the symbol of Australian male sexual virility".

- AAP

[Harlan Huckleby]

That theory is about as bad as Hillary's 'mispokes'. :roll:

what theory? I didn't speculate, I'm telling you what happenned, based on news reports. I suspect you just don't want to hear it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Toss out the rules, ignore laws, and break out the tinfoil hats in the name of the cause.

No rule or law was broken by any party. Nobody on any side proposed anything against the rules or laws.

You are spewing nonsense based on nonsense. But if you don't want to think or know too much about the issue, that's fine. The world needs its clowns, including the ass-clowns.

[packinpatland]

That theory is about as bad as Hillary's 'mispokes'. :roll:

what theory? I didn't speculate, I'm telling you what happenned, based on news reports. I suspect you just don't want to hear it.

Therein lies the problem...."based on news reports". :wink:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Therein lies the problem...."based on news reports". :wink:

I followed this story like a crazed maniac, reading Michigan and Florida newspapers for snippets of details. Now I'm back on the lithium. I really do know of what I speak.

Umm, it is much more complicated than I portrayed, and I have exaggerated Obama's culpability. Even with Obama's full support, it's quite possible that the revotes would have collapsed anyway. Many politicians in Obama's position would have done the same.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gallup reports today that 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters plan on voting for McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee.

If only 10% follow-through on their intentions, Obama is up shit's creek.

The feedback I get from Obama Nation is that the fat Clinton people can just go to hell. They taunt Clinton people, say they don't care if they vote for McCain because they are irrelevant compared to all the new voters that Obama is drawing.

I picture kids looking around their college campus, thinking that the whole world is similarily gripped by Obamamania.

I hope that 28% figure creeps up to, oh, 50% or so. Maybe then the Obama crowd will figure out that their Messiah is not REALLY all-powerful, and they need to compromise with others.

Unity! :lol:

[SkinBasket]

Toss out the rules, ignore laws, and break out the tinfoil hats in the name of the cause.

No rule or law was broken by any party. Nobody on any side proposed anything against the rules or laws.

You are spewing nonsense based on nonsense. But if you don't want to think or know too much about the issue, that's fine. The world needs its clowns, including the ass-clowns.

They broke Dem party rules. That's why the votes didn't count. What the fuck is wrong with you, anyway? I can only assume you've just come off some flaming Hillaryhumpers forum were ya'll get each worked into some kind of rabid frenzy, then you bust in here shouting about injustice and media conspiracy.

I happen to find Wombat rape more intellectually viable as a source of continued discussion than this nonsense that's only a story because Hillary is desperate and morally, as well as intellectually, corrupt. You know as well as I do it's not about disenfranchisement, candidate legitimacy, or the "will of the people." It's about Hillary, like Al before her, tossing any kind of intellectual standards, for herself or for the election process, out the window in an effort to manufacture a few more votes for herself.

Guess what? I'm not voting for either of the two so why the fuck should I care about the Democratic Party's inability to figure out their own nomination process?

[Harlan Huckleby]

They broke Dem party rules. That's why the votes didn't count. What the fuck is wrong with you, anyway?

Nothing at all wrong with this. But this is just the first half of the story.

I would read you the second half, but now its time for your nap. Sleep tight, sweet prince.

[SkinBasket]

They broke Dem party rules. That's why the votes didn't count. What the fuck is wrong with you, anyway?

Nothing at all wrong with this. But this is just the first half of the story.

I would read you the second half of the story, but now its time for your nap. Sleep tight.

That's the problem with Hillary. There's always a second half to the story. Of course she wants to make up that part of the story, but what's wrong with that when you're a Hillary backer, right? Does she single handedly stand up to a moving tank in Tianimin Square in this one? Or maybe she blows up the Death Star? Wombat rape?

[Harlan Huckleby]

you get back to bed or you'll be all cranky

[SkinBasket]

Where'd all your fire and indignation go?

I'd love to go to bed. It's all dark and snowy out. Perfect napping weather.

[Joemailman]

Therein lies the problem...."based on news reports". :wink:

I followed this story like a crazed maniac, reading Michigan and Florida newspapers for snippets of details. Now I'm back on the lithium. I really do know of what I speak.

Umm, it is much more complicated than I portrayed, and I have exaggerated Obama's culpability. Even with Obama's full support, it's quite possible that the revotes would have collapsed anyway. Many politicians in Obama's position would have done the same.

Howard Dean is the one who screwed this up. His job as head of the DNC is to make sure there is a level playing field for all the candidates to seek the nomination. they ended up with a situation where people were expecting Obama to agree to a deal that everyone understood would help his opponent. If the roles had been reversed, Clinton, and just about anyone else, would have done the same thing that Obama did.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with what you said. It is unreasonable to expect the candidates to make things right in the heat of battle.

I am riding Obama hard on this because of my ulterior motives: I want Obama Nation to get off their high horse over their Christ figure. This is necessary step for reconciliation.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gallup reports today that 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters plan on voting for McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee.

If only 10% follow-through on their intentions, Obama is up shit's creek.

The feedback I get from Obama Nation is that the fat Clinton people can just go to hell. They taunt Clinton people, say they don't care if they vote for McCain because they are irrelevant compared to all the new voters that Obama is drawing.

I picture kids looking around their college campus, thinking that the whole world is similarily gripped by Obamamania.

I hope that 28% figure creeps up to, oh, 50% or so. Maybe then the Obama crowd will figure out that their Messiah is not REALLY all-powerful, and they need to compromise with others.

Unity! :lol:

When it comes right down to it, probably not that many will vote Republican. However, a significant number will probably just stay home on election day--especially Obama people if Hillary wangles the nomination despite Obama have the most delegates.

And if that happens, AMERICA IS THE WINNER!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Some Dems have invented a new way of deciding the nomination. It's called a "SuperDelegate Caucus." It seems like a better idea to wrap things up quickly, rather than sticking with the inconvienent rule of waiting until the convention.

Obama says he likes the idea. He likes it very much.

I say cancel the remaining primaries. Just let Obama have the crown, the educated people want him, he's probably best. We already have a 48-state popular vote. Threats of rebellion from party leaders if the SuperDelegates act independently. And now a new nomination procedure.

[SkinBasket]

I see Hillary's trying to blackmail superdelegates into supporting her by having her wealthy backers threaten to withhold their contributions to Dem House members. Six months ago, who would have thought that the Democratic elite would have to threaten Pelosi into supporting Hillary?

If you can't cheat your way to a few more votes, I guess the next move is just to buy some votes and threaten the members of your own party. Samantha Power's assessment was spot on, I guess.

[Harlan Huckleby]

As Speaker of the House and leader of the Dems, Pelosi is expected to remain above the fray in this contest to help keep the party together.

The role of the SuperDelegates is to exercise their independent judgement, they were created as a check against the elected delegates. These are the rules of the election.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080218_a_main.asp

Some Democratic leaders who favor Obama (Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Wilder, others) have incorrectly stated that SuperDelegates are required to follow the will of the elected delegates. Although it's fine to suggest this as a wise criteria, Pelosi & Wilder have crossed the line by accusing the SuperDelegates of fraud if they don't follow the Pledge Delegates.

This conduct is beyond unfair and stupid, it's tampering with election officials. Obama is being nominated through a corrupt process.

The "blackmail" that Skinbasket refers to is a letter written by some Clinton supporters and donors addressed to Pelosi complaining about her improper behavor. Seems reasonable to me! The Obama Campaign spun this letter as an implied threat to withhold donations to the party, their accusation didn't get any traction.

I wouldn't have any problem if the donors did threaten to withhold and demand that Pelosi respect the SuperDelegate rules. Perrfectly reasonable. You just have to read about it yourself, and marvel at Skin's creativity in spinning the letter as "Hillary blackmailing the SuperDelegates" :lol: Skinbasket didn't get voted Funniest Poster for nothing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602918.html

[SkinBasket]

Harlan, you would read a story about Hillary shitting on the Constitution as, "Presidential Favorite Hillary Clinton addressed issues of Constitutional backlog today."

[Joemailman]

As Speaker of the House and leader of the Dems, Pelosi is expected to remain above the fray in this contest to help keep the party together.

The role of the SuperDelegates is to exercise their independent judgement, they were created as a check against the elected delegates. These are the rules of the election.
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080218_a_main.asp

Some Democratic leaders who favor Obama (Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Wilder, others) have incorrectly stated that SuperDelegates are required to follow the will of the elected delegates. Although it's fine to suggest this as a wise criteria, Pelosi & Wilder have crossed the line by accusing the SuperDelegates of fraud if they don't follow the Pledge Delegates.

This conduct is beyond unfair and stupid, it's tampering with election officials. Obama is being nominated through a corrupt process.

The "blackmail" that Skinbasket refers to is a letter written by some Clinton supporters and donors addressed to Pelosi complaining about her improper behavor. Seems reasonable to me! The Obama Campaign spun this letter as an implied threat to withhold donations to the party, their accusation didn't get any traction.

I wouldn't have any problem if the donors did threaten to withhold and demand that Pelosi respect the SuperDelegate rules. Perrfectly reasonable. You just have to read about it yourself, and marvel at Skin's creativity in spinning the letter as "Hillary blackmailing the SuperDelegates" :lol: Skinbasket didn't get voted Funniest Poster for nothing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602918.html

Nancy Pelosi did not say that the superdelegates are required to follow the will of the elected delegates. What she actually said was “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,” Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

She is probably right. If Obama wins the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the popular vote, and is denied the nomination by the superdelegates, there will be a split in the party that no one can bridge.

[packinpatland]

She is probably right. If Obama wins the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the popular vote, and is denied the nomination by the superdelegates, there will be a split in the party that no one can bridge.



Do you really think that will phase Hillary? :shock: ...........not so much.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nancy Pelosi did not say that the superdelegates are required to follow the will of the elected delegates. What she actually said was “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party,” Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

She's chosen her words carefully, but her statement is interpreted as meaning the SuperDelegate trumping of pledge delegates is illegitimate. That's how the Obama camp view the issue, and they are encouraged by her statement. The party leader should not be taking sides in the dispute, and especially not pressuring people to ignore the rules.

Nancy Hussein Pelosi also stated that delegates from MI & FL should not be allowed to be dispositive. Meaning regardless of what split is negotiated, the delegates can not be used by Hillary to overtake Obama's lead. You tell me how this is in any sense fair.

