The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[The Senator]

So you're making false claims against him that you have no proof of? Nice

Actually, I proved it on the previous page with this post:


That is definitely true. One of my professors is a telecom lobbyist, and he donated money to Obama's campaign. We were having a debate in class about whether Obama truly denies money from lobbyists, so he whipped out his laptop, went to BarackObama.com, and donated $10. The site asked him 1) what his occupation was, and 2) who his employer was. He wrote "lobbyist/ professor" and the name of his firm on the form. He had no problems submitting the form.

The next week, he told us that the $10 had been deducted from his account, no questions asked.

[souvlaki]

Obama hasn't exactly helped himself out any either Souv. He portrays an arrogant "above it all" attitude. (Much worse than I have seen in quite some time.) I do see what you're saying, but it's alot of things. It isn't just his supporters.

I get what you are saying as well. I just find it amusing that people are shocked that a politician would try and portray himself as being a different sort of politician, when in a lot of ways he's more of the same. In all honesty, I think he's better than most of the politicians that have run for President in my lifetime in that regard, but he gets beaten up on more because he, admittedly, put himself in a position of trying to be seen as different. I mean, compared to people like John Kerry, the Clintons', or hell, any politician that has run as a Republican, the guy is pretty damn clean.

[kainedamo]

Actually, I proved it on the previous page with this post:

That isn't proof.

With respect, I like your posts and I'm sure you're trustworthy, but all that was was your word.

[Excel]

To all the Obama supporters...arguing with these Obama haters does no good. I dont mena any disrespect to them or their opinions, but since January I listened to how young people dont show up at polls, or the African American dem is too small, or the supers would go to Clinton, ect. All kinds of things AGAINST him, even when most logical math showed it going his way.

My point is a lot of these people dont want him to be President, and that cloud judgement, hence why things like Obama owning polls, making random states swing states, ect. are not going to matter. So I am just say to my fellow Obama supporters, save it.

[Varient]

With all due respect Varient, this thread has lost alot of credibility due to those in the Obama camp who choose to blindly support him and accuse all of his detractors of being bigots and racists because they do not support their candidate.

Meh,.. I understand.

Even though the Obama Bashers touch on EVERYTHING Obama does including smoke cigarettes as reason why he shouldn't be president,... credability is really lost when folk contest such flimsy reasons.

Got it.

I have grown tired of being told that I'm automatically calling folk racist or bigots whenever I disagree with open silliness like (for example) contesting a person speaking on fathehood in a church on fathers day.

(The General opinion here in the office is that those of you argueing this hard are just being silly on purpose to yank chain.)

In fact I put it on the individual as far as upbringing and famial lacks more than just leaning on the terms racist or bigot.

I now believe the same.

[The Senator]

Someone want to point out a major presidential candidate in the last 20 years that wasn't a giant hypocrite in one way or another? I understand that Obama calls himself an agent of change, and he's going to do things differently, but when compared to the candidates on the Republican side of things, or when compared his former rival in the Democratic party, the guy is practically a saint (before anyone jumps on me over that, I don't mean that literally). John McCain's flip flops just in the last week probably outnumber Obama's flip flops throughout his entire campaign.

That's the problem, isn't it?

Obama claims he is an agent of change, that he is adamantly bent on fixing the political spectrum in Washington. He wants to reduce the role of lobbyists in America, he wants to eradicate the "Red vs. Blue" mentality here... yet he's just as partisan, just as shady as any other politician.

He takes money from lobbyists, he gave several lobbyists high-profile roles in his campaigns, he is constantly slinging mud against McCain and the Republicans, and he has several high-profile business dealings which are more than just questionable.

He promises better than "politics as usual," yet he cannot rise above that.

So while I agree with you that he is acting like a typical politician, it does make him a hypocrite to promise to be above it all-- just to prove that he really isn't.

[tdeverea]

His promise to take part in the public financing system

First of all, it's not a policy issue. Secondly, he never promised to take part in the PFS. From the very beginning he only said he'd seriously consider taking part in the public financing system, if it were in his best interest. I suppose it conflicts with what he's trying to do.

In regard to the lobbyist money issue, it's a non-factor in my decision to vote for him. He doesn't take money from them AND he has authored legislation that makes these issues available to the public. There's enough info out there that helps me understand what he's doing in this area so I trust his judgement. He has also issued a ban on lobbyist donations to the DNC, so that works for me. On the issues that directly effect me, Obama's golden.

[StorminNorman]

That isn't proof.

With respect, I like your posts and I'm sure you're trustworthy, but all that was was your word.

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007
Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.
He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."
"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.
"He's leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington," Psaki said. "His leadership on this issue is an evolving process."

Psaki said Obama believes that healthcare lobbyists have blocked progress toward universal health coverage, and that oil company lobbyists have blocked badly needed changes to America's energy policies.
Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.
This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.
"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."
From the day he entered the presidential race, Obama has projected an outside-the-Beltway persona, positioning himself as the Washington change agent that Americans are pining for. Last week, his campaign began running a new TV spot in Iowa, in which the narrator says, "He's leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today."
In the Democrats' previous debate, on July 23, Obama was unequivocal when challenged by former Alaska senator Mike Gravel about who his donors were.
"Well, the fact is I don't take PAC money and I don't take lobbyists' money," Obama said, touting his work on an ethics reform bill that just passed Congress. "That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the Senate. That's the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that's the kind of leadership that I'll show as president of the United States."
And on June 25, right before the second quarter ended, Obama sent an e-mail to supporters asking them to contribute to his campaign to make up for the lack of special-interest money.
"Candidates typically spend a week like this -- right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline -- on the phone day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks," the e-mail said. "Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees."
Obama's main Democratic target on the issue of lobbyist and PAC contributions has been Clinton, whom Obama has been working to paint as a figurehead for the broken politics of Washington. Through June, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton had collected $413,000 from lobbyists and $533,000 from PACs -- leading all 2008 presidential contenders in both categories. Clinton has also raised about $3 million from PACs and $400,000 from lobbyists for her Senate campaigns, according to the group.
Clinton's campaign declined to comment.
Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa, said Obama, given his record of raising special-interest money throughout his political career, was taking a "gamble" in holding himself up as a beacon of purity.
"He probably will be hurt if he's put in a position where he's trying to draw very fine distinctions between his present campaign and his past behavior," Squire said.
Obama's campaign is relying almost exclusively on an unprecedented network of grass-roots donors and activists -- nearly 260,000 of them had given him money through June alone.
And some good-government activists say that, past fund-raising practices aside, Obama has genuinely been a champion for ethics and campaign reform, both in the Illinois Legislature and in Congress.
"On the one hand, sure, he rose to power as many people do in this town, which is to raise money from the people who have the money," said Gary Kalman, of the advocacy group US PIRG.
At the same time, he added, Obama has championed public financing for elections and he fought hard to pass the federal ethics reform bill.
Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com. http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

[SuperT]

Actually, I proved it on the previous page with this post:


LOL @ that "proof"

[souvlaki]

Obama's arrogance is unrivaled. Just because the Republicans are "even worse" doesn't make Obama that much greater. You know?

Yeah, well what can you do? It's a two party system. It doesn't excuse the situation, but when you have a race between two candidates sometimes saying "Well, McCain is worse" is a legitimate excuse to vote for Obama. But then, I've never held Obama up on a pedestal like some of his supporters. I simply believed in the primary, of the two choices we had, he was the better candidate, and I feel the same in the general as well.

"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"

"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"

http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/kang-kodos.jpg

[The Senator]

LOL @ that "proof"

Go right ahead and "LOL @ that 'proof.'"

That's a real life example right there, which I experienced first hand.

Of course, I've been meaning to donate money to Obama's campaign lately... maybe I'll list my occupation as a lobbyist and share with you all the results?




(actually, scratch that-- Norm's article is good enough external proof)

[Excel]

Its the same as 2004. The Bush haters were 10x as vocal about tehri opinion than the Bush lovers, but they were still outnumbered. The select few here who dislike Obama make up 90% of the Obama thread.

But I would rather talk abotu other things... such as

-McCain lead in Florida polls has dropped to 5% (with 2 of the 3 polls from Juen going FOR Obama)
-Obama's lead in Pennsylvania polls has risen to 7.3%
-Obamas lead in Ohio polls has risen to 5.3
-McCains lead in Michigan has dropped just 1.3 and the only poll from June has Obama by 3.
-Obama now leads Virginia
-McCains North Carolina lead is down to 4%
-McCains New Hampshire leads down to 3% and the most recent poll has Obama winning
-McCains Indiana lead is down to 2%
-Obama now leads Missouri

Dont let the haters bring you down, this is the time to be excited! McCains universally blowing his leads while Obamas pulling away in some key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Watch as Obama haters try to say "Polls right now mean nothing, he will still lose (because I say so)" :rolleyes:

[tdeverea]

Jman isn't lying. I can assure you that he has researched Obama, just as I and many other detractors have.

It's a lie if I tell someone that you never do something when there's proof to the contrary. Jman said that Obama never tells HOW he'll accomplish his goals when there is proof that he has over and over again. it's in plain writing on his website. if that ain't a lie brother, i don't know what is.

[Excel]

It's a lie if I tell someone that you never do something when there's proof to the contrary. Jman said that Obama never tells HOW he'll accomplish his goals when there is proof that he has over and over again. it's in plain writing on his website. if that ain't a lie brother, i don't know what is.

That is ignorance, not a lie :up:

Many of these peoples disliek fo Obama blinds them against any good he would do.

[DorkyFresh]

Dont let the haters bring you down, this is the time to be excited! McCains universally blowing his leads while Obamas pulling away in some key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Watch as Obama haters try to say "Polls right now mean nothing, he will still lose (because I say so)" :rolleyes:


UH OH!
http://slantmouth.com/articles/provocativePyongyang/images/fistPound.jpg

[souvlaki]

Watch as Obama haters try to say "Polls right now mean nothing, he will still lose (because I say so)" :rolleyes:

Dude, hate to rain on your party but I was the first one to say that polls mean nothing before the convention (back when a lot of people that have changed their tune since were saying Obama was done for because he was losing in all the swing states). It's good news, but it is only June.

[Marx]

It's a lie if I tell someone that you never do something when there's proof to the contrary. Jman said that Obama never tells HOW he'll accomplish his goals when there is proof that he has over and over again. it's in plain writing on his website. if that ain't a lie brother, i don't know what is.

I do believe the exchange that I replied to had to do with claims that Obama doesn't take lobbyist money, even though he really does.

[Excel]

Dude, hate to rain on your party but I was the first one to say that polls mean nothing before the convention (back when a lot of people that have changed their tune since were saying Obama was done for because he was losing in all the swing states). It's good news, but it is only June.

Of course, but Id rather talk about early dominance in polls as opposed to how Obamas nothing but a lying, do nothing hypocrit when I dont believe thats the case :up:

[The Senator]

It's a lie if I tell someone that you never do something when there's proof to the contrary. Jman said that Obama never tells HOW he'll accomplish his goals when there is proof that he has over and over again. it's in plain writing on his website. if that ain't a lie brother, i don't know what is.

But he doesn't tell us how he will accomplish these goals. He makes vague promises and sets vague deadlines. He doesn't tell us how he'll push such legislation through Congress, he doesn't tell us how this bill will affect certain Americans, and (worst of all) he doesn't tell us how he will fund many of his plans.

All he lists are a bunch of ideals--ideals which I agree with (for the most part), but ideals which do not have enough substance to become policy.

[Marx]

Yeah, well what can you do? It's a two party system. It doesn't excuse the situation, but when you have a race between two candidates sometimes saying "Well, McCain is worse" is a legitimate excuse to vote for Obama. But then, I've never held Obama up on a pedestal like some of his supporters. I simply believed in the primary, of the two choices we had, he was the better candidate, and I feel the same in the general as well.

"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"

"Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"



Which is why I respect you more than others on this forum. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

It's a lie if I tell someone that you never do something when there's proof to the contrary. Jman said that Obama never tells HOW he'll accomplish his goals when there is proof that he has over and over again. it's in plain writing on his website. if that ain't a lie brother, i don't know what is.

Simply because Obama has written down a plan doesn't mean its a FEASIBLE plan.

For example - Obama still lacks a true solution to rising oil prices. Taxing those evil oil companies will do nothing but raise prices more - or reduce their funding towards alternate energy exploration.

[The Senator]

Its the same as 2004. The Bush haters were 10x as vocal about tehri opinion than the Bush lovers, but they were still outnumbered. The select few here who dislike Obama make up 90% of the Obama thread.

