Wisconsin Primary

[GrnBay007]

that screechy bitch yelling

LOL!! That just made me laugh.

you have a screechy laugh, bitch.

LOL that's funny too!! I've been told my laugh is similar to a cackle. ...whatever that means. :P

Is it something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxZUF...eature=related

Mine is much more authentic!

[Harlan Huckleby]

``It would be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party for the superdelegates to undo the will of the people who have been selected in the primaries and in the caucuses and by the rules that were set out,'' Doyle said on Fox News Sunday.

Doyle's comment set me on the warpath. Well, that and Gov. Wilder talking about blacks rioting in the streets.

Governor Doyle convienently ignores that Superdelegates were created to thwart the elected delegates when they saw fit. Otherwise they would serve no purpose. Superdelgates are part of the rules too.

[Joemailman]

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

[SkinBasket]

I'm voting for Hillary Tuesday. She's much more defeatable.

[BallHawk]

A fact that says it all about Obama is that 85% of people who do not have a high school diploma voted for him. All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

I am not convinced that all these democratic supporters are intelligent enough to know how an economy works or have ever taken an economics class. Clearly they are more concerned with social issues than with the big picture. Personally, I don't think gay rights or the right to get an abortion are going to mean a whole lot when there aren't any jobs available and the standard of living has gone down the toilet.

1. Show me the statistic.

2. If that stat is true how does it say it all about Obama? Sure maybe it shows that lesser-educated voters are more likely to buy into the "we can change Washington" shtick, but there are plenty of Obama supporters that are blue-collar, non-religious, religious, upper class, etc. That's Obama's strength, he can pull from all demographics (though he is weak with Latinos).

And, last time I checked, Partial, you don't have to be Alan Greenspan to know how the economy works. I don't expect voters to know the economy inside and out. However, voters do know that gas prices are up, the housing market blows, and it's getting financially harder to raise a family.

It's easy for you to sit there on your mighty throne and look down on all the "uneducated voters." However, Partial, most of these people have actually lived life, tried to raise a family, try to pay the bills. You haven't.

[Scott Campbell]

WSJ

Democrats' Attacks
On Business Heat Up
By LAURA MECKLER and KRIS MAHER
February 16, 2008; Page A1

As the Democratic presidential contest moves to the distressed industrial Midwest, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have ratcheted up their antitrade, anticorporate rhetoric.

The candidates have made broad attacks on corporate wealth and tax cuts they say tilt toward the rich, along with more specific attacks against health insurers and oil companies, among other industries. On Friday, Mrs. Clinton began airing a TV spot in Wisconsin in which she says, "The oil companies, the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them.... It's time we had a president who stands up for all of you."

Both candidates increasingly sound like former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as they pursue his endorsement and the voters -- particularly union members -- who were drawn to the populist candidate before he dropped out last month. Illinois Sen. Obama got a boost toward that goal Friday with the backing of the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically powerful labor organizations.

SEIU long was too divided to make a national endorsement, but Mr. Edwards's withdrawal and Mr. Obama's momentum made a choice easier. Now the union has organizers on the ground working for the Obama campaign in Wisconsin, which holds the next primary Tuesday. "It has now become clear the members of our union and the leaders of our union think that it is time to become part of an effort to make Barack Obama the next president of the United States," said Andy Stern, the union's president, during a phone conference with reporters.

One factor in the endorsement is the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and blamed by many unions for sending jobs to Mexico. Sen. Obama has increasingly hit Mrs. Clinton on Nafta.

"People react very strongly against Nafta," said Anna Burger, head of SEIU's political program, in an interview. "We've seen job loss in this country as a result of Nafta. She's speaking out against Nafta now, but she has ties to it. That's been a high hurdle for her to overcome."

Wisconsin offers a test for the antitrade rhetoric, as a state where the number of well-paid manufacturing jobs has steadily declined over the past decade. Two recent polls have given Mr. Obama an edge there, and he is widely expected to carry the state.

Battered Ohio, which votes March 4, offers an even bigger test. It currently stands as the No. 1 state for home foreclosures in progress, with 3.7% of homes with outstanding mortgages affected, according a recent report by National City Corp. in Cleveland. The state is a must-win contest for Mrs. Clinton, who has lost a string of contests to Mr. Obama since Feb. 5. She has a large lead in recent Ohio polls.

Besides wooing voters, both candidates are trying to win favor from Democratic leaders in these states who serve as superdelegates. Superdelegates -- members of Congress and other prominent party figures -- aren't bound by the results of the primaries or caucuses in their states. They could help decide who wins the nomination.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), one undecided superdelegate, won election in 2006 with a populist message and said he is pleased that the presidential candidates are now following suit. "They were both a bit slow to get there, but they both have genuine beliefs about the middle class and working families and they're going exactly in the right direction," he said.