PIP, the SuperDelegates are going to look strongly at electability. Clinton's strongest argument is her pull in the electoral college swing states. And she may have impressive popular vote.

But how can we know popular vote, Obama has successfully blocked elections in MI & FL.

The nomination has no legitimacy.

[texaspackerbacker]

Skin Basket, I enjoy your political posting, but I have to say, I enjoy your avatar even more. Is it just a dirty old man like me, or does that remind any one else of what it reminds me of?

[Deputy Nutz]

Skin Basket, I enjoy your political posting, but I have to say, I enjoy your avatar even more. Is it just a dirty old man like me, or does that remind any one else of what it reminds me of?

I have know idea what you are talking about. It is just a woman diddling her mouse.

[BallHawk]

According to Hill.....

Not sitting the delegates of Florida and Michigan is completely undemocratic.

But letting the party elite overturn the votes of millions. Well, that's just part of the game.

-----------

This whole thing will end with a 50-50 split in Florida and Michigan. The DNC knows they have to seat them somehow.

Not that Florida matters, we're going to lose that state anyway. Michigan is big, though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

According to Hill.....

Not sitting the delegates of Florida and Michigan is completely undemocratic.

But letting the party elite overturn the votes of millions. Well, that's just part of the game.


Its not just the MI & FL delegates, it's their popular vote too.

SuperDelegates are designed to be undemocratic, so she's on solid ground there.

The MI-FL problem is unsolvable. Clinton's argument for revotes is stronger, but I've come to appreciate that Obama's point of view is legitimate too.


This whole thing will end with a 50-50 split in Florida and Michigan. The DNC knows they have to seat them somehow.

Clinton & her supporters would walk out of the convention before they would accept a 50-50 split.

We're looking at a colossul clusterfuck. Obama & DNC must hope that Obama will be so far ahead that he can afford to generously seat MI & FL, and thereby make everything look on the up-and-up.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So Senator Leahy hopped on his smoking witches broom yesterday and wrote "Surrender, Hillary" across the sky.

What a dope!

The Obama camp often attempts public relations moves that get the faithful excited but look bad from outside the ... I was gonna say "cult", but I'm feeling charitable and will go with "movement".

The average person will think Leahy is being very arrogant trying to shut-down an election that is obviously not settled. And remaining voters will bristle.

The new Obama Girl video is likewise counter productive. Sure, Obama fans are going to get all lubricated, but the images just re-enforce the perception of him as a superficial pop star. The shot of Obama working his "magic powers" to spin the earth on his fingers is pukey to those who haven't accepted Him as their savior.

A lot of people are attracted to Clinton's hardworking, no-nonsense fighter image, they don't want somebody with magic powers.

[Scott Campbell]

A lot of people are attracted to Clinton's hardworking, no-nonsense fighter image................


As in the no nonsense (coming under sniper fire during the treacherous Bosnia landing) fighter image? Or as in the no nonsense (my husband is getting blown by some intern just outside the oval office) fighter image?


Yeah, that's Hillary. No nonsense there. :roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention
She Stresses Finding Solution On Michigan, Florida Votes
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne E. Kornblut
Sunday, March 30, 2008

NEW ALBANY, Ind., March 29 -- In her most definitive comments to date on the subject, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Saturday to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all the remaining primaries but also continue until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid.

"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?hpid=topnews

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

You Go Girl!!!!!!!

Don't let Nancy Pelosi and the her associated crooks end democracy for the alleged good of the Democrats.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nancy Pelosi's comment on the SuperDelegates is equivalent to a judge instructing a jury at the Mayor's drunk-driving trial, "If you convict him it will be a black eye for the town. Now do what you have to do."

Her suggesting that even if FL & MI delegates are seated they "must not be dispositive" is batty. Nancy's become a cross between Obama Girl and a Little League mom.

[Joemailman]

Clinton Vows To Stay in Race To Convention
She Stresses Finding Solution On Michigan, Florida Votes
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne E. Kornblut
Sunday, March 30, 2008

NEW ALBANY, Ind., March 29 -- In her most definitive comments to date on the subject, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought Saturday to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all the remaining primaries but also continue until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring that she will take her campaign all the way to the Aug. 25-28 convention if necessary, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly anxious to avoid.

"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here Saturday. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for.

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?hpid=topnews

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

You Go Girl!!!!!!!

Don't let Nancy Pelosi and the her associated crooks end democracy for the alleged good of the Democrats.

Clinton has to talk like this to avoid the perception that it is inevitable she will have to drop out. She may not have the money to take the campaign into August if she does not do well in the next few primaries. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

[texaspackerbacker]

At times, I actually find myself drifting into rooting for Hillary a little bit--and I don't mean just from Rush's Operation Chaos standpoint--keeping the battle going. Then I slap myself in the side of the head and get real.

Obama would simply be horrendous for the country. He is McGovern in his anti-American attitudes; He is Jimmy Carter both in his foreign policy of weakness and in his tax and spend and wind down our standard of living domestic agenda. He is trying to mask all that with his charisma and speaking ability.

Hillary, on the other hand, though she has STATED positions about as bad as Obama, is a pragmatist (euphemism for liar) just like Bill. When she actually got in office, she probably would have an epiphany about how stupid weakening our military and pursuing a non-interventionist foreign policy would be. Also, I think she would be a helluva lot quicker than Obama to realize the deleterious effects of the horribly stupid domestic agenda both have, and snap back to some semblance of economic reality.

The REAL reason I favor Hillary for the Dem nomination, of course, is that she would be damaged goods after "stealing" the nomination from Obama, and hence, easier to beat for McCain.

I think the whole mess will turn out to be moot, though, as once we get closer to the election and people are better able to draw the contrast between the rotten for America positions of the Dems and McCain's views--which are MUCH closer to the views and core values of America, things will swing to the Republicans--just as happened in 2000 and 2004.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton has to talk like this to avoid the perception that it is inevitable she will have to drop out.

Clinton won't have to drop out until Obama gets the magic number of delegates, regardless of money.

I don't care so much about the horse race. I don't like how the rules have been bent to favor Obama:
1) redefining of the SuperDelegates by threatening dire consequences if they act independently.
2) no vote for MI/FL when a legitimate remedy was available
3) demands that Clinton drop-out before she is eliminated per the rules.

It's unseemly. Ya, OBama is going to win, but this is the wrong way to do. I blame the process 90% and OBama 10%. His nomination is not going to be legitimate in some peoples eyes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the whole mess will turn out to be moot, though, as once we get closer to the election and people are better able to draw the contrast between the rotten for America positions of the Dems and McCain's views--which are MUCH closer to the views and core values of America, things will swing to the Republicans--just as happened in 2000 and 2004.

The issues are in favor of the Dems, by a huge margin. And "change" amounts to an issue this year. Most people are not going to follow McCain on the war, for instance.

Presidents tend to get elected by personality. I think the fall is unpredictable. A large number of Dems are pissed off at the party or Obama. The Republicans will have to smear Obama further to win the contest. Jermiah Wright is resonating mostly with Republicans.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama to Clinton: Stay in the Race
By Michael Powell

JOHNSTOWN, Pa., — Senator Barack Obama had a few words of advice Saturday for his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: Stay in the race as long as you want.
“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in the high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/obama-to-clinton-stay-in-the-race/

Obama read my posts and realized that the "Surrender Hillary" brigade is only hurting him.

[BallHawk]

This whole thing will be over after May 6th. Hillary may gain some ground, but Obama will be able to keep his delegate lead so that he will be able to say to Hillary "You want Michigan and Florida? Take 'em."

And thus will be the end of Hillary. Her stump speech will die.

[Harlan Huckleby]

well, he won't be turning generous till he has it locked up, that can't happen until the SuperDelegates are all commited.

But assuming you are correct, don't you find Obama's behavior just a tad sleazy?

Shouldn't we want elections to be done in a democratic way? Or is it to hell with principles, it's all about the winning?

i hear Obama supporters complain that Hillary is win-at-any-cost. The Monster. But what about your own standards of fairness?

I was disgusted when Clinton tried to claim the results of the deeply flawed primaries. And now I'm disgusted at Obama's part in blocking legitimate votes.

[BallHawk]

They're both politicians. Anybody that buys into the fact that Obama is just a normal dude has been duped. He' just as dirty as any other politician. Now, his personality is different from most politicians, but his tricks are not. He just comes across as nicer because the media portrays Hillary as the bitch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its a very dirty game. Obama's public postion was he would accept "any fair resolution sanctioned by the DNC" in MI & FL, all the while making sure nothing happened. :twisted: And now Clinton is returning the favor by fighting the MI/FI situation right up to the convention. She has no incentive to accept any compromise.

The DNC will be pressured to have that SuperDelegate caucus in June, that's about all that can stop The Monster. Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned. But of course that surprise caucus is fraudulent, a drastic rewrite of the rules. Even Not-so-keen Howard Dean has said it is a no-go.

I wonder if Obama may yet conclude that MI - FL revotes in June are the lesser evil than dragging this on till August, and then getting a disputed victory. Gee, maybe Clinton thought of this too!

She did the mash - she did the monster mash
(the monster mash) - it was a graveyard smash!

[texaspackerbacker]

I think the whole mess will turn out to be moot, though, as once we get closer to the election and people are better able to draw the contrast between the rotten for America positions of the Dems and McCain's views--which are MUCH closer to the views and core values of America, things will swing to the Republicans--just as happened in 2000 and 2004.

The issues are in favor of the Dems, by a huge margin. And "change" amounts to an issue this year. Most people are not going to follow McCain on the war, for instance.

Presidents tend to get elected by personality. I think the fall is unpredictable. A large number of Dems are pissed off at the party or Obama. The Republicans will have to smear Obama further to win the contest. Jermiah Wright is resonating mostly with Republicans.

ONLY because the leftist mainstream media is skewing things in favor of the Dems--just as was the case this far out with Gore and Kerry. Then when the head to head debates came along, and Republican campaign ads started up, so the people could see exactly what the two sides stood for, things turned around.

This time, in part due to the harsh campaign for the Dems, McCain is comparably MUCH better off than Bush was this far away from the last two elections.

Liberals in general have to mask there true positions, while conservatives have to display theirs. You, yourself, said in the other thread, who knows what Obama's position is on Iraq. You really could say the same for all of the issues. The media has enabled him to skate by on charisma without substance so far. They won't be able to protect him that way in the general election, though.

