Wisconsin Primary

[Harlan Huckleby]

Oh, the FL-MI situation is somebody's fault, most notably Howard Dean. The Republicans found a wise compromise, it was his job to find one for the Dems. Thinking you could ruin the primaries of two big states and trust that things would just wash-out in the end was unforgivably stupid. I know he had a lot of co-conspirators, but he was guy at top.

This is a fascinating conflict, there are 4 parties to the dispute, the two campaigns, the DNC, and the states. Each party has taken a position that totally screws other parties and causes no pain to themselves.

Clinton camp: count the votes! (even though elections were bogus. )
Obama: split delegates 50-50! (to hell with the voters, they favor Clinton )
Dean/DNC - revote paid for by states.
States - count the old vote, or revote paid by DNC. (The states caused the problem by boldly breaking rules, now they accept no consequences. )

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! He's living the dream!

[Harlan Huckleby]

The process to nominate a Democratic presidential candidate is fucked up. For all the whining about the electoral college, what the Dems have to pick a nominee is 100 times worse at this point. That is why the Dems are in trouble...their process is probably going to leave a lot of voters scratching their heads and disenfranchised no matter how it winds up.

ya, I agree.

It has nothing to do with the candidates.

You went too far here. Most elections the Dems come up with some guy that the faithful just go along with. This year, there are two historic candidates that people are willing to riot in the streets over. The passion for these candidates, and the fact that their support is split right down the middle, has magnified the process deficiencies a thousand times.

[Scott Campbell]

And these are essentially the same incompetent boobs you want to authorize to steal money, skim their beaurocratic cut off the top, and then hand out what's left over out to people who are supposedly more worthy to spend it than the people who earned it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

they may be crooks, but they're our crooks.

[The Leaper]

This year, there are two historic candidates that people are willing to riot in the streets over. The passion for these candidates, and the fact that their support is split right down the middle, has magnified the process deficiencies a thousand times.

That's not a bad thing though Huck...that's my point. How can you possibly suggest that we should always have ONE real candidate and no real choice in every election?

It is GOOD to have a real choice for a change. The problem isn't the candidates...we should ALWAYS have multiple good choices to choose from on BOTH sides.

The problem is that the system is incapable of determining a clear winner between the candidates...not that we have too many candidates to choose from or too many valid candidates that energize the voting base.

[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! 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.