But I would rather talk abotu other things... such as

-McCain lead in Florida polls has dropped to 5% (with 2 of the 3 polls from Juen going FOR Obama)
-Obama's lead in Pennsylvania polls has risen to 7.3%
-Obamas lead in Ohio polls has risen to 5.3
-McCains lead in Michigan has dropped just 1.3 and the only poll from June has Obama by 3.
-Obama now leads Virginia
-McCains North Carolina lead is down to 4%
-McCains New Hampshire leads down to 3% and the most recent poll has Obama winning
-McCains Indiana lead is down to 2%
-Obama now leads Missouri

Dont let the haters bring you down, this is the time to be excited! McCains universally blowing his leads while Obamas pulling away in some key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Watch as Obama haters try to say "Polls right now mean nothing, he will still lose (because I say so)" :rolleyes:

The problem is, the polls don't mean anything at this point in the race. Twenty years ago, Dukakis was ahead of Bush in many swing states and nationwide. In 1992, Bush was far ahead of Clinton. In 2004, Kerry was sneaking ahead of Bush.

Once running mates are selected and the conventions are over, then the polls will become relevant. And, considering some polls only have Obama winning by 1-4%, it is hard to say that this is a guaranteed win considering he is polling within the statistical margin of error-- which means these states are a tie. So, currently, Obama and McCain are tied in Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, and Virginia-- meaning he does not make it to the 270 electoral votes needed for a win.

However, I do think his lead is significant, and if it holds, it could mean that he is heading for a blowout this fall. But we're already seeing his post-primary bump fading away, so it's far more difficult to call this race.

[Varient]

Again, this is a case of "hysterical ignorance."

Just because YOU can't possibly see how someone who had a good relationship with his father can knock Father's Day, that does not mean that the person in question had a bad relationship with his father.

It's a ridiculous, far-off assumption. There are fathers who do not care to celebrate this "holiday," who tell their children not to buy them anything, who only care, maybe, for a "happy Father's Day" wish and that is all.

Like my father, who I have had a solid relationship with. He calls Father's Day a greeting card holiday, I call it a greeting card holiday, and others apparently share similar views.

It doesn't deride the significance of the holiday in the eyes of others to say such a thing. If Obama cares to celebrate Father's Day, fine. I have no problem with it.

I do, personally, have a problem with a man who gives a speech on a topic the President cannot fix, simply for political attention. But considering it was a "holiday," I can let it pass.

Now, I take it, that means my father must have been a jolly drunkard who wailed on my mother every night after spending all his earnings at the local pub? :huh:
???
ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING SINCE YOU ARE NOT READING MY WORDS:

"It's not WHETHER YOU CELEBRATE this holiday or not - it's the DISCONNECT where you wanna ***** ABOUT THOSE WHO DO.

Obama is a father,... talking about fatherhood, in a church on Fathers Day. IMHO the only someone who can't grasp the concept of WHY there is a fathers day or any celebrated holiday for that matter is one who has poor relations with the causes/reasons for such holidays."

YOU JUST SAID THE SAME THING,.. THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF THE HOLIDAY.

MATT DID NOT,... And YOU continue to write as if it is really wrong in some way for a father to talk about fatherhood in a church on a day celebrating fatherhood.


Where exactly is the disconnect where you believe that Obama should not talk on Fatherhood on Fathers day,..... when his opponent spent the same day doing squat?

Exactly where is your RATIONAL ARGUEMENT that Obama should not touch on the subject of the day in a "family" setting? (He didn't get on national TV,.. he talked in a church.)


I've done my research,... Public officials for decades have done just what OBAMA has done without anyone whining about it.
(Spoke On a particular holiday ABOUT what the holiday means.)

But Obama does it and we have all these ,... these ,... Whining folk w/o anything worse to ***** about crying that he should be talking about other things ON FATHERS DAY.


Yup,.. my initial thought on this was correct. This isn't reality,.. this is folk crying over someone they can't stand.

I dare say that if the haters found out he wears white sweat socks to the Gym that they would ***** about his not doing something for his election instead,.. or at least wear more patriotic socks.

Tsk.


V.

[Varient]

McCain pushes nuclear power
The candidate calls for building 45 reactors by 2030 and endorses research into clean coal technology.
By Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 19, 2008
SPRINGFIELD, MO. -- Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program to build 45 reactors by 2030 and a long-term goal of building 100 such plants across the country.

On the second day of a campaign swing devoted to energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also committed to spending $2 billion a year for research and development "to make clean coal a reality" in an effort to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.



Blog: Top of the Ticket 2008 electoral vote mapVideo: Campaign '08
POLITICS A-Z
Campaign '08 Daily Newsletter
McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power. But his speech here included unabashed support for an energy source and technology that has been suspect in many communities since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.

No nuclear power plant has been built in America in more than 30 years, and few U.S. companies have invested in the technology to build new plants. The nation draws about 20% of its electricity from 104 working commercial reactors, but many are nearing the end of the operating period allowed by their licenses.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain told a forum at Missouri State University.

Missouri is considered a key battleground in the fall election, and the Arizona senator promised to return often to campaign in coming months. About two dozen antiwar protesters greeted his arrival here, and police escorted one youth from the auditorium after he loudly interrupted the speech.

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, rising energy costs have surged to the forefront of the campaign. On Tuesday, McCain reversed his earlier position and endorsed drilling off America's coastlines, a position that angered the environmental groups he has courted for months.

President Bush said Wednesday that he would ask Congress to overturn a moratorium on offshore drilling. Gov. Michael F. Easley of North Carolina and Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, both Democrats, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, all publicly reaffirmed their opposition to lifting the drilling ban in their states.

America's aversion to nuclear-generated power sets it apart from much of the world. Western Europe and Japan depend heavily on nuclear power, and China, Russia, India and other rising economic powers have announced plans to build more than 100 nuclear facilities in coming years.

McCain did not explain how he would dispose of the radioactive waste from the dozens of new reactors he proposed, or how he would deal with the intense political passions the issue generates.

Nor did McCain say what steps he would take to accelerate the complex licensing and testing procedures needed to build and operate a nuclear plant, or how he would convince Wall Street to invest the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion required for each plant.

Under current rules, industry experts said, construction on a new plant could not begin for at least five years because of strict requirements involving emergency response planning, radiation protection, operator training and other procedures.

McCain also promised to provide $2 billion annually to support new research into clean coal technology. Coal is America's most abundant resource, but burning coal produces gases that scientists say contribute to global warming.

McCain used his speech to criticize his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who has called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies that have seen earnings soar from the recent surge in oil prices.

"For Sen. Obama, the solution to every problem and the answer to every challenge is a new tax," McCain said.

The Obama campaign replied that McCain's call this week for offshore drilling reflected "the same Washington double talk and old ideas that have failed our country and families for too long."


Meh -----> It's like a McCain Rep was reading this thread and read what I said,...

[StrainedEyes]

McCain did not explain how he would dispose of the radioactive waste from the dozens of new reactors he proposed, or how he would deal with the intense political passions the issue generates.

Nor did McCain say what steps he would take to accelerate the complex licensing and testing procedures needed to build and operate a nuclear plant, or how he would convince Wall Street to invest the estimated $5 billion to $10 billion required for each plant.

Under current rules, industry experts said, construction on a new plant could not begin for at least five years because of strict requirements involving emergency response planning, radiation protection, operator training and other procedures.



I think that's my favorite part of the article. It's almost like he didn't research it at all.

[BlackLantern]

on the topic of nuclear power....this months issue of 'Wired' has a feature article on nuclear power and why it should be one of the avenues we look at...

[Excel]

Both Quinnipac and ARG are showing Obama with leads of 4 and 5 points in Florida.

[Marx]

Both Quinnipac and ARG are showing Obama with leads of 4 and 5 points in Florida.

Welcome to the conversation Ex. :cwink:

[Marx]

Obam team weighs Nunn, Edwards as running mates
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_veepstakes

[RockSP]

UH OH!
http://slantmouth.com/articles/provocativePyongyang/images/fistPound.jpg


Terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ban this man!!!!!!!!

[Marx]

Obama softens NAFTA rhetoric
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/19/obama-softens-nafta-rhetoric/

[The Senator]

on the topic of nuclear power....this months issue of 'Wired' has a feature article on nuclear power and why it should be one of the avenues we look at...

I am a huge supporter of nuclear power. It is clean, it is efficient, and it is perhaps the easiest alternative energy we can produce on a mass scale (because we've already done it). The technology is much safer than it was thirty years ago, and there are some reactor designs which are "meltdown proof."

Storing the waste is the only real problem, but I think they should designate a sizable chunk of the Nevada/ Utah/ Arizona wastelands for safe, underground storage.

[Marx]

I am a huge supporter of nuclear power. It is clean, it is efficient, and it is perhaps the easiest alternative energy we can produce on a mass scale (because we've already done it). The technology is much safer than it was thirty years ago, and there are some reactor designs which are "meltdown proof."

Storing the waste is the only real problem, but I think they should designate a sizable chunk of the Nevada/ Utah/ Arizona wastelands for safe, underground storage.

The waste situation is my main concern with nuclear power.

[Tag279]

He already has reniged on his promises. Are you holding him accountable?

Obama did not renig on his promise. Most people are listening to McCain's spin. The actual pledge was If McCain would agree NOT TO use private funds for the general election AND USE ONLY Public funds that he would also. The plege WAS NOT to use public funds if McCain chose to use public funds. Since McCain used private funds already for the general the deal went out the window.

If McCain and Obama agree to take the federal money and forgo fundraising, McCain would be a clear beneficiary since Obama has proven himself as a multimillion-dollar fundraiser. His campaign raised a whopping $32 million for the primary in January alone.

Obama officials said they decided to take that route because McCain is already spending privately raised funds toward the general election campaign. Obama has vastly outraised McCain, however, and would likely retain that advantage if McCain accepts the public money.

[souvlaki]

Whoa... looks like Georgia may be in play now as well.

As Barack Obama's campaign announced Thursday that it will launch television advertisements in Georgia and 17 other states Friday, a new poll shows the Democratic hopeful essentially tied with Republican John McCain in Georgia.

The poll from Atlanta-based Insider Advantage shows McCain's lead shrinking from 10 percentage points a month ago to a 44 percent to 43 percent split today, with Libertarian nominee Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia, drawing 6 percent.

I'm wondering if Bob Barr may actually play the role of spoiler in that state.

[Marx]

Whoa... looks like Georgia may be in play now as well.

As Barack Obama's campaign announced Thursday that it will launch television advertisements in Georgia and 17 other states Friday, a new poll shows the Democratic hopeful essentially tied with Republican John McCain in Georgia.

The poll from Atlanta-based Insider Advantage shows McCain's lead shrinking from 10 percentage points a month ago to a 44 percent to 43 percent split today, with Libertarian nominee Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia, drawing 6 percent.

I'm wondering if Bob Barr may actually play the role of spoiler in that state.

I would be more concerned about that factor in more than just Georgia. I've thought that since Barr announced his candidacy. Barr will be to McCain as Nader was to Gore.

[Tag279]

I would be more concerned about that factor in more than just Georgia. I've thought that since Barr announced his candidacy. Barr will be to McCain and Nader was to Gore.

Marx you have a point Barr is very likely to get the lion's share of the Republican Protest Vote.

In my city during our last Mayoral election our current Mayor won by 106 votes in a 3 candidate race. The 3rd candidate siphoned votes from the loosing candidate.

[Marx]

Marx you have a point Barr is very likely to get the lion's share of the Republican Protest Vote.

In my city during our last Mayoral election our current Mayor won by 106 votes in a 3 candidate race. The 3rd candidate siphoned votes from the loosing candidate.

I remember 2000 very well Tag. I would not be surprised at all if Barr ends up costing McCain the election.

[The Senator]

Marx you have a point Barr is very likely to get the lion's share of the Republican Protest Vote.

In my city during our last Mayoral election our current Mayor won by 106 votes in a 3 candidate race. The 3rd candidate siphoned votes from the loosing candidate.

I think Barr will primarily hurt McCain in states like Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina, where McCain is unpopular among conservatives; and in Alaska, Maine, Connecticut and New Hampshire, where third-party candidates tend to perform well...

Not to mention, since Barr is a social conservative and libertarian, he will appeal to many in the Republican base (perhaps even disgruntled Huckabee and Paul voters), he could hurt McCain nationwide too...

[Tag279]

I remember 2000 very well Tag. I would not be surprised at all if Barr ends up costing McCain the election.

I think Barr will primarily hurt McCain in states like Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina, where McCain is unpopular among conservatives; and in Alaska, Maine, Connecticut and New Hampshire, where third-party candidates tend to perform well...

Not to mention, since Barr is a social conservative and libertarian, he will appeal to many in the Republican base (perhaps even disgruntled Huckabee and Paul voters), he could hurt McCain nationwide too...

Do either of you think that the RNC may try to compell Barr to drop out?

[Marx]

Do either of you think that the RNC may try to compell Barr to drop out?