[Joemailman]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312008/news/worldnews/from_bad_to_verse_for_hill_104288.htm


FROM BAD TO VERSE FOR HILL
AIRPORT'S GIRL POET STUNNED BY SNIPER TALE AS INSULTED FELLOW BOSNIANS RIP 'LOW BLOW' LIE
By SELIM ALGAR, Post Correspondent

March 31, 2008 -- SARAJEVO, Bosnia - The Bosnian girl who famously read a poem to Hillary Rodham Clinton during her 1996 visit to the war-torn country is shocked - and her countrymen infuriated - that the former first lady claimed to have dodged sniper fire that day.

Emina Bicakcic, now 20 and studying to become a doctor, told The Post she stood on the tarmac at the air base in Tuzla, greeted Clinton and even had time to share the lines of verse she'd written - all without fear of attack from an unseen enemy.

"I was surprised when I heard this," Bicakcic said, referring to Clinton's assertion that she braved snipers upon landing, ducking and sprinting to military vehicles.

Other Bosnians said they had one of two reactions to Clinton's debunked action-hero account of her visit: laughter or anger.

"It's an exaggeration," said former acting President Ejup Ganic, who was present during Clinton's visit. "No one was firing. There were no shots fired."

Sema Markovic, 22, a student, said she has long respected Hillary as a strong leader but was angered by her remarks.

"It is an ugly thing for a politician to tell lies,' she said. "We had problems for years, and I don't like when someone lies about them. It makes us look bad."

Clinton has since admitted she "misspoke."

Bicakcic, asked if she feared any threat of violence that day, said she felt just the opposite.

"No," she said, speaking at her home in Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital. "I was just excited. I wanted to look [Clinton] in the eye and say, 'Thank you.' "

And Clinton, she said, seemed far more interested in her poem than in dashing for shelter.

"She was really listening," Bicakcic recalled. "She was drinking in every word of my poem."

Her poem begins with the words, "Peace has come."

Bicakcic said she was reluctant to criticize Clinton's account of that day because of a deep appreciation for the US role in ending Bosnia's bloody nightmare.

A picture of the girl's meeting with the then-first lady - signed and inscribed by Clinton - has become a treasured family heirloom.

Still, Bicakcic admitted that she is not supporting Clinton in her contest against Barack Obama.

"I'm staying neutral," she said, declining to discuss the issue further. "I have very mixed emotions about it. It's a difficult situation for me."

Former acting President Ganic said that while the war with Serbia had largely ended by the time Clinton visited, he was still nervous about hosting such an important foreign figure, which meant more security and, ultimately, less risk for the former first lady that day.

"We were nervous, so we cut down the ceremony," he recalled. "You don't mess around with your key friends. There was a little bit of risk, but it was not like that. She didn't run."

A worker at the airstrip where Clinton landed said the surrounding hills that could have harbored snipers were far too distant to pose any real threat to the first lady.

He said that he found her false account hard to stomach and that it unnecessarily revived difficult memories.

Many Bosnians - still confronted with bullet-scarred and burned-out buildings from Sarajevo to Tuzla - said their very real experiences with violence should not serve as cheap fodder for Clinton's political ambitions.

"It was a horrible lie," said 29-year-old Midhat Efendira.

Like most Bosnians, he expressed a deep appreciation of Bill Clinton for his role in ending the war. But he found Hillary Clinton's remarks intolerable.

"It was a low blow," he said. "She did it to gain sensational publicity."

Efendira said that Bosnians are closely following the US presidential race and that Hillary's remarks have damaged the formerly untouchable Clinton name in the country.

Sead Numanovic, the deputy editor-in-chief of Bosnia's largest newspaper, Dnevni Avaz, laughed at Sen. Clinton's account of the alleged sniper fire and her claim that she "misspoke."

"My first thought was, she must be kidding," he said. "When someone threatens your life, you don't make a mistake."

Numanovic said his paper has not even bothered to cover the story.

"We don't have space for someone's lies," he said. "Why is she so stupid? It doesn't portray her as a real leader."

Some Bosnians contrasted Clinton's jaunt to the truly dangerous visits paid by now-deceased former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and former Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Ciller in 1994.

In an effort to call attention to Sarajevo's plight, the two female heads of state donned flak jackets and were driven throughout the heart of the bullet-riddled city at the height of the conflict.

Two days after their visit, 69 people were killed in a mortar attack on a central market.

Editor Numanovic summed up his opinion of the Clinton "sniper fire" controversy with a little dig at US culture.

"I guess there has to be a little bit of Hollywood in everything," he said with a laugh.

selim.algar@nypost.com


Interesting how closely people in foreign countries follow our elections. If only Americans knew as much about foreign countries.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The NY Post is practically a gossip tabloid.

"The Bosnia flap has provided more grist for the anti-Hillary mill of the New York Post, which has been giving it prominent play for a week now, including getting retired generals to slam her and nicknaming Clinton "Bunko Hill" in a headline.

The New York Post, part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire, endorsed Obama just before the Super Tuesday primary in New York, saying the junior senator from New York represented "a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency." That was a marked turnaround from 2006, when the New York Post endorsed Clinton's Senate reelection bid."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/31/the_tuzla_tarmac_girl_has_her.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama's biggest whopper was his claim that he was unaware of his pastor's extreme views. He claims he would have left his church if he had known. This seems impossible, and contradicts many who claim Reverand Wright's views were common in black churches.

From http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/224531/594 here's 12 more cases where he evidently wasn't completely honest:

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements
Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

*****************************************

I don't think Obama will be called to task for any of these misstatements - except his honesty about his pastor's views will come back.

[SkinBasket]

Ah. The smell of desperation.

[The Leaper]

Clinton and Obama are one-in-the-same...two typical liberal politicians who will do anything to win their way to power.

The notion that Obama is somehow different and a candidate of "hope" and "change" is one of the biggest pieces of wool pulled over the eyes of Americans in some time.

Face it, people. We will never again elect anyone to the White House who has any regard for the actual citizens of this nation.

[SkinBasket]

Study: Octopuses Lie, Cheat and Kill for Sex

Wednesday, April 02, 2008
AP

SAN FRANCISCO — Marine biologists studying wild octopuses have found a kinky and violent society of jealous murders, gender subterfuge and once-in-a-lifetime sex.

The new study by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, who journeyed off the coast of Indonesia found that wild octopuses are far from the shy, unromantic loners their captive brethren appear to be.

The scientists watched the Abdopus aculeatus octopus, which are the size of an orange, for several weeks and published their findings recently in the journal Marine Biology.

They witnessed picky, macho males carefully select a mate, then guard their newly domesticated digs so jealously that they would occasionally use their 8-to-10-inch tentacles to strangle a romantic rival to death.

The researchers also observed smaller "sneaker" male octopuses put on feminine airs, such as swimming girlishly near the bottom and keeping their male brown stripes hidden in order to win unsuspecting conquests.

And size does matter — but not how you'd think.

"If you're going to spend time guarding a female, you want to go for the biggest female you can find because she's going to produce more eggs," said UC Berkeley biologist Roy Caldwell, who co-wrote the study. "It's basically an investment strategy."

Shortly after the female gives birth, about a month after conception, both the mother and father die, researchers said.

"It's not the sex that leads to death," said Christine Huffard, the study's lead author. "It's just that octopuses produce offspring once during a very short lifespan of a year."

[packinpatland]

Sounds 'racist' to me :roll:


Clinton backer Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) took a couple of swipes at Obama’s speaking ability, but conceded that he’ll likely be the nominee. “In the black tradition, he would probably be mediocre,” Cleaver, who is black, told a Canadian radio program. "For White Americans, it's like, this guy can speak," Cleaver said in the radio interview. "If you put him on a level with a lot of other African-American public speakers, he may not even measure up."

[Scott Campbell]

Numanovic said his paper has not even bothered to cover the story.

"We don't have space for someone's lies," he said. "Why is she so stupid? It doesn't portray her as a real leader."



I like their attitude.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think for the betterment of the Democratic party in the 2008 election Clinton needs to drop out, and only say Clinton because she is trailing at this point. They are making McCain's job quite easy, he doesn't have to pay his staff to do any digging at this point. They are doing it for him.

[BallHawk]

Study: Octopuses Lie, Cheat and Kill for Sex

Where to you find these things? :?:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ah. The smell of desperation.

I conceded that OBama would be the nominee a long time ago.

If there's a whiff of desperation about me, it's because I see the Democratic Party turning into a giant religious cult, with no room for unbelievers. Which leaves me with McCain, and gosh he looked old on Letterman last night!

The opinion journalists are simply in love with Obama. There is no other explanation for the collective looking-the-other-way at:
1) Obviously not telling the truth about his pastor's well known politics.
2) Said his wife's "not proud of America" speech was just expressing pride in Obama new politics.
3) Said he'd accept any fair resolution in MI-FL, all the while killing elections.

Normal politicians get drubbed-out for such malarky.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think for the betterment of the Democratic party in the 2008 election Clinton needs to drop out, and only say Clinton because she is trailing at this point. They are making McCain's job quite easy, he doesn't have to pay his staff to do any digging at this point. They are doing it for him.

Governor Cuomo floated the idea this week that Obama and Clinton agree to a shared ticket right now. If that happened, it would immediately cool the ugly politics. Obama would have a smooth glide path to nomination, in all likelihood. Party united and strong. Republicans pulverized in the fall.

The Obama crowd greeted this proposal with a collective "fuck you." The Obamaniacs think they are so strong and powerful and beautiful and "Yes We Can" that they don't need no stinkin party moderates. Why, they were against the war!

Why in the hell should Clinton and her supporters rally behind this movement? McCain is more appealing than these self-rightous, more-liberal-than-thou koolaide drinkers.

Fight on Hillary! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the air, and on the land, and in Jeremiah Wright's church.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Clinton and Obama are one-in-the-same...two typical liberal politicians who will do anything to win their way to power.

The notion that Obama is somehow different and a candidate of "hope" and "change" is one of the biggest pieces of wool pulled over the eyes of Americans in some time.

I agree with what you say, except their zeal for power has nothing to do with being liberals.

I don't really know if Obama & Clinton differ from each other philosophically. I don't know what either, but especially Obama, will do in Iraq & Afghanistan.

I know for sure that their supporters are very different. Clinton's backers are more willing to compromise. And Clinton has a stronger reputation than Obama for working across party lines. Obama's message of being a "Uniter", and new-style politician is marketing.

[Joemailman]

Fight on Hillary! We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the air, and on the land, and in Jeremiah Wright's church.