Business groups are dismissive of the Democratic attacks. "They should be talking about ways to grow the economy such as deregulation and lessening burdens on employers, rather than criticizing them with simplistic politically driven rhetoric," said Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Obama's growing backing from labor leaders may help him more with the working-class voters being wooed by those appeals. Beyond Wisconsin, SEIU's endorsement could help him in Texas, which also has a primary on March 4. The union organized 5,300 janitors in Houston in the past few years and is expected to call on its strong staff there to mobilize voters.

SEIU's backing came on the heels of an Obama endorsement Thursday by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has 1.3 million members. Overall, though, the labor movement remains divided between the two candidates. Mrs. Clinton has far deeper support from unions representing government workers, teachers and machinists, among others.

Substantively, the two Democrats agree on most economic issues. Even as they debate whether Mrs. Clinton supported Nafta too strongly in the past, for instance, both promise to try and renegotiate the agreement to get better terms.

Their rhetoric, too, is remarkably similar.

In Cincinnati Friday, Mrs. Clinton described herself as the "candidate of, from and for the middle class of America" to roundtable of voters in Cincinnati.

"We're going to end every single tax break that still exists in the federal tax code that gives one penny of your money to anybody who exports a job. Those days are done," she said. "It is wrong that an investment money manager in Wall Street making $50 million a year gets a lower tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver, and autoworker making $50,000 a year."

She has taken a number of opportunities over the last week to denounce corporations. On Thursday, she responded to reports of possible airline mergers. "We will have to take a hard look at the potential effects on workers and consumers," she said in a statement. "It is also vitally important that any proposed merger preserve the jobs and worker protections on which thousands of families rely." A spokeswoman for Delta Air Lines Inc., which people close to the matter say is in merger talks, said any merger decision would be made with the long-term interests of employees and customers in mind.

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton jumped on news that Blue Cross of California was asking doctors to provide personal medical information about their patients that could make them ineligible for insurance (a practice the company has since reversed). "This is only the most recent example of how insurance companies spend tens of billions of dollars a year figuring out how to avoid covering people with health insurance," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.

Mr. Obama's language has the same ring. On Tuesday night, as votes were being counted in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., Mr. Obama (who won all three of those contests) was in Madison, Wis., denouncing Nafta for shipping jobs overseas and, he said, forcing "parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart."

"That's why we need a president who will listen to Main Street, not just Wall Street, a president who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard," he said.

The next day, he was at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wis., to deliver an economic address in which he again denounced free-trade agreements. "Decades of trade deals like Nafta and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear," he said.

He has repeatedly accused Mrs. Clinton of supporting Nafta in the years after her husband signed it into law. Mr. Obama has sent a flier into Ohio homes that shows a locked gate, presumably to a factory, with a large "Closed" sign hanging. It says, "Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was 'a boon' to our economy. See inside..."

It seems that Mrs. Clinton never used those exact words, and Mrs. Clinton has accused Mr. Obama of peddling "all sorts of false claims."

[MJZiggy]

All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

Maybe they all just think Bush sucks and want something better than what he offered. The dems could probably win on a "no more Bush" platform alone. What's his approval rating lately?

(and yes, I know Bush can't run, but if the Republican nominee can get compared to him at all...)

[Partial]

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

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

[Partial]

All these uneducated people think the Dems are the next coming of christ because they make all these grand promises to improve their life on average Joe's dollar.

Maybe they all just think Bush sucks and want something better than what he offered. The dems could probably win on a "no more Bush" platform alone. What's his approval rating lately?

(and yes, I know Bush can't run, but if the Republican nominee can get compared to him at all...)

Bush' approval ratings are bad because he was put into a tough situation.

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

Don't go counting your chickens yet, the Democrats haven't won anything and probably won't come the election. I am not confident their candidate will still be living by that time anyway. Sad thing to think about, but you don't think there are a lot of yahoos out there who would rather see Obama in a crosshair then on TV?

I can understand why you and Joe would want a democrat elected for your own agenda (growing government, the inevitable massive pay increase to government employees) but that is a horrible thing for everyone else. A prime example of inefficient government spending is a friend of mine with only a high school degree and virtually no experience was paid 1750 USD a week to do construction. Yes, that is a 93k (after 2 weeks of vacation that were added on as hourly wage, not actually taken) a year job for someone who only has a high school degree without any experience, who was not very good at his job. 93k. For a skill-less labor worker. 93 thousand dollars. Is that not insane?!?!?!?!?!

[Partial]

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

[Joemailman]

Partial, you're a funny guy.

[BallHawk]

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

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

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

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

[BallHawk]

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

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

[MJZiggy]

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

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

[BallHawk]

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

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

Nice one, dude.