They can try all they want to but he is running as an independent candidate. He doesn't have to answer to the RNC.

If it were that simple, the DNC would try to compell Nader to drop out! :cwink:

[Marx]

Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis

[BlackestNight]

Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysishttp://www.maj.com/gallery/OnuaNuvaGuy/Images/shorteared20owl2047102415bi.jpg

[Excel]

Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis

Eh; I aint gonna sit here and defend him blindly. It woulda been cool if he did but you know, theres only one way to make the change he wants happen, and thats a win in November. So..if he felt he HAD to do this kind of stuff, its hard to blame him.

[DACrowe]

I've got mixed feelings about what Obama did. Strategically on paper it was very wise. I mean you'd be pretty idealistic and naive to agree to give up over $250 million in campaign money (just right now) for $84 million and not be able to compete vigorously against independent organizations that will try and "swift boat" him, much less be able to run his "50 state-campaign."

But he gave his word and it looks like a ploy of the "do-anything-to-win" variety. And while I'm sure that it is more complex than that, John McCain can paint it anyway he wants. And I'm just going to guess this is fuel for the fire of Sean Hannity's "I hate Barrack and Michelle" show...er Hannity and Colmes.

[Excel]

It all depends. If McCain plays the argument, Obama can just say "I am sorry I am the worlds greatest fundraiser". Not that arrogantly obviously, but you get the point. Either way it makes Obama like the one of power; which in this case, he is. Colmes himself said it the other day "Its become clear that a major character will play a minor role-John McCain".

The election has been all Obama, all that argument does is make him seem like the stronger of the 2.

[Tag279]

I've got mixed feelings about what Obama did. Strategically on paper it was very wise. I mean you'd be pretty idealistic and naive to agree to give up over $250 million in campaign money (just right now) for $84 million and not be able to compete vigorously against independent organizations that will try and "swift boat" him, much less be able to run his "50 state-campaign."

But he gave his word and it looks like a ploy of the "do-anything-to-win" variety. And while I'm sure that it is more complex than that, John McCain can paint it anyway he wants. And I'm just going to guess this is fuel for the fire of Sean Hannity's "I hate Barrack and Michelle" show...er Hannity and Colmes.

Obama did not break his word. The agreement was if McCain would agree to NOT USE PRIVATE FUNDS in the General Election and use only Public Funds in the general he would also.

"John McCain has been running a privately financed campaign for the general election since February," Bauer said. "The problem from our perspective is that the horse is long gone from the barn here."

Obama completely out-raised McCain he has right now 250-million and with 572s already moutng their attacks Obama is has an advantage in funds right now to combat these 572s (Independent Political Groups). To apply for public financing he would have to give all the money he has now back.

I agree he should have played it different than he did he made a bit of a gaff. He should have talked about all of the average people that have donated to his campaign and how he could not throw that support away.

[kainedamo]

So he didn't actually break his word?

[rdh007]

Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money_analysis

That's what we need to start doing. Obama is much like Bush in 2000, relatively unproven (though Bush had a record that was horrible and people chose to ignore it), likeable, and new to the scene. Bush was sort of the ideal Republican candidate and Obama is an ideal Democratic candidate. Neither has/had enough of a track record for the other side to effectively attack and enough charisma to win.

[DorkyFresh]

correct me if i'm wrong, but Obama's choice to not accept public funding means that he's not accepting money from the government to fund his campaign right? if that's so, despite him going back on his word, i see that as a good thing.

[The Senator]

With news that Sam Nunn is on Obama's short list, here's an opinion piece from the Washington Post which lists all of his flaws, as well as the reasons why I will not vote for an Obama-Nunn ticket.

Don't Ask Nunn
As Sen. Barack Obama considers potential running mates, he should contemplate Sam Nunn with caution. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1993, Nunn helped lead the fight against allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and was the force behind the disastrous "don't ask, don't tell" compromise. In the process, Nunn engendered the enduring enmity of a loyal voting and fundraising bloc of the Democratic Party.

That Nunn's name keeps appearing on vice presidential shortlists makes sense. A Southerner who spent 24 years in the Senate, he would give Obama entree to voters who chose Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. His moderate-to-conservative positions would balance out Obama's liberal street cred. More important, he would add foreign policy heft. Nunn was a member of the "Atari Democrats," who favored advancements in military technology, including Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. He was behind the 1992 program, with Sen. Richard Lugar, that continues to secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. (Were those weapons on the market today, they'd surely be on al-Qaeda's shopping list.) Nunn also fiercely defended the prerogatives of military commanders.

When Bill Clinton sought to keep his 1992 campaign promise to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, he met strong resistance in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Nunn, one of the most adamant opponents, led a series of hearings that were stacked against ending the prohibition. Critics noted that Nunn held more hearings about and spent more time on gays in the military than he had on the defense budget or even the Navy's Tailhook sexual harassment scandal.

Already, the prospect of an Obama-Nunn ticket does not sit well with some prominent gay Democratic fundraisers. "It would without question irrevocably diminish my enthusiasm for the democratic ticket," a longtime Clinton supporter told me in an e-mail. "Sam Nunn not only opposed [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people's] rights to serve in the military, he viciously campaigned against it."

Famously, Nunn led lawmakers on a tour of cramped submarine quarters and showers, an exercise that many viewed as a crass attempt to raise an ick factor of homosexuals living among straight troops. As if gay men and lesbians are devoid of discipline and incapable of defending this country.

Andrew Tobias of Florida, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee and (half) a superdelegate who was neutral in the primaries, told me in an e-mail, "For all Nunn's qualifications . . . there would be very little enthusiasm for him within the LGBT community." But Tobias doesn't expect "don't ask, don't tell" to last long if Obama wins in November. "Every Democratic contender favored lifting the ban, whereas Senator McCain and all HIS fellow candidates opposed it."

The military establishment's opinion on the policy has been shifting. Most notably, retired Army Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, wrote in the New York Times last year: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces." Even Bill Clinton ran away from his policy in a 2003 letter to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "If you can serve as a police officer, an FBI agent or a member of Congress," he wrote, "there is no reason why you cannot serve as a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine."

For his part, Nunn let it be known last week that he thought "don't ask, don't tell" should be revisited. "I'm not advocating anything, except I'm saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change," he said. "It's appropriate to take another look." An attempt at inoculation in case the VP vetters come calling?

Jeff Soref, former chairman of the DNC's LGBT caucus, isn't buying it. " 'Revisiting' is not admitting a mistake or apologizing for the pain he inflicted or the tens of thousands of lives affected by the policy," said the Clinton supporter. "Surely there are more compelling choices out there" for vice president, "starting with Hillary Clinton."

This sentiment underscores a larger problem for Obama: how to reach Clinton's backers to unify his party. Many women, particularly older women, are none too happy with what they view as Obama's shabby treatment of her. In the final primary states, many blue-collar white voters told pollsters that if Obama topped the ticket they'd stay home or vote for Republican John McCain, who has wasted no time in trying to court them. If Obama taps Nunn, he could end up adding gay men and lesbians to the list of disgruntled Democrats. They might not vote for McCain, but they might very well stay home.

[Marx]

With news that Sam Nunn is on Obama's short list, here's an opinion piece from the Washington Post which lists all of his flaws, as well as the reasons why I will not vote for an Obama-Nunn ticket.

I've never liked Sam Nunn. This article just reinforces some of my reasoning. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[The Senator]

I've never liked Sam Nunn. This article just reinforces some of my reasoning. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

You know, many folks seem to think that Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths as his running mate. I do not see what Sam Nunn reinforces. He is an old Washington insider who has a history of supporting the status quo, rather than change. The only thing Nunn brings to the ticket is national security credentials, and the possibility that Georgia could be secured for Obama. Nunn would be the most political, sell-out choice for Obama to make.

I think if Obama hopes to swing the south, he should look no further than Arkansas.

If he wants national security, he should pick Wes Clark. Plain and simple. Arkansas is surprisingly becoming much more competitive for Obama, and including Clark on the ticket could very well swing the state. Also, Clark is a southerner, meaning he'll definitely have appeal in Southern swing states like North Carolina and Georgia. Plus, he is far more progressive than Nunn is on social issues.

However, I do believe Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths, while also helping him with some of the demographics he's struggling to reach. That's why I think his absolute dark horse is Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas. She's a white, southern woman in her late forties who appeals to blue collar voters. Moreover, she has fifteen years' experience as a Congresswoman and a Senator, she's charismatic, and hugely popular in her home state. Plus, the last name "Lincoln" would stir up interest and comparisons on its own...

[Matt]

There is nothing Nunn adds to the ticket that someone else cannot bring without the draw backs.

[Marx]

You know, many folks seem to think that Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths as his running mate. I do not see what Sam Nunn reinforces. He is an old Washington insider who has a history of supporting the status quo, rather than change. The only thing Nunn brings to the ticket is national security credentials, and the possibility that Georgia could be secured for Obama. Nunn would be the most political, sell-out choice for Obama to make.

I think if Obama hopes to swing the south, he should look no further than Arkansas.

If he wants national security, he should pick Wes Clark. Plain and simple. Arkansas is surprisingly becoming much more competitive for Obama, and including Clark on the ticket could very well swing the state. Also, Clark is a southerner, meaning he'll definitely have appeal in Southern swing states like North Carolina and Georgia. Plus, he is far more progressive than Nunn is on social issues.

However, I do believe Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths, while also helping him with some of the demographics he's struggling to reach. That's why I think his absolute dark horse is Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas. She's a white, southern woman in her late forties who appeals to blue collar voters. Moreover, she has fifteen years' experience as a Congresswoman and a Senator, she's charismatic, and hugely popular in her home state. Plus, the last name "Lincoln" would stir up interest and comparisons on its own...

I couldn't agree more Jman. I said many times before that I wanted Wesley Clark to win in 2004. I really like him, and I honestly believe that he could make a great VP. That being said, Senator Lincoln could very well be an even better choice. And you're right, the name "Lincoln" would spark conversations.

[Matt]

You know, many folks seem to think that Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths as his running mate. I do not see what Sam Nunn reinforces. He is an old Washington insider who has a history of supporting the status quo, rather than change. The only thing Nunn brings to the ticket is national security credentials, and the possibility that Georgia could be secured for Obama. Nunn would be the most political, sell-out choice for Obama to make.

I think if Obama hopes to swing the south, he should look no further than Arkansas.

If he wants national security, he should pick Wes Clark. Plain and simple. Arkansas is surprisingly becoming much more competitive for Obama, and including Clark on the ticket could very well swing the state. Also, Clark is a southerner, meaning he'll definitely have appeal in Southern swing states like North Carolina and Georgia. Plus, he is far more progressive than Nunn is on social issues.

However, I do believe Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths, while also helping him with some of the demographics he's struggling to reach. That's why I think his absolute dark horse is Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas. She's a white, southern woman in her late forties who appeals to blue collar voters. Moreover, she has fifteen years' experience as a Congresswoman and a Senator, she's charismatic, and hugely popular in her home state. Plus, the last name "Lincoln" would stir up interest and comparisons on its own...

Obama has to be careful to an extent. He does not want a running mate who overshadows and certain candidates who reinforce his strengths could do that. I think the one reason Nunn could be a good idea, is because he becomes Obama's Cheney. Someone who you can use as almost a human shield. Make the candidates flaws look better in comparrison and you can deflect things off of him.

[Matt]

I couldn't agree more Jman. I said many times before that I wanted Wesley Clark to win in 2004. I really like him, and I honestly believe that he could make a great VP. That being said, Senator Lincoln could very well be an even better choice. And you're right, the name "Lincoln" would spark conversations.

Clark should've never dropped out of the Iowa caucus. He could very well be president today if he did not.

[Marx]

Obama has to be careful to an extent. He does not want a running mate who overshadows and certain candidates who reinforce his strengths could do that. I think the one reason Nunn could be a good idea, is because he becomes Obama's Cheney. Someone who you can use as almost a human shield. Make the candidates flaws look better in comparrison and you can deflect things off of him.

Obama could pick a much better "Cheney."


Clark should've never dropped out of the Iowa caucus. He could very well be president today if he did not.

That's my belief too. I think he would have been a great president! (Of course, I have absolutely nothing to base that on aside from my own personal belief.)

[Captain Planet!]

Obama's slogan should be:



OBAMA-NATION

[Matt]

Umm, why?

[Matt]

Obama could pick a much better "Cheney."


I suppose.


That's my belief too. I think he would have been a great president! (Of course, I have absolutely nothing to base that on aside from my own personal belief.)

I agree. He would've won Iowa, gone on to win the nomination (much like Kerry did) and from there, he would've beat Bush. Bush's one leg up on Kerry was national security. He wouldn't have had that on Clark.