Will you fight them at the Bosnian airport?

[Harlan Huckleby]

you betcha! and if you check-out the link I gave near Obama's fib list, you'll see that our forces are already hard at it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

A good man, that Howard Dean.

Dean spells out superdelegate rules
Stance seems to reject Obama camp's position
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — Citing Democratic rules, national committee Chairman Howard Dean on Tuesday said the superdelegates who are poised to select the party's presidential nominee are free to back whomever they wish at the end of the primaries, regardless of who leads in the popular vote or pledged delegates.

"They should use whatever yardstick they want," Dean said in an interview at party headquarters. "That's what the rules provide for."

Asked about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's suggestion that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment and not feel bound by the standings after June 3 — the day the nominating season ends — Dean replied: "That's what the rules say, and I enforce the rules."

He also said superdelegates are free to weigh the disputed primary results in Florida and Michigan, two states Clinton carried in the absence of campaigning by rival Sen. Barack Obama. The two campaigns have spent weeks wrangling over a plan that would seat delegates from the states, which violated party guidelines by voting earlier than allowed.

Although his comments amounted to a restatement of party rules, Dean's stance undercut an argument pressed by Obama and his backers. They have said the candidate who is leading in the popular vote and has the most pledged delegates should automatically win the support of any uncommitted superdelegates after the primary balloting ends.

Earlier Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., appeared to back away from that view.

"These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win," Pelosi said on ABC's Good Morning America.

Pelosi — who like Dean has remained neutral in the nominating fight — recently angered some Clinton supporters when she seconded Obama's position that superdelegates should be guided by the vote for pledged delegates. Several major Democratic donors sent Pelosi a letter last week objecting to that stance.

Speaking Tuesday on National Public Radio, Pelosi dismissed the letter as unimportant. Dean agreed, rejecting the characterization of those who had called it a political ransom note. "This is a democratic society," Dean said, "and they're going to use lots of different angles to get what they want. And that's their business."

With fewer than a dozen contests remaining, neither Obama nor Clinton appears likely to win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

That would leave the outcome in the hands of 794 superdelegates, party leaders whose standing gives them a say in picking the nominee.

[texaspackerbacker]

To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight.

I will, however, point out a couple of relevant facts or possibilities. Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote. Of that, 600,000 was in Illinois--Obama's home state. In fact, 400,000 was from Cook County--I wonder how many of those were Mayor Daley's well known Dems from the graveyards. Of course, if you discount those, maybe you should also discount Hillary's plurality in New York and/or Arkansas.

Also, the columnist Michael Barone, who has a reputation for competence, objectivity, and specialized electoral knowledge, projects that after all is said and done--after the Puerto Rico primary in June, Hillary will actually have a small popular vote lead, while Obama will have a delegate lead--something less than the 124 lead out of nearly 3,000 total now.

If that turns out to be correct, both could make a major case for deserving the nomination.

Actually, I sort of do have a stake in the Dem mess. Even before Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, I was saying Republicans should vote for Hillary to keep her alive and keep the sniping back and forth going. Thus, I'd be pleased to see it drag on to the bitter end and have McCain win big in November--hopefully even returning Congress to the good guys.

[Harlan Huckleby]

my nipples are getting hard.

[SkinBasket]

Optimal Sex Takes 3 to 13 Minutes, Study Finds
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Associated Press

NEW YORK — Maybe men had it right all along: It doesn't take long to satisfy a woman in bed.

A survey of sex therapists concluded the optimal amount of time for sexual intercourse was 3 to 13 minutes. The findings, to be published in the May issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, strike at the notion that endurance is the key to a great sex life.

If that sounds like good news to you, don't cheer too loudly. The time does not count foreplay, and the therapists did rate sexual intercourse that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes as "too short."

Researcher Eric Corty said he hoped to ease the minds of those who believe "more of something good is better, and if you really want to satisfy your partner, you should last forever."

The questions were not gender-specific, said Corty. But he said prior research has shown men and women want foreplay and sexual intercourse to last longer.

Dr. Irwin Goldstein, editor of the Journal of Sexual Medicine, cited a four-week study of 1,500 couples in 2005 that found the median time for sexual intercourse was 7.3 minutes. (Women in the study were armed with stopwatches.)

It's difficult for both older men and young men to make sexual intercourse last much longer, said Marianne Brandon, a clinical psychologist and director of Wellminds Wellbodies in Annapolis, Maryland.

"There are so many myths in our culture of what other people are doing sexually," Brandon said. "Most people's sex lives are not as exciting as other people think they are."

Fifty members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research in the U.S. and Canada were surveyed by Corty, an associate professor of psychology at Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, and student Jenay Guardiani. Thirty-four members, or 68 percent, responded, although some said the optimal time depended on the couple.

Corty said he hoped to give an idea of what therapists find to be normal and satisfactory among the couples they see.

"People who read this will say, 'I last five minutes or my partner lasts eight minutes,' and say, 'That's OK,' " he said. "They will relax a little bit.

[packinpatland]

To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight.
I will, however, point out a couple of relevant facts or possibilities. Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote. Of that, 600,000 was in Illinois--Obama's home state. In fact, 400,000 was from Cook County--I wonder how many of those were Mayor Daley's well known Dems from the graveyards. Of course, if you discount those, maybe you should also discount Hillary's plurality in New York and/or Arkansas.

Also, the columnist Michael Barone, who has a reputation for competence, objectivity, and specialized electoral knowledge, projects that after all is said and done--after the Puerto Rico primary in June, Hillary will actually have a small popular vote lead, while Obama will have a delegate lead--something less than the 124 lead out of nearly 3,000 total now.

If that turns out to be correct, both could make a major case for deserving the nomination.

Actually, I sort of do have a stake in the Dem mess. Even before Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, I was saying Republicans should vote for Hillary to keep her alive and keep the sniping back and forth going. Thus, I'd be pleased to see it drag on to the bitter end and have McCain win big in November--hopefully even returning Congress to the good guys.


"To a great extent, I don't have a dog in this fight. "

Poor analogy to use these days........ :roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Remember Ned Lamont!

Lamont was a guy in Connecticut who was able to organize college students and zealous, strident liberals to kill evil centrist compromiser Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lamont was the internet king raising money, the toast of the Daily Kos. Best of all, he was against war!

Come the general election, Lieberman was able to beat him, even without Democratic Party support.

The Obama folks may regret giving the back of their hand to Clinton supporters. Everything is dreamy in a Dem Primary for a Daily Kos candidate.

[Joemailman]

Calm down Bluedog. Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought. She will back Obama, and her followers will follow suit. Hopefully it happens soon before Bill starts punching out Obama Superdelegates. Or Bill Richardson.

[The Leaper]

Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote.

That 700k does not include the results in MI or FL...where there will ultimately be no re-vote, so it is very likely the popular vote from the previous primary will stand toward each candidates total.

According to realclearpolitics.com, the total popular vote including the MI and FL primaries is:

Obama 13,931,423
Clinton 13,837,418

That is a difference of less than 100k.

So, the chances of Hillary being able to exceed Obama in the popular vote count aren't exactly out of reach...even if her chances of getting ahead in delegates is impossible.

That is the nightmare scenario for Dems...Obama leads slightly in delegates, Clinton leads slightly in popular vote.

[packinpatland]

Calm down Bluedog. Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought. She will back Obama, and her followers will follow suit. Hopefully it happens soon before Bill starts punching out Obama Superdelegates. Or Bill Richardson.

:lol: Somehow, if it were ever come to 'fisticuffs'...........Bill wouldn't stand a chance.......with anyone.......seems a bit of a 'wuss' to me.

[packinpatland]

Obama leads Hillary by around 700,000 in popular vote.

That 700k does not include the results in MI or FL...where there will ultimately be no re-vote, so it is very likely the popular vote from the previous primary will stand toward each candidates total.

According to realclearpolitics.com, the total popular vote including the MI and FL primaries is:

Obama 13,931,423
Clinton 13,837,418

That is a difference of less than 100k.

So, the chances of Hillary being able to exceed Obama in the popular vote count aren't exactly out of reach...even if her chances of getting ahead in delegates is impossible.

That is the nightmare scenario for Dems...Obama leads slightly in delegates, Clinton leads slightly in popular vote.


Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes! :roll:

[Harlan Huckleby]

Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought.

This is bad news. It will only increase the Obama side's hubris, which is their fatal flaw. The nomination is already over, I don't care about that issue.

I am poised to spam my neighbors yards with "John McCain" lawn signs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes! :roll:

Obama was on ballot in Florida. Not sure if they counted MI, some assign the "uncommitted" votes in MI to Obama. uncommitted trailed Clinton slightly, was main repository for non-Clinton voters.

[BallHawk]

Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes! :roll:

Obama was on ballot in Florida. Not sure if they counted MI, some assign the "uncommitted" votes in MI to Obama. uncommitted trailed Clinton slightly, was main repository for non-Clinton voters.

Loads of people didn't vote in Florida because they knew it wasn't counting. A large amount of those people were Obama supporters. Not making excuses for Obama, he would of had a large chunk more if people knew it counted.

I'm sick of the whole issue. Just give Clinton the delegates and she will soon destroy herself.

[packinpatland]

Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes! :roll:

Obama was on ballot in Florida. Not sure if they counted MI, some assign the "uncommitted" votes in MI to Obama. uncommitted trailed Clinton slightly, was main repository for non-Clinton voters.

Loads of people didn't vote in Florida because they knew it wasn't counting. A large amount of those people were Obama supporters. Not making excuses for Obama, he would of had a large chunk more if people knew it counted.

I'm sick of the whole issue. Just give Clinton the delegates and she will soon destroy herself.


:twisted: .............down in flames.....crash and burn!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Loads of people didn't vote in Florida because they knew it wasn't counting. A large amount of those people were Obama supporters.

They had a record turnout!

I don't know why more Obama supporters would be staying home. It wasn't on a friday when they'd be in the mosques.

The primary they had is a reasonable estimate of support.

But of course a better idea is a revote, unfortunately Obama worked to kill it.

[The Leaper]

Obama wasn't on the ballot........of course she would have more votes! :roll:

If the Dems had the same delegate process as the GOP, Clinton would already have won the nomination.

[Harlan Huckleby]

interesting, i wonder if it's too late to change the rules.....

[texaspackerbacker]

Calm down Bluedog. Polls are getting tighter in Pennsylvania. This may be over sooner than we thought. She will back Obama, and her followers will follow suit. Hopefully it happens soon before Bill starts punching out Obama Superdelegates. Or Bill Richardson.

