Wisconsin Primary

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

Irony at its finest.

[The Leaper]

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

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

Where did W have that on his resume?

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

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

[The Leaper]

Irony at its finest.

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

[swede]

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

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

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

Irony at its finest.

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

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

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

Irony at its finest.

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

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

[Joemailman]

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

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

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Excellent point.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

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

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

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

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

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

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

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

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

[Scott Campbell]

Did Hillary drop out yet?

[Harlan Huckleby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[swede]

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

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

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

Irony at its finest.

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

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

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

[Harlan Huckleby]

hey, the old-time FYI spirit is back!