[The Senator]

Obama has to be careful to an extent. He does not want a running mate who overshadows and certain candidates who reinforce his strengths could do that. I think the one reason Nunn could be a good idea, is because he becomes Obama's Cheney. Someone who you can use as almost a human shield. Make the candidates flaws look better in comparrison and you can deflect things off of him.

I actually think the one reason Nunn will be overlooked is because he fits the "Cheney" model of selecting a Vice President. The media is already calling Nunn Obama's Cheney; if Nunn is actually selected, the countless comparisons to Dick Cheney will not help Obama's "change" image at all, and could turn off many independents. Combine that with Nunn's Draconian record on gay rights, the death penalty and school prayer, it becomes clear that Nunn could offend many liberal Democrats, and would be one of the worst choices for Obama to pick.

[The Senator]

Obama could pick a much better "Cheney."

He could. And his name is Bob Kerrey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey).

[Matt]

Kerrey has been very negative about Obama.

That being said, a lot of his "best choices," have been very vocal Clinton supporters. I wonder if Obama will be like Bush and select someone like John Kerry or Nunn, despite not being the best choice, but because they were the most loyal choice?

[The Senator]

Kerrey has been very negative about Obama.

That being said, a lot of his "best choices," have been very vocal Clinton supporters. I wonder if Obama will be like Bush and select someone like John Kerry or Nunn, despite not being the best choice, but because they were the most loyal choice?

I don't think so. If Obama wants to go for loyalty, he should pick Tim Kaine. Kaine has been there for Obama since the very beginning (I believe he was the first politician out of Illinois to endorse him). Kaine is also a fairly popular governor of a swing state, though he has yet to complete his first term in office, and is not nearly as popular as former governor Warner and therefore wouldn't guarantee Virginia's swing to Obama.

I think Obama will have to pick a former Clinton supporter, whether it is Clark, Lincoln, Rendell, Kerrey, etc. simply because such an act would be seen by pundits as an attempt at "party unity." Not to mention, there aren't many Obama loyalists who scream "VP material."

[chaseter]

If Obama picked Clinton...they would win the white house hands down.

[Chris B]

I've never really seen the appeal of Sam Nunn getting picked by Obama. I still stand by the fact that Evan Bayh would be one of the better choices, and is who I'm hoping Obama goes with. Though Bill Nelson has also caught my attention as another possibility.

[Matt]

If Obama picked Clinton...they would win the white house hands down.

I doubt it, every 527 in the country would be running nonstop ads of Obama's own running mate saying "I think John McCain would make a better President than Obama." It would be suicide.

[The Senator]

If Obama picked Clinton...they would win the white house hands down.

There was actually a poll done recently which suggested that McCain would beat Obama-Clinton in Pennsylvania and Ohio. If it would hurt the Democrats in two states which Clinton won in the primary, imagine how much it could hurt the ticket in places which went for Obama. The impact could be felt nationwide, and that might be the only ticket which would guarantee McCain the White House.

I've never really seen the appeal of Sam Nunn getting picked by Obama. I still stand by the fact that Evan Bayh would be one of the better choices, and is who I'm hoping Obama goes with. Though Bill Nelson has also caught my attention as another possibility.

There is a YouTube video of Bill Nelson speaking on the Senate floor, where he talks about his youthful, sexual romps... not to mention, Nelson is the least popular statewide politician in Florida, and probably wouldn't help Obama win the state...

[chaseter]

^Hillary's supporters now support McCain...which is bad for Obama.

[Marx]

Kerrey has been very negative about Obama.

That being said, a lot of his "best choices," have been very vocal Clinton supporters. I wonder if Obama will be like Bush and select someone like John Kerry or Nunn, despite not being the best choice, but because they were the most loyal choice?

While that is certainly true, if Obama wants to win he'll pick the best...whether or not they were originally in the Clinton camp.

[BlackLantern]

^Hillary's supporters now support McCain...which is bad for Obama.

I read about 22 - 25 percent of her supporters are supporting McCain, and that number may grow before November comes along

[The Senator]

I doubt it, every 527 in the country would be running nonstop ads of Obama's own running mate saying "I think John McCain would make a better President than Obama." It would be suicide.

To be fair, Clinton did not say that. She vaguely hinted at it. However, that isn't the only thing Obama's opponents will throw at the ticket. Her highly sarcastic attitude towards Obama's campaign (everything from her 'colorful' criticism of his hopeful message, to her "Yes we will" rhetoric), the RFK comments, the "change we can Xerox" line... all of that would serve as ammunition.

I guarantee Clinton is out of the running, simply for those reasons. That doesn't even get into her high negative ratings and lack of appeal to independents.

[The Senator]

^Hillary's supporters now support McCain...which is bad for Obama.

Uh... no :huh:

A small percentage of her supporters now support McCain, but those polls have been decreasing since Clinton dropped out of the race. I expect them to continue to decrease, especially after next week when Clinton joins Obama on the campaign trail and the media dissects that appearance for days and days...

I read about 22 - 25 percent of her supporters are supporting McCain, and that number may grow before November comes along

There was a poll issued several weeks ago in the Washington Post which said that 25% of her supporters said they would support McCain. Earlier this week, another poll said 21% support McCain. Many experts expect that number to decrease to 15% before the convention, and perhaps lower afterwards.

[chaseter]

Uh... no :huh:

A small percentage of her supporters now support McCain, but those polls have been decreasing since Clinton dropped out of the race. I expect them to continue to decrease, especially after next week when Clinton joins Obama on the campaign trail and the media dissects that appearance for days and days...
This was all right after Clinton lost but still didn't give up...a lot of women supporters went to McCain's side from the way Obama treated her. If she makes amends I am sure they will trickle back. But I think, had she not said what Matt said she said, Obama and Clinton would have won by a landslide...now it is going to be close.

[BlackLantern]

if Hilary outright supports Obama that could swing the numbers, but I do not think she will do that....

[Marx]

if Hilary outright supports Obama that could swing the numbers, but I do not think she will do that....

I think it's pathetic how the media is now trying to spin some big glorious conspiracy as to why Bill Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet.

[The Senator]

This was all right after Clinton lost but still didn't give up...a lot of women supporters went to McCain's side from the way Obama treated her. If she makes amends I am sure they will trickle back. But I think, had she not said what Matt said she said, Obama and Clinton would have won by a landslide...now it is going to be close.

Well, considering the poll I referenced suggested Obama-Clinton would lose in Pennsylvania and Ohio, I don't really see how the ticket would win in a landslide at all. The poll didn't take into account swing states like Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa, where she is very unpopular and probably wouldn't help sway the independents which traditionally decide the outcomes of those states.

[BlackLantern]

I think it's pathetic how the media is now trying to spin some big glorious conspiracy as to why Bill Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet.

He isn't under any obligation to....IMHO

[The Senator]

I think it's pathetic how the media is now trying to spin some big glorious conspiracy as to why Bill Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet.

I think it is pretty suspicious. There is no rational reason why Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet.

[Marx]

He isn't under any obligation to....IMHO

I think it is pretty suspicious. There is no rational reason why Clinton hasn't endorsed Obama yet.

Just because he hasn't immediately jumped on the Obama bandwagon, doesn't mean that he won't. What's the rush?

[chaseter]

Well, considering the poll I referenced suggested Obama-Clinton would lose in Pennsylvania and Ohio, I don't really see how the ticket would win in a landslide at all. The poll didn't take into account swing states like Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa, where she is very unpopular and probably wouldn't help sway the independents which traditionally decide the outcomes of those states.
Polls this early don't mean anything:o Of course they won't win every state...

[Chris B]

There is a YouTube video of Bill Nelson speaking on the Senate floor, where he talks about his youthful, sexual romps... not to mention, Nelson is the least popular statewide politician in Florida, and probably wouldn't help Obama win the state...

Thats too bad about Nelson. That pretty leaves Bayh, Clark, and Easley as the only Clinton supporters who would be viable running mates in my mind.

[The Senator]

Just because he hasn't immediately jumped on the Obama bandwagon, doesn't mean that he won't. What's the rush?

The party has a nominee now :huh:

Granted, Bill Clinton has no obligation to endorse Obama. However, he does have an image to maintain. The amount of damage the man has done to his own image in the past six months could become irreparable if he flat-out refuses to endorse Obama. And considering Obama defeated his wife in the primary, his decision to not endorse Obama will be widely seen as a self-righteous act of bitterness, even if that isn't the case.

[chaseter]

The party has a nominee now :huh:

Granted, Bill Clinton has no obligation to endorse Obama. However, he does have an image to maintain. The amount of damage the man has done to his own image in the past six months could become irreparable if he flat-out refuses to endorse Obama. And considering Obama defeated his wife in the primary, his decision to not endorse Obama will be widely seen as a self-righteous act of bitterness, even if that isn't the case.
Clinton's image is far from perfect:o:woot: If his wife now endorses Obama, Bill will soon follow. What is even more sad is that Hillary's image was part of her downfall and it is shameful that the public looks for things like that in helping them decide a candidate.

[The Senator]

Thats too bad about Nelson. That pretty leaves Bayh, Clark, and Easley as the only Clinton supporters who would be viable running mates in my mind.

Bayh lacks charisma, and represents the status quo. He has also proven that his presence on any campaign does not ensure a pick up of his home state (as Clinton barely won Indiana this primary).

Easley endorsed Edwards first, Clinton second, and Obama third. He will be seen as the "anybody but Obama" Governor, and could be criticized tremendously because of it.

Clark is a good choice, probably not the best in my opinion, but he's better than the other two.

IMO, Clark, Lincoln, Rendell and Kerrey are the four Clinton supporters Obama should be taking a long, hard look at.

[DACrowe]

You know, many folks seem to think that Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths as his running mate. I do not see what Sam Nunn reinforces. He is an old Washington insider who has a history of supporting the status quo, rather than change. The only thing Nunn brings to the ticket is national security credentials, and the possibility that Georgia could be secured for Obama. Nunn would be the most political, sell-out choice for Obama to make.

I think if Obama hopes to swing the south, he should look no further than Arkansas.

If he wants national security, he should pick Wes Clark. Plain and simple. Arkansas is surprisingly becoming much more competitive for Obama, and including Clark on the ticket could very well swing the state. Also, Clark is a southerner, meaning he'll definitely have appeal in Southern swing states like North Carolina and Georgia. Plus, he is far more progressive than Nunn is on social issues.

However, I do believe Obama should pick someone who reinforces his strengths, while also helping him with some of the demographics he's struggling to reach. That's why I think his absolute dark horse is Sen. Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas. She's a white, southern woman in her late forties who appeals to blue collar voters. Moreover, she has fifteen years' experience as a Congresswoman and a Senator, she's charismatic, and hugely popular in her home state. Plus, the last name "Lincoln" would stir up interest and comparisons on its own...

Thanks for the op-ed on Nunn. I was always on the fence about him, but I'm now completely opposed to him being on the ticket. I still think Obama's best chance in the south is Virginia with Arkansas and North Carolina as small (but unlikely) possibilities.

I think his seeking a candidate with national defense credit is a wise thing, because Obama can beat McCain on the economy himself and needs to help sooth some of the doubts raised about him, which McCain will very likely exploit with his own series of "3 a.m." phone calls.

For that reason I want Jim Webb to be on the ticket for VP. He has military experience as a former marine and foreign policy experience as serving under Reagan in several key positions, most notably Secretary to the Navy. He was once a Republican but is a moderate Democrat whose middling views will appeal to those who think Obama "is the idealist-liberal." What is crucial though is he has proven to be a good politician, having won a senate seat in Virginia (the likely southern swing state).

You suggest Gen. Wesley Clark, who I like. But his record is strictly military and he hasn't successfully won an office of any sort and is best noted in politics for a lackluster and failed presidential campaign in 2004. Webb has short senate experience but plenty of executive and military experience. And as VP he'd have a compelling argument to hammer home on John McCain, a fellow Vietnam veteran. And that point is the GI bill, which McCain has sold out in hopes to appeal to "small government" conservatives and try and force more people to be career military. This lousy political move is short-changing veterans of the benefits both he and Webb received after Vietnam. Obama can try to make those arguments but McCain comes back with snarky "Well I served and he didn't" type responses. If Webb, who sponsored the bill makes them, McCain's "military man" image is strongly hurt.

[The Senator]

Polls this early don't mean anything:o Of course they won't win every state...

The problem with that is, Obama currently wins all of those states without Clinton on the ticket.

[Marx]

The party has a nominee now :huh:

Granted, Bill Clinton has no obligation to endorse Obama. However, he does have an image to maintain. The amount of damage the man has done to his own image in the past six months could become irreparable if he flat-out refuses to endorse Obama. And considering Obama defeated his wife in the primary, his decision to not endorse Obama will be widely seen as a self-righteous act of bitterness, even if that isn't the case.