:lol: Somehow, if it were ever come to 'fisticuffs'...........Bill wouldn't stand a chance.......with anyone.......seems a bit of a 'wuss' to me.

Speaking of WUSSINESS, anybody see the video of Obama tippytoeing up to the line when he was bowling?

[texaspackerbacker]

Good point about the Ned Lamont/Lieberman scenario, Harlan.

The same demographics apply to McCain over Obama even in relatively liberal states like Connecticut, not to mention the vast area of clearly Republican states.

I'm thinking pretty positive right about now, and it should only get better--as it did in 2000 and 2004--closer to the election when there is less of a filter by the leftist mainstream media on the comparative views and positions of the candidates that people are exposed to.

[SkinBasket]

For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sex Orientation
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL,
International Herald Tribune
June 3, 2005

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising.

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior."

The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

"This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of cell biology at Yale.

Dr. Dickson, the lead author, said he ran into the laboratory when an assistant called him on a Sunday night with the results. "This really makes you think about how much of our behavior, perhaps especially sexual behaviors, has a strong genetic component," he said.

All the researchers cautioned that any of these wired behaviors set by master genes will probably be modified by experience. Though male fruit flies are programmed to pursue females, Dr. Dickson said, those that are frequently rejected over time become less aggressive in their mating behavior.

When a normal male fruit fly is introduced to a virgin female, they almost immediately begin foreplay and then copulate for 20 minutes. In fact, Dr. Dickson and his co-author, Dr. Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, specifically chose to look for the genetic basis of fly sexual behavior precisely because it seemed so strong and instinctive and, therefore, predictable.

Scientists have known for several years that the master sexual gene, known as fru, was central to mating, coordinating a network of neurons that were involved in the male fly's courtship ritual. Last year, Dr. Bruce Baker of Stanford University discovered that the mating circuit controlled by the gene involved 60 nerve cells and that if any of these were damaged or destroyed by the scientists, the animal could not mate properly. Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay.

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

We had a cat named Fru once.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Skinbasket, have I taken a moment to remind you that you are an asshole lately?

Sometimes we get so caught-up in our daily cares that we forget to remind those around us how we feel about them.

[SkinBasket]

Fish Accused of Sexual Harassment
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
22 February 2008 10:28 am ET

Endangered fish might face a new threat — sexual harassment.

Male Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) are jeopardizing the survival of the critically endangered Mexican fish Skiffia bilineata by constantly sexually harassing the endangered females, research now reveals.

The guppies, which invaded Mexican rivers and lakes roughly 50 years ago, physically resemble S. bilineata, but are genetically distant from them. Scientists knew that male Trinidadian guppies sexually assault females of their own species, and were concerned over whether they harassed the endangered fish as well.

The researchers found that when put in aquaria together, male Trinidadian guppies persistently tried having sex with the female S. bilineata, even when seven of their own females were present. The male guppies are drawn to large females, and endangered females are larger than guppy females, the scientists noted.

Normally S. bilineata have sex by simply uniting their genital pores in a copulatory embrace. Male Trinidadian guppies, on the other hand, have sex using a hooked organ — their "gonopodium." As such, they can damage the endangered females, and female S. bilineata have to spend a lot of energy dodging the guppies.

"Sometimes we observed harassed females jerking away from guppy males when the males appeared to have inserted their gonopodium," said researcher Alejandra Valero, a behavioral ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. "We are assessing several possible ways in which female Skiffia can be damaged by guppy sexual activity."

The guppies could be contributing to the decline of the Mexican fish. "Half of the species in the Goodeinae tribe to which Skiffia bilineata belongs are already at risk of extinction," Valero said.

However, Valero stressed the guppies were not intentionally out to harm the endangered females or drive S. bilineata to extinction.

"It may seem like their sexual behavior is part of a strategy to displace native species in order to gain exclusive ownership of the habitat," she told LiveScience. However, the guppies "are doing only what they have been doing for the last million years, which is being highly efficient at passing their genes down to successive generations — only in this case, the genes end up in the wrong females!"

[Scott Campbell]

Sometimes we get so caught-up in our daily cares that we forget to remind those around us how we feel about them.



I'm pretty good about that typically.

BTW, you're still a shithead.

[packinpatland]

She's lying again...........her calling Bill 'Honey'......I don't think so. :lol:

"Leno also asked about moments during the campaign in which the former president has blown up at reporters and others.

"When you're supporting someone you love, you really do take it very much to heart," she said. "I said 'OK, honey, that's all right, we don't have to go get excited about it.' He's doing a great job for me but he does get a little carried away sometimes."

[texaspackerbacker]

What's happening here is the Clintons finding out that the leftist media is just not going to give them a pass to get away with the same kind of demagoguery and crap they had carte blanche to perpetrate against Republicans. Obama is the media's new sacred cow, and the former holy bovines aren't taking it too well.

Apologies to the Wisconsin dairy industry for my referring to Obama and the Clintons as cows.

[Freak Out]

Obama is the media's new sacred cow, and the former holy bovines aren't taking it too well.

Apologies to the Wisconsin dairy industry for my referring to Obama and the Clintons as cows.

:lol: Former holy bovines...I didn't take you for a Hindu.

[Harlan Huckleby]

actually Texans are pretty sentimental about their steer. Some even affectionate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Shape of the Race to Come
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: April 7, 2008

I’ve spent a fair amount of time the last couple of weeks with conservatives of all ages and leanings. Call it my very own listening tour.

It began with a series of conversations with a group of Weekly Standard subscribers. Then, last week, I had lunch with the only three conservatives in Cambridge, Mass.; participated in an event in New York with the leadership of Vets for Freedom; mixed and mingled with Republicans before a speech in Michigan; and, on Friday, attended a reception for friends of Bill Buckley after his memorial service at St. Patrick’s, then discussed politics that evening with conservative college students at Georgetown University.

Apart from accumulating a few frequent flier miles, what do I have to show for my travels? I can report that lots of conservatives and Republicans expect Barack Obama to be our next president.

Some Republicans are grasping at the idea that a long, bitter fight for the Democratic nomination will weaken Obama. Their hopes are about to be dashed. After the results are in from Pennsylvania on April 22, or from Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, it should become clear that Hillary Clinton won’t be able to catch Obama in the overall popular vote. Without that possibility, Clinton won’t have a shot at persuading superdelegates to break her way.

So Clinton will probably concede by mid-May. She’ll be a gracious loser (they’ll hide Bill away somewhere). The weeks that follow will be a Democratic lovefest. And the money will keep pouring in to the Obama campaign, ensuring Democratic dominance of the airwaves in the summer.

The Democratic convention is the last week in August. Shortly before, Obama will pick his running mate. He’ll have good choices available to him: experienced figures like Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, a senator with military service like Rhode Island’s Jack Reed — or, of course, Hillary Clinton. Then the Hollywood-produced and directed Democratic convention will be all uplifting Change and inspiring Hope, and it will work.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign will be slow taking off. Fund-raising will continue to be anemic. And his team will need to manage a G.O.P. convention at which Bush and Cheney will have to be loyally hailed for their achievements, even as John McCain tries to turn the page.

It’s going to be a summer of love for Obama, and a tough few months for McCain.

McCain’s comeback should begin just after Labor Day, on Sept. 4, with a strong acceptance speech at the Republican convention. The presidential debates will also provide an opportunity. Expectations for Obama will be too high, people will forget he isn’t as good a debater as he is a speaker — and McCain could well rise to the occasion.

More fundamental will be the question of the discrepancy between the image of Obama the uniter and the reality of Obama the liberal. That hasn’t been much of a problem for Obama in the Democratic contest, since Clinton hasn’t attacked from the right or even the center.

But Republicans will. Last week, over drinks, one Republican strategist not affiliated with the McCain campaign mused about how an independent advertising effort against Obama might work. “Barack Obama: He’s not who you think he is” would be the theme. The supporting evidence would come from his left-wing voting record in Illinois and Washington, spiced up with fun video clips of Reverend Wright.

Who ultimately wins? In politics, as in life, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Many Republicans I know see the weaknesses of their party and of the McCain campaign all too clearly, and assume Obama will prevail.

But a surprising number of Democrats with whom I’ve spoken expect a McCain victory. One told me he was struck by the current polls showing a dead-even race, suggesting both a surprising openness to McCain among Americans who disapprove of Bush and a striking hesitation among the same voters about Obama.

Then there’s the fact that we’re at war. As a Congressional staffer put it, “Here’s something to consider: Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain’s secret weapon — among Clinton supporters — may be Hillary’s 3 a.m. national security ad.”

And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”

In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard on abc This Week show that Condelesa Rice looks like possible VP choice. She has been appearing at political fundraisers and meetings that she hasn't been at in past. Could be a smart choice.

[Freak Out]

I heard on abc This Week show that Condelesa Rice looks like possible VP choice. She has been appearing at political fundraisers and meetings that she hasn't been at in past. Could be a smart choice.

There is no fucking way. Well....considering how easily controlled she is it is a slight possibility.

[Joemailman]

Unless things improve in Iraq really quickly, McCain needs to try to put some distance between himself and the architects of the Iraq policy. Picking Rice would do just the opposite. On the other hand, she probably does know the difference between Al-Qaeda and Shia insurgents, so she may be able to help McCain with that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

GOP strategist: Condi Rice 'actively campaigning' to be VP
David Edwards and Chris Tackett
Published: Sunday April 6, 2008

On ABC's This Week, Republican strategist Dan Senor said that Condoleezza Rice has been actively campaigning to be John McCain's pick for Vice President.

Speaking of possible Vice President options for McCain, Senor said, "Condi Rice is an option. Tom Ridge is an option. Although, I think he'd have problems at the convention. Mitt Romney is an option. Condoleezza Rice has been actively campaigning for this. There's this ritual in Washington, The Americans for Tax Reform which is headed by Grover Norquist, holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders, about 100 or 150 people. Sort of inside chattering class types and they all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."

Senor, whose most notable experience was as spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, later added, it was "the first time a Secretary of State has visited the Wednesday meeting. and she wasn't there to talk about the NATO meeting in Bucharest."

George Will, who was also on the panel discussion, said he too thought Rice could be a possible choice. "It is possible," said Will. "In fact, I guess I'm not talking out of school when I say in our green room last week when Senator Lieberman was on he said, well, perhaps Condi and of course Lieberman is very close."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Unless things improve in Iraq really quickly, McCain needs to try to put some distance between himself and the architects of the Iraq policy.