I would be shocked if Bill Clinton didn't formally endorse Barack Obama. He will endorse him, it just might not be in the timetable that some people would like. He could be waiting until the convention when the nominee is officially named...which is his right to do.

As for any "damage" to Bill Clinton, or the Clinton name, I strongly believe all of that will fade away after this election is over with. People are too caught up in the moment right now.

[chaseter]

The problem with that is, Obama currently wins all of those states without Clinton on the ticket.
Well the election is in 5 months so polls now are kind of useless and just a way for the media to have something to report. Secondly, Obama and Clinton have recently been in the news a lot from their party's primary and with that publicity Obama is currently favored more over the just until now non media existant McCain.

[The Senator]

McCain should probably remove New Hampshire from the states he hopes to win this fall:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election

[chaseter]

As for any "damage" to Bill Clinton, or the Clinton name, I strongly believe all of that will fade away after this election is over with. People are too caught up in the moment right now.
What was more shocking...Monica Lewinsky/impeachment trials or him not endorsing Obama:o

I agree with you.

[DACrowe]

seriously, how do people feel about Webb?

Also, Clinton would be a bad choice. As already sated all the things she has said about Obama, the worst IMO being "I have the experience needed to be president, John McCain has the experience needed to be president and Barrack Obama has a speech he gave in 2001," or something to that extent. But also there are VAULTS filled with anti-Clinton ammunition and July, August, September and October surprises ready to be used against her as the REpublicans (and Democrats) were so sure she'd be the nominee. If she is VP, they'll be able to still unload it all, after all. And it would paint Obama as even more of a hypocrite after the bad press he got yesterday and today (whether he was right in his decision or not. I think he was). I mean after promising a "new kind of politics" he chooses the woman he epitomized as the old politics in the Democratic Party (which is true. The Clintons have much to do as Reagan and the Bushs with shaping the current political landscape).

It would just be a disaster for Obama and contradict his message and image too much. Never mind if they somehow actually win, she'd be a complete problem to him in the White House.

[The Senator]

seriously, how do people feel about Webb?

Also, Clinton would be a bad choice. As already sated all the things she has said about Obama, the worst IMO being "I have the experience needed to be president, John McCain has the experience needed to be president and Barrack Obama has a speech he gave in 2001," or something to that extent. But also there are VAULTS filled with anti-Clinton ammunition and July, August, September and October surprises ready to be used against her as the REpublicans (and Democrats) were so sure she'd be the nominee. If she is VP, they'll be able to still unload it all, after all. And it would paint Obama as even more of a hypocrite after the bad press he got yesterday and today (whether he was right in his decision or not. I think he was). I mean after promising a "new kind of politics" he chooses the woman he epitomized as the old politics in the Democratic Party (which is true. The Clintons have much to do as Reagan and the Bushs with shaping the current political landscape).

It would just be a disaster for Obama and contradict his message and image too much. Never mind if they somehow actually win, she'd be a complete problem to him in the White House.

I do not think Webb is the best choice for Obama. Even if you add his stint as Secretary of the Navy on to his time in the Senate, Webb has less experience as Obama does. He has a fiery temper, he has a lot of personal baggage, and he has come under fire for minuscule things such as the books he wrote as a writer. Because Webb is inexperienced, and his personal life is so well known, I feel he will be the easiest of Obama's candidates to criticize and derail. Plus, he is not overwhelmingly popular in Virginia, which means his inclusion on the ticket might not decide the outcome of his home state.

I feel like Webb is another 'John Edwards' in waiting... just another VP choice picked for cosmetic and geographical reasons...

[souvlaki]

I read about 22 - 25 percent of her supporters are supporting McCain, and that number may grow before November comes along

Um, actually that number has been shrinking by the day. That's the main reason why Obama pulled ahead in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

[chaseter]

seriously, how do people feel about Webb?

Also, Clinton would be a bad choice. As already sated all the things she has said about Obama, the worst IMO being "I have the experience needed to be president, John McCain has the experience needed to be president and Barrack Obama has a speech he gave in 2001," or something to that extent. But also there are VAULTS filled with anti-Clinton ammunition and July, August, September and October surprises ready to be used against her as the REpublicans (and Democrats) were so sure she'd be the nominee. If she is VP, they'll be able to still unload it all, after all. And it would paint Obama as even more of a hypocrite after the bad press he got yesterday and today (whether he was right in his decision or not. I think he was). I mean after promising a "new kind of politics" he chooses the woman he epitomized as the old politics in the Democratic Party (which is true. The Clintons have much to do as Reagan and the Bushs with shaping the current political landscape).

It would just be a disaster for Obama and contradict his message and image too much. Never mind if they somehow actually win, she'd be a complete problem to him in the White House.
Yea Clinton has dug a ditch for herself but she is a very smart woman and mud slinging would destroy them now but that would have been a smart match IMO. It is too bad that image plays a huge role in politics as seen by Guilliana's lovely tanning, Kerry's win surfing, Clinton's smile, etc...I am surprised that we don't have male models running for office.

[chaseter]

Um, actually that number has been shrinking by the day. That's the main reason why Obama pulled ahead in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Yea it was a large number back when things were very heated after her loosing the nom but she is starting to show more support for Obama and her followers are coming back.

[souvlaki]

Yea it was a large number back when things were very heated after her loosing the nom but she is starting to show more support for Obama and her followers are coming back.

Not to mention that Clinton will be joining Obama on the campaign trail in the next week. I'd be shocked if more than 5% of the legitimate Clinton supporters end up voting for McCain in November.

[Captain Planet!]

Umm, why?
Because you see, when you say "Obama-Nation" it sounds like a pun on the word "Abomination", it's quite humorous.

[Marx]

Because you see, when you say "Obama-Nation" it sounds like a pun on the word "Abomination", it's quite humorous.

Or not. :huh:

[Chris B]

Bayh lacks charisma, and represents the status quo. He has also proven that his presence on any campaign does not ensure a pick up of his home state (as Clinton barely won Indiana this primary).

To be fair, lack of charisma isn't really a detractor for the VP candidate. But I would agree that him being on the ticket wouldn't ensure that IN would join the Dem column. Though it isn't a John Edwards situation where he has problems with popularity.

[Marx]

When the Obama logo and the Presidential logo morph
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/when-the-obama-logo-and-presidential-seal-morph/

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg



And some wonder how others can think that Obama is beyond arrogant. Things like this feed into that image.

[Marx]

Hagel would think about joining Obama ticket if asked
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/hagel-would-think-about-joining-obama-ticket-if-asked/

[The Senator]

When the Obama logo and the Presidential logo morph
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/when-the-obama-logo-and-presidential-seal-morph/

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg



And some wonder how others can think that Obama is beyond arrogant. Things like this feed into that image.

I find those images to be creative and humorous...

[chaseter]

What does 'Nero Possumus' mean?

[Marx]

I find those images to be creative and humorous...

It's creative, but that's about it.

What does 'Nero Possumus' mean?

"Yes we can" in latin.

[The Senator]

What does 'Nero Possumus' mean?

"Vero Possumus" is "Yes We Can" in Latin...

[Captain Planet!]

What does 'Nero Possumus' mean?
ZOMGZ ITZ A TEREREST MASSAGGE

[chaseter]

"Yes we can" in latin.
Then no, it is not meant to be funny and I am sure someone sat down and thought quiet a bit about that seal. It is kind a bit d-baggish but then again he is trying to brand himself.

[chaseter]

ZOMGZ ITZ A TEREREST MASSAGGE
Better read Matt's warning:o

[BlackLantern]

Vero Possumus = Verile Possum?? Horny woodland creatures? WTF?

[Marx]

Then no, it is not meant to be funny and I am sure someone sat down and thought quiet a bit about that seal. It is kind a bit d-baggish but then again he is trying to brand himself.

I would agree. I'm all for humor, but things like this only feed the image of arrogance that Obama has. You know?

[The Senator]

:whatever:

It's a ****ing seal, guys. It's not like he plagiarized a speech or anything like that.

:hehe:

[chaseter]

It just sends out the message that he is trying to be his own person and shape America the way he wants...creating his own seal that pseudo mocks the one we have had for decades. The seal is not meant to be a joke as he would have explained it and it has too much detail and his catchphrase in it to be meant as a joke. It is just Obama trying to be 'cool' and appeal to the youth vote...ala different.

[Marx]

:whatever:

It's a ****ing seal, guys. It's not like he plagiarized a speech or anything like that.

:hehe:

You're right Jman, he's already done that! :oldrazz:

[Marx]

Edit

[rdh007]

I like it. It shows confidence. Since when does running for this office not require arrogance? The very notion of putting together an exploratory committee shows an arrogance that is a cut above the rest.

[Kelly]

When the Obama logo and the Presidential logo morph
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/when-the-obama-logo-and-presidential-seal-morph/

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/20/newseals.ap.wh.jpg



And some wonder how others can think that Obama is beyond arrogant. Things like this feed into that image.


This isn't a big deal to me, but for those demographics that he is having problems with......this probably wasn't the best idea.

Obama is arrogant, its obvious in the way he carries himself, etc. But, who cares. I want my surgeon, my airplane pilot, and my president to have a certain amount of arrogance. You have to in order to handle the job. Its just reality....

Does this seal show arrogance, I don't really see it as arrogance, but I do see it as bad judgment.

[The Senator]

Poll: Obama Has a 15 Point Lead Over McCain Nationally
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

[Spider-Bite]

15 POINT FREAKING LEAD FOR OBAMA!!!! :applaud:applaud:applaud


http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

[Spider-Bite]

oh you beat me to it

[BlackLantern]

its not November yet....settle down

[chaseter]

Once again...polls mean anything right now and through ways the questions are phrased and what time they call and where they call all makes the difference. How many people did they poll and what is their margin of error...I couldn't find it in the story.

[hippie_hunter]

I am so excited by Barack Obama's new politics. Like Chris Matthews, I got a thrill down my leg when the senator announced his candidacy promising a "new kind of politics." As I recall, he said, "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Goosebumps!

You know how most politicians say one thing and do another? Well, Barack is different. He gave Hillary Clinton quite a dressing down during the primaries in the Rust Belt for having once supported NAFTA, a treaty Barack called "devastating." Obama said he'd use the threat of withdrawal from the treaty as a "hammer" to wring concessions out of Canada and Mexico. And sure, his top economics aide told a Canadian consulate official on the QT that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

But that only shows how hard it is for Obama to find aides who are as farseeing and honest as he is. Well, yes, the candidate did acknowledge to Fortune magazine last week that he now views NAFTA more favorably and wouldn't seek to renegotiate its terms. And yes, he did say, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It's not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?

Barack Obama is so uplifting. He has said, "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American." Yes, yes, yes. When he released a list of earmarks he had requested over the past three years in the U.S. Senate, he was being open and honest about the favors he has done. Some might say that $740 million is hardly worth mentioning in the context of the huge federal budget. And if $1 million went to the hospital that happens to employ Mrs. Obama, well, that's because she looks incredible in a black-and-white print sundress.

Obama has called us to something higher than politics as usual. "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," he intoned. After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama's first big appointment was Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee. Johnson has such wonderful experience under his belt, with ties to Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, the Trilateral Commission, and it turns out, Countrywide Financial. Well, yes, Countrywide was one of the mortgage lenders Obama had condemned earlier this year for "pumping up the subprime lending market. ... They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What's wrong with this picture?" And it didn't look exactly kosher that Johnson had reportedly received up to $7 million at below-market rates as a special friend of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

But Obama's response showed just how above this sort of thing he truly is. He zeroed in on the nature of the problem as soon as Johnson's shady deal came to light: "There's a game that can be played. Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire a vetter to vet the vetters." How true. It's a shame really that Johnson resigned, not wanting to become a distraction, because he was so tangential anyway.

Obama is the kind of leader who can bring us together. He may have the most one-sided, partisan voting record in the Senate, but that just shows how ready he is for a fresh start. He will take on the "special interests," like the farmers. He voted for the largest farm bill in history ($307 billion). Take that!

Obama is going to set a new tone in politics. Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections" but "this is our moment and our country is depending on us."

Somebody catch me, I may swoon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/oooh_the_new_politics.html

[Alex The Great]

go obama :up:

[Spider-Bite]

Once again...polls mean anything right now and through ways the questions are phrased and what time they call and where they call all makes the difference. How many people did they poll and what is their margin of error...I couldn't find it in the story.
5 points.

[souvlaki]

Not that this probably means anything, but...


WASHINGTON (AP) — There's new information about the hunt for a running mate for Barack Obama.

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who's met with Obama's vice-presidential screening team says she offered the names of former senators John Edwards and Sam Nunn — and was told they're on the list. Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan says when she mentioned that Al Gore is her favorite, the two members of Obama's team smiled.