I think Iraq is more likely than not to be a net plus for McCain.

If the provinicial election go well in October, it will be a timely boost of confidence that things are headed in right direction.

The events of the past week definitely gave me pause about the longterm success of our efforts. I can't tell what others think. But if things are moving in a positive direction, as they have been over the last six months, I expect most americans will be OK with substantial troops in Iraq.

[Joemailman]

It's very possible the election would help McCain, but it's also possible the election won't happen in October. If it looks like the Sadrists have a good chance of doing well, Bush and Maliki may find a reason to postpone it. This administration learned (I hope) from the Palestinian elections in 2006 that elections in this part of the world can be tricky things. In less than a year, the mess in Iraq will be someone else's problem, so Bush isn't going to take any great risks now.

[texaspackerbacker]

Very Good article above by Kristol. Like I have said over and over, Republicans ALWAYS in recent decades are down in the polls when the main source of news on the candidates is the leftist mainstream media. Then, when there are head to head debates and dueling campagn ads, and the true positions of the candidates become more well known, the Republicans inevitably gain BECAUSE THEIR CORE POSITIONS ARE MUCH MORE IN TUNE WITH THE PEOPLE.

And McCain is in far better position already than Bush either time or most Republicans this far out from election day. As Kristol says, he has to time it right and not peak too soon.

As for Condoleeza Rice, she would be far and away the most competent person for the job. She is at the same time, a smarter black than Obama and a smarter woman than Hillary. She also has a lot more applicable experience, and she has no issues of honesty, corruption, or extremism. On the minus side, from the conservative perspective, we have no clue where she stands on domestic issues. Also, her strong suit is also McCain's strong suit--foreign policy. I could really see her in 4 or 8 years, though, as the first black president AND the first woman president.

And if you want to see racism, just wait for the horrible things the leftists will have to say about a black who ISN'T one of them.

[Harlan Huckleby]

possible the election won't happen in October. If it looks like the Sadrists have a good chance of doing well, Bush and Maliki may find a reason to postpone it.

Anything is posisible. Malaki said today that political parties with militias are ineligible for the election. Sadr offered to disarm his militia. "Disarm" means put weapons under beds, but that's good enough.

These are local elections. The U.S., at least, doesn't care much who controls the provinces, legitimacy & local control is what counts.

It doesn't make sense to guess about the futur, it's impossible to understand the present. But a positive drift in Iraq is a good thing, and Dems should hope for it too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the Republicans inevitably gain BECAUSE THEIR CORE POSITIONS ARE MUCH MORE IN TUNE WITH THE PEOPLE.

the polls don't show this.

the Republicans run strong in presidency because they have more presidential candidates. and they are good at running negative campaigns.

[Joemailman]

Obama gets Dick Move Of The Week award:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/jon-stewart-awards-obama_n_95875.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

Robert Byrd of West Virginia was re-elected in 2006 at 88. “I’m told that 90 is the new 80,” he said.

[the_idle_threat]

Obama gets Dick Move Of The Week award:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/jon-stewart-awards-obama_n_95875.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

the Republicans inevitably gain BECAUSE THEIR CORE POSITIONS ARE MUCH MORE IN TUNE WITH THE PEOPLE.

the polls don't show this.

the Republicans run strong in presidency because they have more presidential candidates. and they are good at running negative campaigns.

OK, I'm going to try and be scrupulously fair and balanced in describing the key issues and comparative positions. If anybody disagrees, let them feel free to say what they might think the respective parties' positions are in their opinions.

These are pretty much in what I consider order of importance:

PREVENTION OF ACTS OF TERROR AGAINST AMERICA:

Republicans favor basically what Bush has done--called by opponents the "Cowboy Approach", called more objectively, Interventionist Foreign Policy--America acting on its own to attack countries seen as needing to be attacked for our own interests, security and otherwise. Also, enhanced security at home, monitoring terrorist communications, denying foreign terrorists the rights that WE have in the Constitution, and THEY do not of due process--locking them up at Gitmo and using harsh interrogation.

Democrats hate the "Cowboy Approach", instead favoring putting our security in the hands of the UN and other countries like old Europe. They also favor the "police approach" which John Kerry articulated in his presidential campaign--NOT intervening in other countries, NOT fighting pre-emptive wars, just waiting for terrorists to hit us, then tracking down the perpetrators like police. Democrats also opposed the Patriot Act and other domestic security measures, opposed monitoring terrorist communications, opposed harsh interrogation of terrorists, and favored giving those foreign terrorists the rights which are Constitutionally given to Americans.

THE WAR:

Republicans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and won the military phase of those theaters of the war. They basically favor "staying the course"--continuing to progress toward victory in the form of stable representative democracies--as now seems within reach.

Democrats favor either immediate unilateral withdrawal or setting a timetable for withdrawal of troops--in Iraq, at least, thus risking the enabling of the enemy to gain control, destabilizing the entire middle east and giving them a base for terrorist actions against America and our allies.

THE ECONOMY:

Republicans favor lower taxes and in most cases, less government spending for various domestic and social programs.

Democrats favor higher taxes and greatly enhanced domestic and social program spending.

REGULATION/INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT:

Republicans abhor it; Democrats embrace it. Republicans think government gets in the way of people solving their own problems; Democrats think government is the primary solver of problems.

MORALITY AND CULTURAL ISSUES:

Most Republicans oppose making abortion easier, oppose mainstreaming homosexuality as a morally equivalent lifestyle; Democrats favor both of those things.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

Approximately 70% of Republicans--not including Bush and McCain--favor a strict approach to closing the border and denying amnesty for illegals. Approximately 70% of Democrats favor a less strict approach to closing the border and favor amnesty for illegals.

That's about all of the important issues I can think of. If there are others, feel free to bring them up.

The question I would ask everybody, is how many of those issues do you agree with the Republicans on, and how many with the Democrats? It is my contention that when the filter of leftist media bias is removed and it comes down to actual comparative positions, on virtually all of those issues, the vast majority of Americans favor the Republican position.

[Harlan Huckleby]

tex, if repubs have all these issues, why'd they get whupped in 2006 elections? Fooled by media again?

the public no longer believes that tax cuts are solution to economy.
the public is fine with "mainstreaming" homosexuals, you just haven't noticed.
I lack the patience to dissect your points, except to mention that you missed the pivotal domestic issue, health care. Most of the issues you list are ideological old canards. country is under stress, public is ready for change.

I might vote for McCain despite his membership in GOP. I have some problems w/ Obama & Obamamania. But I sure hope & expect dems to kick butt in congress like they did last time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

dp

[BallHawk]

I talked with multi-millionaire white people today about Obama....probably the most pathetic, yet hilarious conversation of my life.

[packinpatland]

I talked with multi-millionaire white people today about Obama....probably the most pathetic, yet hilarious conversation of my life.

Elaborate

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, I come back 24 hours or so later, and you and all the other Dems are MIA when it comes to discussing the issues?

Hell Yeah, the rotten leftist mainstream media successfully corrupted the electorate in the '06 Congressional Elections.

Could you possibly disagree with my intended-to-be objective characterization of the two parties' positions on those issues?

You are sort of right that I left out medical care. I covered it indirectly in referring to REGULATION/INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.

On MEDICAL CARE, most Dems favor a Canadian style "single payer system", where the government pays for all, but all private care is actually FORBIDDEN. Republicans range from "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to programs like medical savings accounts. The sure thing among Republicans, though, is a free market solution.

When all the facts about the horrors of the Canadian system are known, do you really think people would support it?

The consistent scenario is that DEMOCRATS GET ELECTED BY MASKING AND COVERING UP THEIR TRUE AGENDA--WITH THE COMPLICITY OF THE MEDIA, while REPUBLICANS GET ELECTED BY MAKING THEIR TRUE POSITIONS KNOWN TO VOTERS.

I challenge any Dem supporters to DENY or DISPUTE that logically/factually.

Just look what goes on here. All the Dem voters are ashamed/afraid/whatever to show up and discuss issues--any more than brief bits of inane sarcasm. It's the same on the national stage.

[BallHawk]

I challenge any Dem supporters to DENY or DISPUTE that logically/factually.

If there is one place where logic and facts don't make any sense is politics.

At the end of the day, no matter how many statistics one gives or how logical his arguement may be, it doesn't mean a thing. There is nothing more stubborn than a man's opinion. That rings especially true in politics.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well, here it is another 24 or so hours later, and none of the Dem/lib posters have the balls even to defend left wing positions--but how could they? Those liberal positions are simply indefensible.

[The Leaper]

the Republicans run strong in presidency because they have more presidential candidates. and they are good at running negative campaigns.

Wrong and wrong.

The GOP keeps winning the White House because the Dems have exceptionally crappy candidates. Just a month ago, everyone was yelling about how GREAT the Dems choices were. Now, after Obama has removed all doubt about how out of touch he is with most Americans and after Hillary has exhibited negative campaigning that even the GOP recoils at, are Dems still excited about their choices?

The Dems may have an advantage on issues...but their candidates often come off as two-bit liars who really don't have any true feeling for the issues they claim to hold dear. Hillary and Obama already are exhibiting the signs of that.

Sorry Obama...religion is not a crutch for most Americans. It is not the opiate of the masses. Sorry Hillary...snipers were not aiming at you, and half your campaign stories lack accuracy.

As an American, I struggle to see why Obama, Hillary and McCain are the best we can come up with.

[Joemailman]

Harlan, I come back 24 hours or so later, and you and all the other Dems are MIA when it comes to discussing the issues?

Hell Yeah, the rotten leftist mainstream media successfully corrupted the electorate in the '06 Congressional Elections.

Could you possibly disagree with my intended-to-be objective characterization of the two parties' positions on those issues?

You are sort of right that I left out medical care. I covered it indirectly in referring to REGULATION/INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.

On MEDICAL CARE, most Dems favor a Canadian style "single payer system", where the government pays for all, but all private care is actually FORBIDDEN. Republicans range from "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to programs like medical savings accounts. The sure thing among Republicans, though, is a free market solution.

When all the facts about the horrors of the Canadian system are known, do you really think people would support it?

The consistent scenario is that DEMOCRATS GET ELECTED BY MASKING AND COVERING UP THEIR TRUE AGENDA--WITH THE COMPLICITY OF THE MEDIA, while REPUBLICANS GET ELECTED BY MAKING THEIR TRUE POSITIONS KNOWN TO VOTERS.