[BlackLantern]

Gore is an Oscar and Nobel Prize Winner...being a VP again would be a HUGE step backwards...

[rdh007]

I agree. Though I could see him taking Secretary of Energy. Then he's focused on his issue.

[SentinelMind]

Not that this probably means anything, but...


WASHINGTON (AP) — There's new information about the hunt for a running mate for Barack Obama.

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who's met with Obama's vice-presidential screening team says she offered the names of former senators John Edwards and Sam Nunn — and was told they're on the list. Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan says when she mentioned that Al Gore is her favorite, the two members of Obama's team smiled.

Because they were trying to humor her? :huh:

[Matt]

I am so excited by Barack Obama's new politics. Like Chris Matthews, I got a thrill down my leg when the senator announced his candidacy promising a "new kind of politics." As I recall, he said, "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Goosebumps!

You know how most politicians say one thing and do another? Well, Barack is different. He gave Hillary Clinton quite a dressing down during the primaries in the Rust Belt for having once supported NAFTA, a treaty Barack called "devastating." Obama said he'd use the threat of withdrawal from the treaty as a "hammer" to wring concessions out of Canada and Mexico. And sure, his top economics aide told a Canadian consulate official on the QT that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

But that only shows how hard it is for Obama to find aides who are as farseeing and honest as he is. Well, yes, the candidate did acknowledge to Fortune magazine last week that he now views NAFTA more favorably and wouldn't seek to renegotiate its terms. And yes, he did say, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It's not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?

Barack Obama is so uplifting. He has said, "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American." Yes, yes, yes. When he released a list of earmarks he had requested over the past three years in the U.S. Senate, he was being open and honest about the favors he has done. Some might say that $740 million is hardly worth mentioning in the context of the huge federal budget. And if $1 million went to the hospital that happens to employ Mrs. Obama, well, that's because she looks incredible in a black-and-white print sundress.

Obama has called us to something higher than politics as usual. "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," he intoned. After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama's first big appointment was Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee. Johnson has such wonderful experience under his belt, with ties to Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, the Trilateral Commission, and it turns out, Countrywide Financial. Well, yes, Countrywide was one of the mortgage lenders Obama had condemned earlier this year for "pumping up the subprime lending market. ... They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What's wrong with this picture?" And it didn't look exactly kosher that Johnson had reportedly received up to $7 million at below-market rates as a special friend of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

But Obama's response showed just how above this sort of thing he truly is. He zeroed in on the nature of the problem as soon as Johnson's shady deal came to light: "There's a game that can be played. Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire a vetter to vet the vetters." How true. It's a shame really that Johnson resigned, not wanting to become a distraction, because he was so tangential anyway.

Obama is the kind of leader who can bring us together. He may have the most one-sided, partisan voting record in the Senate, but that just shows how ready he is for a fresh start. He will take on the "special interests," like the farmers. He voted for the largest farm bill in history ($307 billion). Take that!

Obama is going to set a new tone in politics. Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections" but "this is our moment and our country is depending on us."

Somebody catch me, I may swoon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/oooh_the_new_politics.html

Brilliant article. :up:

[souvlaki]

I agree. Though I could see him taking Secretary of Energy. Then he's focused on his issue.

That was my initial thought upon reading it. VP seems like a long shot, but I'd like to think he will play some part in Obama's administration.

[Matt]

Poll: Obama Has a 15 Point Lead Over McCain Nationally
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

Hmm, interesting polls, but so long as Florida and Ohio go red, if McCain can take Michigan, I can easily see this becoming another case of "wins the popular vote, loses the electoral vote."

[Matt]

That was my initial thought upon reading it. VP seems like a long shot, but I'd like to think he will play some part in Obama's administration.

Obama is not doing Gore a favor by putting him at Secretary of Energy. Gore would be doing Obama the favor. Therefore, the only way I can see Gore taking it, is if Obama gives him basically full control over the department. Gore's policies, becomes the administration's policies, no interference.

[souvlaki]

but so long as Florida and Ohio go red

According to recent polls they might not.

[The Senator]

Hmm, interesting polls, but so long as Florida and Ohio go red, if McCain can take Michigan, I can easily see this becoming another case of "wins the popular vote, loses the electoral vote."

Well, Obama currently leads in Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Missouri, so he currently has an edge in the electoral vote, as well as the national popular vote...

[Matt]

I'm guessing, and maybe it is a bold prediction at this point, but just based on past electoral maps and other factors, at least two of those states will go red.

[souvlaki]

Obama is not doing Gore a favor by putting him at Secretary of Energy. Gore would be doing Obama the favor. Therefore, the only way I can see Gore taking it, is if Obama gives him basically full control over the department. Gore's policies, becomes the administration's policies, no interference.

I'd have no issue with that. He's more qualified in that regard than Obama anyhow. Of course who knows if Obama feels the same way.

[The Senator]

I'm guessing, and maybe it is a bold prediction at this point, but just based on past electoral maps and other factors, at least two of those states will go red.

But, if you look at current election states, all of the states I listed above have been trending Democratic in the past four years. And the RCP spread also shows that Obama has a solid edge in Virginia and Ohio, which have also steered significantly to the Democrats in recent years.

I think Iowa and New Mexico are solid Obama states. Bush won Iowa by less than a percentage point, and before 2004, Democrats carried Iowa in every election from 1988 through 2000. New Mexico was won by the Democrats from 1992 through 2000, and has also been trending more and more Democratic. Otherwise, the polls suggest Obama has a great shot at Ohio and Virginia, and the competitiveness of both candidates in Florida, Georgia, Alaska and North Carolina suggests that Obama could be heading for a blowout victory.

[Matt]

I'd have no issue with that. He's more qualified in that regard than Obama anyhow. Of course who knows if Obama feels the same way.

Frankly, I'm not crazy about Gore being Sec. of Energy. There are better, more qualified men. Gore works from a PR stand point, but he can get that done even better as a lobbyist and it doesn't really help from an electorial standpoint as by the time Obama is appointing, the election will be decided. Gore is good at bringing attention to the issue, but at the end of the day, there are people who know far more about it who are far better qualified to be setting our nation's energy policies. Not to mention putting Gore in the position automatically politicizes the issue. Like it or not, Gore is seen as a liberal, tree hugging commie by most Republicans. Global warming and the energy crisis should be a universal issue, not a political one as nominating Gore for Sec. of Energy would turn it into.

[Matt]

But, if you look at current election states, all of the states I listed above have been trending Democratic in the past four years. And the RCP spread also shows that Obama has a solid edge in Virginia and Ohio, which have also steered significantly to the Democrats in recent years.

I think Iowa and New Mexico are solid Obama states. Bush won Iowa by less than a percentage point, and before 2004, Democrats carried Iowa in every election from 1988 through 2000. New Mexico was won by the Democrats from 1992 through 2000, and has also been trending more and more Democratic. Otherwise, the polls suggest Obama has a great shot at Ohio and Virginia, and the competitiveness of both candidates in Florida, Georgia, Alaska and North Carolina suggests that Obama could be heading for a blowout victory.

We'll see, I guess. Still very early to be making heads or tails of the polls and running mates can change everything. And while the state elections have been leaning blue, presidential is a whole new ball game as I'm sure you know. No matter what, it'll be fun to watch.

[The Senator]

Frankly, I'm not crazy about Gore being Sec. of Energy. There are better, more qualified men. Gore works from a PR stand point, but he can get that done even better as a lobbyist and it doesn't really help from an electorial standpoint as by the time Obama is appointing, the election will be decided. Gore is good at bringing attention to the issue, but at the end of the day, there are people who know far more about it who are far better qualified to be setting our nation's energy policies. Not to mention putting Gore in the position automatically politicizes the issue. Like it or not, Gore is seen as a liberal, tree hugging commie by most Republicans. Global warming and the energy crisis should be a universal issue, not a political one as nominating Gore for Sec. of Energy would turn it into.

If Gore isn't the man for the job, then I suggest Gary Hart. The man has become a vocal environmental activist, and his reputation as an elder statesman within the Democratic Party makes him a highly credible choice...

[Matt]

If Gore isn't the man for the job, then I suggest Gary Hart. The man has become a vocal environmental activist, and his reputation as an elder statesman within the Democratic Party makes him a highly credible choice...

I personally do not want a politican in the role. I'm sure there is a researcher or professor or authority on the topic who is far more qualified.

[BlackLantern]

Mr. Wizard??

[The Senator]

I personally do not want a politican in the role. I'm sure there is a researcher or professor or authority on the topic who is far more qualified.

What about Congressman Rush Holt, who was a nuclear physicist and rocket scientist before being elected to Congress?

[The Senator]

Actually, Amory Lovins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins) has been mentioned for the post on a few blogs, and I think he might be the perfect, non-political choice for the job.

Same thing with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFK_Jr)...

[Matt]

What about Congressman Rush Holt, who was a nuclear physicist and rocket scientist before being elected to Congress?

I suppose that could work. But again, I don't like anyone holding a party position to have it. This needs to be a bipartisan issue. It effects us all. It needs to start being treated as such.

[souvlaki]

Obama's stance on the FISA bill... wow. There are probably a lot of disillusioned Obama supporters right now. I'm still trying to get my head around how exactly that was a good move for him politically.

[Matt]

Obama's stance on the FISA bill... wow. There are probably a lot of disillusioned Obama supporters right now. I'm still trying to get my head around how exactly that was a good move for him politically.

There is a good chance Obama will be the one behind that power in six months time. Do you really think he will want to give it up?

[souvlaki]

There is a good chance Obama will be the one behind that power in six months time. Do you really think he will want to give it up?

Actually, after reading up on it, it's being blown out of proportion by some people. Obama is seeking to remove the most controversial part of the bill (the part about granting retroactive immunity). Otherwise it's a pretty reasonable piece of legislation. Ends warrantless wiretapping, which is what he should be for anyhow. I don't have a problem with wiretapping as long as it's done with a warrant. Is there something about this legislation I'm missing? Because some people (mostly people on the far left) are freaking out about it like Obama shot a baby or something.

[BlackLantern]

I am very divided about the wiretapping....part of me feels that if you aren't doing anything wrong, what's the problem? the other part of me is dealing with the "invasion of privacy" and all that...

[Tag279]

This is the latest electoral map. Obama 317 McCain 194 Ties 27

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x182/Tag279/Jun21electoralmap.png

[BlackLantern]

just as I thought....the South and Middle America don't want a ****** running their country....their words, not mine

[The Senator]

just as I thought....the South and Middle America don't want a ****** running their country....their words, not mine

Obama is statistically tied in Georgia and North Carolina, and he currently wins one of Nebraska's five electoral votes... so some folks in the South apparently don't mind him...

[BlackLantern]

from a purely visual standpoint....what does it look like if Obama just wins the northeast and West Coast, and doesn't even need Middle America or a big chunk of the South to win the presidency??

[The Senator]

from a purely visual standpoint....what does it look like if Obama just wins the northeast and West Coast, and doesn't even need Middle America or a big chunk of the South to win the presidency??

I don't think it really matters. Contrary to what Hillary Clinton thinks, we elect a president purely on electoral votes. A Democrat does not need states like Kentucky or Tennessee to win the Presidency. As we saw with Gore, all you need is the North East, the West Coast, and perhaps two southwestern states to win the Presidency.

Gore only needed four electoral votes to win. He won all the Kerry states (except New Hampshire), plus Iowa and New Mexico. Had he won New Hampshire, he would have won the Presidency, without winning a single southern or "middle" state.

[BlackLantern]

I don't think it really matters. Contrary to what Hillary Clinton thinks, we elect a president purely on electoral votes. A Democrat does not need states like Kentucky or Tennessee to win the Presidency. As we saw with Gore, all you need is the North East, the West Coast, and perhaps two southwestern states to win the Presidency.

Gore only needed four electoral votes to win. He won all the Kerry states (except New Hampshire), plus Iowa and New Mexico. Had he won New Hampshire, he would have won the Presidency, without winning a single southern or "middle" state.

I know....I just sometimes feel that some of America gets ignored, and they shouldn't....regardless of how backwards and ignorant some of them can be....

[Tag279]

just as I thought....the South and Middle America don't want a ****** running their country....their words, not mine

The pink indicates weakly republican Like I said earlier Mississippi could swing blue

The pink outline means barely republican

[The Senator]

I know....I just sometimes feel that some of America gets ignored, and they shouldn't....regardless of how backwards and ignorant some of them can be....

Well, at the same time, most of those folks determined the president for the past thirty-two years, so it's not like they can say they don't play a role in the election...

[The Senator]

The pink indicates weakly republican Like I said earlier Mississippi could swing blue

The pink outline means barely republican

The key word there is "could."

Light-blue states such as New Jersey and Minnesota could switch to McCain. But it's highly unlikely that they will.

I'd say the same thing about Mississippi, Louisiana and South Carolina switching to Obama.

[Marx]

Obama's stance on the FISA bill... wow. There are probably a lot of disillusioned Obama supporters right now. I'm still trying to get my head around how exactly that was a good move for him politically.

I really wonder about that Souv.

[The Senator]

I support the new FISA legislation (with the exception of granting retroactive immunity to the phone companies). I think it will do much more to help secure this country.

[Tag279]

I agree souvlaki, I can deal with wiretaps if a solvent warrant is accquired.

I don't like however the government being able to tap your phone just because you have a name that is not regarded as American.

[Tag279]

I support the new FISA legislation (with the exception of granting retroactive immunity to the phone companies). I think it will do much more to help secure this country.

You guys tell me if I am missing asomething but the retro-immunity to phone companies refers to the phone companies that have been party to taps in the past (when the fed allowed or ordered it) absent a warrant ordered to do so by a Government agency they cannot be held liable or prosecuted.

[The Senator]

You guys tell me if I am missing asomething but the retro-immunity to phone companies refers to the phone companies that have been party to taps in the past (when the fed allowed or ordered it) absent a warrant ordered to do so by a Government agency they cannot be held liable or prosecuted.

Retroactive immunity means that, once this law is signed into action, companies which have already tapped phones without a warrant are not subjected to any legal penalties. So, if Verizon tapped your phone without a warrant six months ago, you cannot sue them for invading your privacy. Which is something I do not support, considering Verizon (as well as the Executive Branch) broke the law as it was then defined.

[Marx]

Retroactive immunity means that, once this law is signed into action, companies which have already tapped phones without a warrant are not subjected to any legal penalties. So, if Verizon tapped your phone without a warrant six months ago, you cannot sue them for invading your privacy. Which is something I do not support, considering Verizon (as well as the Executive Branch) broke the law as it was then defined.

But that is a part of the plan. (And it's not something I see going away anytime soon...or very easily.)

[The Senator]

But that is a part of the plan. (And it's not something I see going away anytime soon...or very easily.)

Sadly, that is true.

However, the rest of the bill is necessary for the security of this country, so I believe the retroactive immunity clause is something we're just gonna have to take. I doubt many people's lives were 'ruined' because the government illegally tapped their phones...

[Tag279]

Retroactive immunity means that, once this law is signed into action, companies which have already tapped phones without a warrant are not subjected to any legal penalties. So, if Verizon tapped your phone without a warrant six months ago, you cannot sue them for invading your privacy. Which is something I do not support, considering Verizon (as well as the Executive Branch) broke the law as it was then defined.

That's what I thought.

But here's the thing Jman if the government told Verizon to do it they are not totally culpable IMO.

[SuperT]

I agree with jman. I think the Telecom immunity is ridiculous, especially when they are doing it w/o a warrant which is essentially breaking that law.

But here's the thing Jman if the government told Verison to do it they are not totally culpable IMO.

I agree, but there needs to be equal accountability though.

[Kelly]

Sadly, that is true.

However, the rest of the bill is necessary for the security of this country, so I believe the retroactive immunity clause is something we're just gonna have to take. I doubt many people's lives were 'ruined' because the government illegally tapped their phones...



Do we know of anyone's life being ruined because their phones were tapped since 9/11???

I would like to know if there has been major problems thus far.

I think the law is fine as it has been written, even with the immunity clause.
Their motive was not to do anything illegally, it was to help their country when it asked. From this point on, yes, the law is direct and they now know.

[Marx]

Sadly, that is true.

However, the rest of the bill is necessary for the security of this country, so I believe the retroactive immunity clause is something we're just gonna have to take. I doubt many people's lives were 'ruined' because the government illegally tapped their phones...

I would agree. It is necessary for the security of the country, I just do not agree with the retroactive immunity clause.

Regardless, I think we are just going to have to deal with it...

[Tag279]

Assuming you are right Kel (and you may very well be)...I must ask, why hasn't Paul's candidacy picked up more steam. Or Kucinich. I mean, they seem like the two most likely to actually change things.

The thing is Matt people tend to vote with a combonation of their hearts and their heads. Al Gore was and is smarter than GWB and had a more lucid plan for his government than Bush did.

Bush won because he was regarded as more personable, relatable, and charasmatic. And if it were not for 911 he would not have won his second term.

Ron Paul has some decent ideas but he has some totally crazy ones too like his imperialistic stance on foreign policy. Paul is a borderline isolationist. While his consumption tax idea has some merit and could be doable with some tweaking.

Kucinich I don't know.

I have read Obama's platform on multiple occasions and I agree with what he would like to do but I do see some possible difficulty in attaining some of his goals.

But I like what he wants to do and he is an inspiring speaker. I am a trained and experienced firefighter I have worked with dogmatic by-the-book captains and idealistic impassioned captains. The idealistic impassioned captains get the job done more effectively.

From an administrative standpoint it is difficult to step by step set up a plan of action. It is easier to work from the idea down to the nut's and bolts.

In a large emergency incident you cannot determine everything you are going to do. You start out with a general strategy and work your way down to the actual tactics.

[Marx]

Obama: They're going to make you afraid of me
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/21/obama-theyre-going-to-try-to-make-you-afraid-of-me/



Very interesting.

[jaguarr]

Obama: They're going to make you afraid of me
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/21/obama-theyre-going-to-try-to-make-you-afraid-of-me/



Very interesting.

I've been asking myself for nearly eight years why no one in the Democratic party has stepped to the plate to address the nasty tactics the Republicans have employed in their campaigns (largely thanks to Karl Rove) head on and out in the open. They play dirty and should have been called out on it for all to see, their tactics simply explained to the people who are apparently unable to see through them, a long time ago (note: I am not saying the Dems are any better or worse, just that the Republicans are very dirty about this stuff, to the point that it's borderline unethical and definitely disingenous, misleading and manipulative). Granted he's doing it as a pre-emptive strike and has the ulterior motive of keeping his campaign on the rails, but I have to be honest; it's damn nice to see Obama basically pointing out plain and simple how it will likely all go down. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...and now finally someone's pointing the damn duck out after all this time.

jag

[jaguarr]

Actually, after reading up on it, it's being blown out of proportion by some people. Obama is seeking to remove the most controversial part of the bill (the part about granting retroactive immunity). Otherwise it's a pretty reasonable piece of legislation. Ends warrantless wiretapping, which is what he should be for anyhow. I don't have a problem with wiretapping as long as it's done with a warrant. Is there something about this legislation I'm missing? Because some people (mostly people on the far left) are freaking out about it like Obama shot a baby or something.

The way I understand it, Obama is looking to remove the retroactive immunity portion and that's about it. Otherwise, he's in support of it as is, ending the warrantless wiretapping (which I have a major issue with; get a warrant if it's that important). I think it's something that lacks some clarity so hopefully he will disspell some of the confusion over this one, and soon.

jag

[souvlaki]

The way I understand it, Obama is looking to remove the retroactive immunity portion and that's about it. Otherwise, he's in support of it as is, ending the warrantless wiretapping (which I have a major issue with; get a warrant if it's that important). I think it's something that lacks some clarity so hopefully he will disspell some of the confusion over this one, and soon.

jag

There is a lot of confusion over this. What initially made me bring this up was a discussion with a close friend of mine that is pretty far off to the left. They are under the impression that it in no way completely ends warrantless wiretapping. I wish someone would correct me on this, because I was somewhat unfamiliar with the actual piece of legislation before today. Doesn't this essentially roll back the powers of the President, and FISA to where they were before Bush?

[jaguarr]

There is a lot of confusion over this. What initially made me bring this up was a discussion with a close friend of mine that is pretty far off to the left. They are under the impression that it in no way completely ends warrantless wiretapping. I wish someone would correct me on this, because I was somewhat unfamiliar with the actual piece of legislation before today. Doesn't this essentially roll back the powers of the President, and FISA to where they were before Bush?

That's what it's supposed to do as I understand it, but I'm certainly no expert on it, either.

On another note, anyone catch the blurb from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel saying he would be interested in running as Obama's VP? :wow:

jag

[rdh007]

I could deal with Hagel as VP if it meant McCain not being president.

[Tag279]

On another note, anyone catch the blurb from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel saying he would be interested in running as Obama's VP? :wow:

jag

I hope the hell not the last thing he needs is a republican being able to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie on votes from the senate.

[souvlaki]

I really wonder about that Souv.

Actually, I was kind of surprised how negatively Obama's supposed base reacted to this (i.e. the far left). It's actually quite amusing watching all these people that worshiped the ground Obama walked on threatening not to vote because of this one piece of legislation (for God's sake, even Nancy Freakin' Pelosi supported it, retroactive immunity and all). Sometimes I think the far left are as screwed up as people on the far right, if not in some ways moreso. I'm not a big fan of illegal wiretaps, but I fail to see how FISA is completely raping the constitution like a lot of these people believe. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[souvlaki]

Exclusive: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy
By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 12:05PM

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

[Tag279]

Exclusive: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy
By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 12:05PM

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

Do you think it's good or bad Souvlaki? Obama can't call out McCain's 527s for fear-mongering if organizations supporting him do the same thing.

[souvlaki]

Do you think it's good or bad Souvlaki? Obama can't call out McCain's 527s for fear-mongering if organizations supporting do the same thing.

Well, exactly. I'm fine with this. Obama said he didn't want 527s spending money on his behalf during the election, and it's good to see MoveOn actually following through on this.

By eliminating 527 support, it gives Obama complete control over his political message, as well as making him solely responsible for every message coming out of his campaign without the influence of 527s. It also means he can attack McCain for 527s without coming off sounding like a complete hypocrite. So it's hard for me to see how it's a bad thing for him.

[Tag279]

Well, exactly. I'm fine with this. Obama said he didn't want 527s spending money on his behalf during the election, and it's good to see MoveOn actually following through on this.

By eliminating 527 support, it gives Obama complete control over his political message, as well as making him solely responsible for every message coming out of his campaign without the influence of 527s. It also means he can attack McCain for 527s without coming off sounding like a complete hypocrite. So it's hard for me to see how it's a bad thing for him.

My only concern with his decision is the fact that they are going to throw the kitchen sink at him, and then some. The Republicans are going to fight dirty and he cant combat that unless he gets a little dirty himself.

McCain's 527s are already throwing crap.

[The Senator]

MoveOn.org did not shut down its political action committee, which means it can still legally run ads which target and slander the Republican Party. The only difference is, their PAC will be subjected to FEC rules and regulations, whereas the 527 was not.

So, people can still donate to MoveOn.org, but there is a limit as to how much MoveOn.org can accept and how much it can spend during the election.

[souvlaki]

My only concern with his decision is the fact that they are going to throw the kitchen sink at him, and then some. The Republicans are going to fight dirty and he cant combat that unless he gets a little dirty himself.

McCain's 527s are already throwing crap.

Edit- Nevermind... JMan answered that much better than I could have.

[Marx]

I've been asking myself for nearly eight years why no one in the Democratic party has stepped to the plate to address the nasty tactics the Republicans have employed in their campaigns (largely thanks to Karl Rove) head on and out in the open. They play dirty and should have been called out on it for all to see, their tactics simply explained to the people who are apparently unable to see through them, a long time ago (note: I am not saying the Dems are any better or worse, just that the Republicans are very dirty about this stuff, to the point that it's borderline unethical and definitely disingenous, misleading and manipulative). Granted he's doing it as a pre-emptive strike and has the ulterior motive of keeping his campaign on the rails, but I have to be honest; it's damn nice to see Obama basically pointing out plain and simple how it will likely all go down. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...and now finally someone's pointing the damn duck out after all this time.

jag

I would like to think that the tactics of the RSM are pretty obvious by now. That being said, it is nice to see Obama calling them out on this...even if he does have alterior motives.


Actually, I was kind of surprised how negatively Obama's supposed base reacted to this (i.e. the far left). It's actually quite amusing watching all these people that worshiped the ground Obama walked on threatening not to vote because of this one piece of legislation (for God's sake, even Nancy Freakin' Pelosi supported it, retroactive immunity and all). Sometimes I think the far left are as screwed up as people on the far right, if not in some ways moreso. I'm not a big fan of illegal wiretaps, but I fail to see how FISA is completely raping the constitution like a lot of these people believe. Maybe I'm missing something here.

I strongly believe that the extremes of anything are horrible and destructive. In my mind, a far-left liberal is no different, no better than a religious right conservative. (Both are equally idiotic and just as damaging to the causes they claim to support.)

[jaguarr]

I would like to think that the tactics of the RSM are pretty obvious by now. That being said, it is nice to see Obama calling them out on this...even if he does have alterior motives.


I'd like to think that it's pretty obvious as well, but I'm continually surprised by people (and not for the better). :(

jag

[Marx]

I'd like to think that it's pretty obvious as well, but I'm continually surprised by people (and not for the better). :(

jag

Same here Jag...same here.