I challenge any Dem supporters to DENY or DISPUTE that logically/factually.

Just look what goes on here. All the Dem voters are ashamed/afraid/whatever to show up and discuss issues--any more than brief bits of inane sarcasm. It's the same on the national stage.

The only Democratic candidate proposing a single payer system was Dennis Kucinich. The others didn't. Not Obama. Not Hillary Not Edwards. Not Biden.

Last time I checked though, the life expectancy of Canadians was higher than that of Americans, so maybe their system isn't as bad as you suggest. And they pay less per capita than we do. But then, so does everyone else.

[texaspackerbacker]

Maybe that's because so many Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment they can't get at home. Maybe that's because there are so many homicides, etc. in ghettos and elsewhere in America.

Kucinich's plan may have been the purest single-payer system, but the others weren't very far removed--ALL of them restricting freedom of choice and almost certainly resulting in gross inefficiency and delay like in Canada.

I applaud your issue-oriented response on this one issue, anyway.

None of the other leftists have stuck their heads out of the sand long enough to discuss any of them.

[Freak Out]

Maybe that's because so many Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment they can't get at home.

But the Canadian Government still pays for it. They do it all the time here in Alaska.

[texaspackerbacker]

LEAPER, I strongly disagree that the Democrats come out ahead on the issues.

I described as objectively as I could the comparative positions on pretty much all of those issues a few posts back. The Democrat positions on those issues are so completely out of tune with views and values of normal Americans that our forum leftists just don't even dare defend them.

Issue by issue, they simply are on the wrong side of all of them.

[The Leaper]

Tex, many Americans do not agree with you or the GOP.

In terms of National Security and the war in Iraq, neither side has an advantage IMO. Neither side has made a real effort to address our borders or deal with illegal immigrants. On the issue of Gitmo and torture, I don't think you can claim that a majority of Americans support it. I think it is about a 50-50 split by most polling. Again...neither side has an advantage. In terms of the war, I agree that a slim majority are in favor of not making an immediate pullout...but a slim majority also are in favor of having a clear exit strategy at this point, not just "stay the course".

The economy? Sorry Tex, but where has Bush reduced spending and limited government? Bush has created a bigger government and spent more money than the Democrats ever have. The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, so you are dead wrong that the GOP has the people on their side in that regard.

Again, neither side has produced anything of note pertaining to the major economic problems facing us in the decades ahead, so no one has an advantage here.

The public sentiment on regulation is closer to a 50-50 split than you suggest as well. The corporate scandals relating to Enron, Tyco and the mortgage industry have soured the opinion of many Americans on giving business free reign to do what they please. Many Americans favor tighter regulations on business.

Morality is a 50-50 split as well...claiming either side holds a high ground in morality is a joke.

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, many Americans do not agree with you or the GOP.

In terms of National Security and the war in Iraq, neither side has an advantage IMO. Neither side has made a real effort to address our borders or deal with illegal immigrants. On the issue of Gitmo and torture, I don't think you can claim that a majority of Americans support it. I think it is about a 50-50 split by most polling. Again...neither side has an advantage. In terms of the war, I agree that a slim majority are in favor of not making an immediate pullout...but a slim majority also are in favor of having a clear exit strategy at this point, not just "stay the course".

The economy? Sorry Tex, but where has Bush reduced spending and limited government? Bush has created a bigger government and spent more money than the Democrats ever have. The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, so you are dead wrong that the GOP has the people on their side in that regard.

Again, neither side has produced anything of note pertaining to the major economic problems facing us in the decades ahead, so no one has an advantage here.

The public sentiment on regulation is closer to a 50-50 split than you suggest as well. The corporate scandals relating to Enron, Tyco and the mortgage industry have soured the opinion of many Americans on giving business free reign to do what they please. Many Americans favor tighter regulations on business.

Morality is a 50-50 split as well...claiming either side holds a high ground in morality is a joke.

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply, Leaper. Some of it I even agree with--in a limited way.

The issue of illegal immigration is unique in that the partisanship doesn't correlate with the two parties. It's maybe 70/30 for stricter versus looser policies among Republicans and maybe 30/70 for stricter versus looser policies among Democrats. The most needed single item IMO is the fence. That along with moderately higher numbers of Border Patrol should take control of the border. And which party do you think gives a better chance of that? Putting the military on the border for that purpose isn't going to happen. It is impractical and against current law for them to actual do police-type practices.

Do you REALLY see the public as opposing what has worked on security in favor of a policy that just seems doomed to failure--Kerry's police approach--which is STILL the policy of the Democrat Party? Just let the Dems try and sell that to people. And do you really think people favor bringing Guantanamo terrorists into OUR justice system, or to ruling out harsh interrogation--or real torture, for that matter, if the lives of Americans are on the line? I say again, just let Obama or Hillary try to sell that to people.

And on the war, as far as we have progressed toward a successful conclusion, do you really think the stupid timetable to withdraw--with all its implications for defeat and bad consequences--is something that is going to win votes for Obama or Hillary?

What you said about higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations rings true--unfortunately. That is a tribute to the class warfare crap pushed for so long by the Dem/libs. Corporation tax is paid by customers, and fair taxing--cutting at the same rate across the board does more to stimulate the economy, since reducing the higher levels allows for more trickling down, which translates to more economic stimulation. Unfortunately, that truth is drowned out by the left's ranting about sticking it to the rich.

Morality issues are NOT a 50/50 split. Go to any school, any bar, any factory, any church, and ask people whether they like the idea of treating homosexuality as nothing worse than a qualitatively equal alternative lifestyle, as Dem/libs promote. And while you are at those places, ask what people think about making abortion more easily accessible. Some other "morality issues", yes, may be about 50/50. But abortion and the gay agenda are the two big ones, and the Democrats clearly are on the wrongside from the point of view of most Americans there.

Likewise, go to some of those places where normal people congregate and ask what they think about the manmade global warming idiocy--and the idea that they--we--should pay through the nose to "fix" it. I think you'll find a lot of acute cases of Algorophobia--fear of Algore's bullshit.

You may be right also on the regulation thing. My idea of regulation is the government harrassing me about safety crap, environmental crap, etc., however, I can see your point of view about people being disgusted over the various corporate scandals. In that arena, it starts with the liberal class warfare crap, but goes beyond that to some real need to rein things in.

Your idea of a third party probably won't happen--it just ain't the American system. If the idea has any chance, though, you would have to combine the populism you are talking about with a healthy pro-American perspective--get away from this Ron Paul anti-war/anti-interventionist foreign policy idiocy.

[The Leaper]

And do you really think people favor bringing Guantanamo terrorists into OUR justice system, or to ruling out harsh interrogation--or real torture, for that matter, if the lives of Americans are on the line? I say again, just let Obama or Hillary try to sell that to people.

There is a significant group of Americans who are fiercely opposed to torture in any form...and not all of them are Dems. There are many conservatives who value life and morality that are opposed to both the death penalty and torture.


And on the war, as far as we have progressed toward a successful conclusion, do you really think the stupid timetable to withdraw--with all its implications for defeat and bad consequences--is something that is going to win votes for Obama or Hillary?

Maybe, maybe not. My point was that the "stay the course" crowd is a small minority...just as the "cut and run" crowd is also a small minority. The majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle...the country is very weary of the war, and want to see some kind of exit strategy that puts the burden on the Iraqis to get it together.


What you said about higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations rings true--unfortunately. That is a tribute to the class warfare crap pushed for so long by the Dem/libs. Corporation tax is paid by customers, and fair taxing--cutting at the same rate across the board does more to stimulate the economy, since reducing the higher levels allows for more trickling down, which translates to more economic stimulation. Unfortunately, that truth is drowned out by the left's ranting about sticking it to the rich.

I would agree with you to an extent...I was merely pointing out that the GOP no longer holds the great advantage in the realm of taxation and low spending. Personally, I feel corporate taxes should be LOWERED...but tariffs and charges on imported goods should be heavily increased. Companies should be encouraged to PRODUCE and SELL here if they want to be part of our economy...not operating primarily overseas. Lowering the corporate tax rate and increasing tariffs on imports would be a way to accomplish that.


Your idea of a third party probably won't happen--it just ain't the American system. If the idea has any chance, though, you would have to combine the populism you are talking about with a healthy pro-American perspective--get away from this Ron Paul anti-war/anti-interventionist foreign policy idiocy.

A populist party would need to focus on core domestic issues that matter to mainstream Americans. The Dems are going to alienate a bunch of people in this campaign year due to a system that ignored the votes of people in MI and FL and the entire stupidity of the "superdelegate" system. The GOP clearly also is fractured between the haves and have nots.

A third party that doesn't listen to the special interests from both extremes would be a major hit IMO...but it will take an individual who can raise a lot of cash to challenge the two major parties.

[GoPackGo]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

[GoPackGo]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

I think liberal and conservative media are equally worthless these days.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The populist independent stance is one that continues to gain traction in the United States...and I don't think it will be long before a third party is created that seeks to appeal to the common people, not the elites or special interests. Fewer and fewer Americans are finding themselves strongly aligned with either major party.

That describes me pretty well. I voted Repub in 2000 and 2004 but 2008 might be a different story.

C'mon liberal media...let the brainwashing begin. muahhhh!!!

I think liberal and conservative media are equally worthless these days.

You only think that you are thinking. If you even doubt the conservative media that is proof that the pernicious liberal media has already been effective.

Soon, you'll be eating baguettes and like runny cheeses.

[texaspackerbacker]

See how this thread--and any thread gets diverted so easily from the issues?

That's because liberals can't stand to discuss the issues--not you, Leaper.

As for what you said about people's positions, first of all, to the extent that people DO have those views, do you HONESTLY THINK they didn't get propagandized to those views by a sinister left-leaning media?

You actually think Americans would say "Oh no, don't torture the poor terrorist just to find out where he planted the suitcase nuke at the Super Bowl"?

You actually think Americans would say "Turn those poor souls loose from Guantanamo, and give them due process in the American judicial system"?

You probably are right that most Americans were somewhere in between a stay the course mentality and a cut and run mentality originally. But which side has been vindicated? And which party STILL clings to the idea of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by giving the enemy a damn timetable? I jump for joy every time I hear one of the dynamic duo of leftist dumbasses talk about a timetable.

And even though doing what CLEARLY is right for the economic benefit of all Americans is, based on your own words, now the minority view, I suppose you would still deny that this is the product of liberal demagoguery and bias mainstream media? And the fact that this rare issue where the left, even though WRONG, seems to be the majority view has somehow become "the most important campaign issue", I suppose the leftist bias of the media has nothing to do with THAT either?

On the third party thing, there's about as much chance of that as the Giants winning the Super Bowl .........

Do you agree or disagree that in addition to the populist stuff you stated, such a party could only be successful if it came out PRO-AMERICAN, disavowing the anti-war, anti-interventionist foreign policy of loons like Ron Paul? You weren't one of those Paulist loons, were you?

[Harlan Huckleby]

a new poll has Obama leading by 3 pts in PA

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_041608.pdf

unbelieveable. that bastard not only has the media in his pocket, his operatives must have penetrated the polling organizations too.

[hoosier]

a new poll has Obama leading by 3 pts in PA

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_041608.pdf

unbelieveable. that bastard not only has the media in his pocket, his operatives must have penetrated the polling organizations too.

That's cuz he's a lefty, which makes him down with infiltration. http://northlandposter.com/img/p141.gif

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama a Bolshevik? Yeah, that works for me. It certainly meshes with all of his stated positions. Of course, you could pretty much say the same for Hillary.

The invitation is still (always) open to you liberals/Democrats to discuss the issues. I very much doubt that you will, though, because in virtually every case, your side's positions are basically indefensible--both in terms of absolute rightness or wrongness and in terms of popularity--being in tune or out of tune with the views and values of Americans.

And to the very limited extent that leftist positions do seem to be making inroads, you can chalk that up to leftist propaganda of the mainstream media and the educational establishment--to the detriment of America.

Yeah, I know this has been covered, but it's fun to rub your noses in the sick and wrongheaded positions you Dem/lib idols cling to as often as possible.

[Harlan Huckleby]

How Obama Fell to Earth
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 18, 2008

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Then there are the cultural issues. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

When Obama began this ride, he seemed like a transcendent figure who could understand a wide variety of life experiences. But over the past months, things have happened that make him seem more like my old neighbors in Hyde Park in Chicago.

Some of us love Hyde Park for its diversity and quirkiness, as there are those who love Cambridge and Berkeley. But it is among the more academic and liberal places around. When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them. Obama has to address those doubts, and he has done so poorly up to now.

It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.

General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.

A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I saw Michael Bloomberg in extended interview on Charlie Rose, I was extremely impressed. He would be good VP for either party.

[texaspackerbacker]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

Obama is a rabid left wing EXTREMIST. This is NOT something that just happened. It's something he has always been, and which the leftist mainstream media did their damnedest to cover up.

Surprise surprise! He's good buddies with a domestic terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon and NYC Police HQ. Obama whines that he was just 8 years old back then. How old was he in 2001 when the same guy, Ayres, stated that he should have done even more bombings than what he did. How in the hell did this guy avoid major prison time if not execution--as people were apparently killed in his bombings?

Surprise surprise! Obama's mentor says "God DAMN America" among a lot of other vile crap. Obama whines that HE shouldn't be judged by the people he associates with.

The thing is, even if Obama can't be absolutely pinned down as supporting trash like Ayres and Wright, THEY SUPPORT HIM! That says volumes!

Obama didn't FALL. He was always lower than snakeshit. It merely took the media this long to realize it and point it out.

One thing the article was correct about, though. If Obama had knocked Hillary out of the race sooner, yes, he probably would have been able to skate through all the way to election day with his phony persona as a unifier standing uncontradicted by the mainstream media. If Hillary has never been good for anything else--and she hasn't, she, at least, was the reason the mainstream media finally got off their sick asses and exposed Obama for the anti American EXTREMIST piece of crap that he is.

[hoosier]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

You do know who David Brooks is, right? :lol: Oh wait, that's right, he writes for the NYT--you never heard of the guy, right?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage.

You do know who David Brooks is, right? :lol: Oh wait, that's right, he writes for the NYT--you never heard of the guy, right?

Bill Kristol now writes for the NYT...fucking liberal. :roll:

[texaspackerbacker]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

[hoosier]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

What exactly are you expecting someone to defend? Where is the substance in what you've written? You're rehashing a bunch of overblown bullshit about Obama's pastor and Obama's childhood friend as if that were the substantive element of the presidential election cycle? You're trying desparately to give intellectual weight to that personal attack, soap operaesque garbage they're serving up at Fox or wherever you get your news. Who in their right mind wants to respond to that?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That Brooks article is typical LEFTIST wrongheaded garbage. Obama is a rabid left wing EXTREMIST... Obama didn't FALL. He was always lower than snakeshit.

I think Tex is sincere in calling Brooks a leftist. Relative to himself, a moderate republican is leftist. And Obama would be to the left of that, so he's extremist.

This politics by labeling is boring. Tex, you complain that people don't respond, but if you are just ranting from place of ignorance, what is the point? I don't mean to imply that you are stupid, on the contrary I think you are very smart, and you have a lot of knowledge. But you obviously only take-in news & opinions from right-wing ideology.

I see zero evidence that Obama is an extremist, his enunciated positions are mainstream, altho perhaps calculated to be so. Many of his supporters are extreme and they irritate me to no end. Obama is a vanilla, mainstream Democrat like Clinton. I don't like Obama because I see him as arrogant & uncompromising, but that's just my impression. Dennis Kuscinich MIGHT be classified as an extreme liberal. But the public has moved left, even he doesn't seem so extreme anymore.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It is surreal that Tex is foaming at the mouth from an article by Brooks that essentially is extremely negative about Obama.

It is like Tex isn't happy if we kill obama...they have to cut him into little pieces, scatter him across the earth, so his soul will not find peace.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

So, if it is indefensible...why do you want us to respond?

We all know the outcome..we can't win. You will just tell us we are wrong. What is the point? You certainly aren't going to ever change your mind.

I think it is more of a case that you are like an old cold warrior. You despise your enemy..yet, without the enemy..what purpose does your life have. So, you hate the left..yet, you desparately need to engage with them.

Sad.

[Harlan Huckleby]

be kind to republicans, Tyrone, nobody is "sad" around here. I am glad Tex posts. The great majority of posters here are conservative, yet Tex is one of the few that will discuss politics. The rest are just bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, I guess.

[texaspackerbacker]

That's right, do like you guys always do, AVOID THE SUBSTANCE and divert to ....... whatever. Hell no, I don't know who Brooks is, and I really don't care. His words are what counts, and THAT is the substance you guys choose to avoid--because, AS ALWAYS, the liberal position is indefensible--basically everything Obama stands for is indefensible.

So I guess I'll have to forgive you guys for not even TRYING to defend it.

What exactly are you expecting someone to defend? Where is the substance in what you've written? You're rehashing a bunch of overblown bullshit about Obama's pastor and Obama's childhood friend as if that were the substantive element of the presidential election cycle? You're trying desparately to give intellectual weight to that personal attack, soap operaesque garbage they're serving up at Fox or wherever you get your news. Who in their right mind wants to respond to that?

I'm not EXPECTING you to defend anything. I'm saying you DON'T DARE defend the substance--which is the FACT that Obama is an extremist of the worst and most anti-American kind who consorts with and is SUPPORTED BY the rottenest of the rotten--add to Ayres and Wright the names of the treasonous Jane Fonda and the idiot loser, Jimmy Carter.

It's actually a credit to you, I suppose, that you don't try to find some scrap of justification or claim that Obama isn't as horrible as he obviously is.

[texaspackerbacker]

As a catch-all response to several of Tyrone and Harlan's posts at the bottom of the previous page, I will just say:

Posting politics is fun. We had to kind of do it under the table over at JSOnline. That is one thing I like better here. The other thing I like better is that I haven't seen anybody among you lefties that I can really work up HATRED for--there were several over at JSOnline and some other forums I have been in. You guys are at least decent and good natured about it.

Just the same, I enjoy rubbing your noses in the wrongheaded crap of Obama and the rest of your left wing idols--which is what the last couple of pages have been mostly about.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

be kind to republicans, Tyrone, nobody is "sad" around here. I am glad Tex posts. The great majority of posters here are conservative, yet Tex is one of the few that will discuss politics. The rest are just bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, I guess.

The sad is only to tex.

As he posts after your post...he delights in rubbing liberals nose in their wronghead policies. He finds that fun.

That is indeed sad. Sad that he thinks he is right and that only the conservative position is correct. Sad that he enjoys rubbing noses.

[texaspackerbacker]

What sad? I just said it's fun.

You have my permission to rub my nose in it in the other thread where you basically forced by surrender.

Enjoy!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What sad? I just said it's fun.

You have my permission to rub my nose in it in the other thread where you basically forced by surrender.

Enjoy!

Sad that you think you are right and anybody who is on a different side is wrong.

Sad that you think you are rubbing our noses in "it."

Sad that you take pleasure in it.

Sad that you can't see how foolish and sad you appear to most.

[Deputy Nutz]

be kind to republicans, Tyrone, nobody is "sad" around here. I am glad Tex posts. The great majority of posters here are conservative, yet Tex is one of the few that will discuss politics. The rest are just bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, I guess.

I shot my TV while listening to Billy Graham

[texaspackerbacker]

Gosh, Tyrone, you sound really BITTER!

You also sound kinda ELITIST!

I'm sad to say how much of a pleasure it is rubbing your nose in the rottenness of your guy, Obama. He is your guy, right? (this is your golden opportunity to deny him).

Would you rather I got all serious and said how horrendous it would be for the country if a piece of leftist crap like Obama got in?

I keep inviting you guys to defend YOUR America-hating elitist idiot on the issues, but you can't, can you? He really is that bad.

[swede]

I think it's wrong to say that Obama hates America.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think it's wrong to say that Obama hates America.

OK, he just has a ton of mutual love and respect for a bunch of scum who do. Hows that?

He thinks Wright is right; He has an air of respect for Ayres; And he's fonda Jane.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gosh, Tyrone, you sound really BITTER!

You also sound kinda ELITIST!

I'm sad to say how much of a pleasure it is rubbing your nose in the rottenness of your guy, Obama. He is your guy, right? (this is your golden opportunity to deny him).

Would you rather I got all serious and said how horrendous it would be for the country if a piece of leftist crap like Obama got in?

I keep inviting you guys to defend YOUR America-hating elitist idiot on the issues, but you can't, can you? He really is that bad.

Bitter. Best look in the mirror.

You keep inviting, and we keep ignoring you. Figure it out.