[Marx]

A little bit of Ohio news for all of you.


Ohio Democrats get pro-Obama message
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ohio_democrats

[souvlaki]

I strongly believe that the extremes of anything are horrible and destructive. In my mind, a far-left liberal is no different, no better than a religious right conservative. (Both are equally idiotic and just as damaging to the causes they claim to support.)

I just find it hilarious to hear my friend (who is, admittedly, a bit of a drama queen that refuses to see things outside of black and white terms) saying that she can no longer support Obama because of this. I mean, seriously... this? She claims to be a hardcore liberal (and a pretty big Obama supporter) and her solution is to not vote at all despite the fact that while she may not agree with this one thing with Obama, she completely disagrees with everything McCain stands for. Thank God I live in California where her vote probably doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm starting to see what you were talking about when it comes to some Obama supporters. They are so passionate in their support, but don't even know why the hell they are supporting him, and the second he loses his messianic appeal with them, they turn their backs. Or maybe this is moreso just an example of why the youth vote is completely undependable, and they will look for any excuse to become apathetic.

[The Senator]

A little bit of Ohio news for all of you.


Ohio Democrats get pro-Obama message
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ohio_democrats

I hope Sherrod Brown is in the running for VP now that Strickland has withdrawn his name from consideration... he is the real future of this party...

[Marx]

I just find it hilarious to hear my friend (who is, admittedly, a bit of a drama queen that refuses to see things outside of black and white terms) saying that she can no longer support Obama because of this. I mean, seriously... this? She claims to be a hardcore liberal (and a pretty big Obama supporter) and her solution is to not vote at all despite the fact that while she may not agree with this one thing with Obama, she completely disagrees with everything McCain stands for. Thank God I live in California where her vote probably doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm starting to see what you were talking about when it comes to some Obama supporters. They are so passionate in their support, but don't even know why the hell they are supporting him, and the second he loses his messianic appeal with them, they turn their backs. Or maybe this is moreso just an example of why the youth vote is completely undependable, and they will look for any excuse to become apathetic.

Your friend seems to be a pretty good example of what I have been referring to. (No offense Souv.) It could be either situation - they don't know why they are supporting them in the first place, or the youth vote looks for an excuse for apathy.

I hope Sherrod Brown is in the running for VP now that Strickland has withdrawn his name from consideration... he is the real future of this party...

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Sherrod Brown and Governor Strickland. (As I've said many times before.)

[Matt]

I hope Sherrod Brown is in the running for VP now that Strickland has withdrawn his name from consideration... he is the real future of this party...

Warner/Brown in 2012 would be the strongest ticket the Democratic Party has had since Roosevelt/Truman. They balance one another perfectly and both have vital aspects the party needs for its continued survival in the future. Barack Obama on the other hand, has none. One of the many reasons I am weary of him.

[Tag279]

Your friend seems to be a pretty good example of what I have been referring to. (No offense Souv.) It could be either situation - they don't know why they are supporting them in the first place, or the youth vote looks for an excuse for apathy.


Around here (in Mississippi) I have encountered the same type of stuff. They support McCain and the only reason they can give is that he is a war hero and taxes.

Any other things you mention they ignore. And they swear Obama is a secret muslim terrorist.

[Tag279]

Warner/Brown in 2012 would be the strongest ticket the Democratic Party has had since Roosevelt/Truman. They balance one another perfectly and both have vital aspects the party needs for its continued survival in the future. Barack Obama on the other hand, has none. One of the many reasons I am weary of him.

So let me get this strait Brown is lying about Obama being a good candidate; he is just following the party line. If Obama is so horrible why would a candidate you think should be Vice-President NOT say Obama is a horrible candidate?

So Brown's endoresment below is bull crap?

Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown today endorsed Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for president.
Brown, who successfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2006 on a progressive populist message, called Obama the leader to help rebuild the middle class.

“It has been my great pleasure to know and work with Senator Obama. It is my distinct honor to endorse him for president. I have long been impressed by his commitment to working families and our nation’s underserved communities. He is a visionary leader and fierce advocate for change. Senator Obama knows, like so many Ohio families, that Washington has for too long been held in a death-grip of greed by powerful lobbyists. He knows that the failed policies of the Bush administration betrayed our middle class and devastated communities large and small. And he knows that we must rebuild our middle class if we are to thrive as a nation.”

In Congress, Brown and Obama have worked together on legislation that would establish a Patriot Corporations Act, which would reward companies that create jobs in the U.S.; the FOREWARN Act, which would strengthen worker protections during layoffs; and have worked together on the Senate Veterans Committee as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

“I know what it takes to win Ohio – a commitment to creating new jobs, promoting new industry, and a dedication to helping grow Ohio’s middle class. Barack Obama has what it takes to win in my state and the nation. This is a pivotal election in our nation’s history; a choice between a third Bush term and a new direction for our country. I look forward to helping Senator Obama win in November and I look forward to helping him lead our nation in a new direction.”

[The Senator]

Tag, you just succeeded at putting words in Matt's mouth which had absolutely nothing to do with what he said.

[Marx]

So let me get this strait Brown is lying about Obama being a good candidate; he is just following the party line. If Obama is so horrible why would a candidate you think should be president NOT say Obama is a horrible candidate?

So Brown's endoresment below is bull crap?

That's not what Matt said.

It's all a part of politics Tag. Everyone is falling in line because it's the right thing to do. Could you imagine would what happen to Brown should he NOT publicly endorse the Democratic candidate for President?

[Matt]

Around here (in Mississippi) I have encountered the same type of stuff. They support McCain and the only reason they can give is that he is a war hero and taxes.

Any other things you mention they ignore. And they swear Obama is a secret muslim terrorist.

And there are plenty who are supporting Obama with the only reason they can give is "change." Who are you to question anyone's reason for voting? What makes your reason any more valid than theirs?

So let me get this strait Brown is lying about Obama being a good candidate; he is just following the party line. If Obama is so horrible why would a candidate you think should be president NOT say Obama is a horrible candidate?

So Brown's endoresment below is bull crap?

Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown today endorsed Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for president.
Brown, who successfully ran for U.S. Senate in 2006 on a progressive populist message, called Obama the leader to help rebuild the middle class.

“It has been my great pleasure to know and work with Senator Obama. It is my distinct honor to endorse him for president. I have long been impressed by his commitment to working families and our nation’s underserved communities. He is a visionary leader and fierce advocate for change. Senator Obama knows, like so many Ohio families, that Washington has for too long been held in a death-grip of greed by powerful lobbyists. He knows that the failed policies of the Bush administration betrayed our middle class and devastated communities large and small. And he knows that we must rebuild our middle class if we are to thrive as a nation.”

In Congress, Brown and Obama have worked together on legislation that would establish a Patriot Corporations Act, which would reward companies that create jobs in the U.S.; the FOREWARN Act, which would strengthen worker protections during layoffs; and have worked together on the Senate Veterans Committee as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

“I know what it takes to win Ohio – a commitment to creating new jobs, promoting new industry, and a dedication to helping grow Ohio’s middle class. Barack Obama has what it takes to win in my state and the nation. This is a pivotal election in our nation’s history; a choice between a third Bush term and a new direction for our country. I look forward to helping Senator Obama win in November and I look forward to helping him lead our nation in a new direction.”

Yes, it is party politics. No prominent Democratic politican is going to come out and criticize their nominee for president. I am confident if the media did not sink Edwards campaign and Edwards was able to become competitive Brown would've endorsed him as he better represents Brown's ideals. And just because I like Brown does not mean I have to agree with everything he says, does it?

[The Senator]

Warner/Brown in 2012 would be the strongest ticket the Democratic Party has had since Roosevelt/Truman.

Sadly, it would never happen that way. I'm guessing Brown and Warner would fight it out, become bitter enemies, and only one of them would appear on the ticket. Not both.

[Marx]

Month of May a 'down' month for Obama fundraising
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/21/obama-reports-22-million-for-may/

[Matt]

Sadly, it would never happen that way. I'm guessing Brown and Warner would fight it out, become bitter enemies, and only one of them would appear on the ticket. Not both.

I dunno. They balance each other on so many levels they may have to choose one another. Brown is a northern yankee. Warner is a southern good ol' boy. Brown is a pretty liberal populist where as Warner is more of a moderate. Brown has legislative "insider" experience where as Warner has executive experience and can be seen as an "outsider." They balance one another perfectly. Any combination of Brown/Warner or Warner/Brown seems to be the perfect ticket.

[Tag279]

Tag, you just succeeded at putting words in Matt's mouth which had absolutely nothing to do with what he said.

I disagree, Matt has consistently said how much he dislikes Obama as a candidate and how horrible he would be as President. And the person that he thinks should be VP. Gives a strong substantive endorsement of the worst candidate for President in modern times.

Why would his smart strong candidate have positive things to say about a Presidential candidate with a minimal amount of redeaming qualities and openly support said candidate's canadacy?

It does not add up.

Yes, it is party politics. No prominent Democratic politican is going to come out and criticize their nominee for president. I am confident if the media did not sink Edwards campaign and Edwards was able to become competitive Brown would've endorsed him as he better represents Brown's ideals. And just because I like Brown does not mean I have to agree with everything he says, does it?

No it does not. But why would someone of good conscience support a horrible candidate regardless of their party affiliation?

[Matt]

Because that is the game.

[Marx]

No it does not. But why would someone of good conscience support a horrible candidate regardless of their party affiliation?

Again I pose this question - Could you imagine what Sherrod Brown would look like and go through if he decided NOT to endore his party's nominee for President?

It's the way you play the game Tag.

[Tag279]

Because that is the game.

Yes there is substantial gamesmanship in politics.

[Varient]

Meh.
I surprised anyone could vote.

From what I'm reading:

The Democrats are against Drilling of any kind, (In American teritory), Is against Nuclear and Solar Power, And says we should waste time with either.

The Republicans Are for Drilling,.. but they are not satisfied with just off shore drilling like that place off the California coast THAT'S LEAKING OIL ANYWAY, but want dibs on Oil Fields In places protected to preserve nature.

Both are pointing the finger at the other,... nothing is being done besides *****ing and complaining like a bunch of kids.

Meh sum more.

[Matt]

Again I pose this question - Could you imagine what Sherrod Brown would look like and go through if he decided NOT to endore his party's nominee for President?

It's the way you play the game Tag.

Yep, Brown not endorsing Obama would kill any chance he has of a future in politics. Hell, it could very well end his time in Senate. He won because Mike DeWine was a weak candidate who was caught up in all kinds of scandal and did not have full support of the Republican party. Brown still lives in a state that can swing red very easily and who knows what the feeling towards the Democratic Congress will be come 2012 when he is up for re-election. If he pisses off the party by not endorsing Obama and loses their support, he will lose his seat in 2012.

[The Senator]

I disagree, Matt has consistently said how much he dislikes Obama as a candidate and how horrible he would be as President. And the person that he thinks should be VP. Gives a strong substantive endorsement of the worst candidate for President in modern times.

Why would his smart strong candidate have positive things to say about a Presidential candidate with a minimal amount of redeaming qualities and openly support said candidate's canadacy?

It does not add up.

Yes, it is party politics. No prominent Democratic politican is going to come out and criticize their nominee for president. I am confident if the media did not sink Edwards campaign and Edwards was able to become competitive Brown would've endorsed him as he better represents Brown's ideals. And just because I like Brown does not mean I have to agree with everything he says, does it?

No it does not. But why would someone of good conscience support a horrible candidate regardless of their party affiliation?

Brown is a pipsqueak in the political realm.

He is a member of the Democratic Party.

If Brown does not endorse Obama, he remains a political pipsqueak.

If Brown endorses Obama, his stock rises. Or at least, no damage is done to him by drawing unwanted controversy about his decision to not endorse Obama.

Rep. Boren from Oklahoma has said that he will not endorse Obama, and he has received tons of political flak. And he's just a minuscule Congressman from the middle of nowhere. Imagine the kind of repercussions a Senator of Brown's stature would receive.

That's why Clinton endorsed Obama. Do you honestly think she feels Obama will be a good president? You're totally naive if you think she endorsed him out of good intentions. She did it for political gain, so did Brown, and every other Democrat who endorsed him.

[Marx]

Yep, Brown not endorsing Obama would kill any chance he has of a future in politics. Hell, it could very well end his time in Senate. He won because Mike DeWine was a weak candidate who was caught up in all kinds of scandal and did not have full support of the Republican party. Brown still lives in a state that can swing red very easily and who knows what the feeling towards the Democratic Congress will be come 2012 when he is up for re-election. If he pisses off the party by not endorsing Obama and loses their support, he will lose his seat in 2012.

Pretty much, Matt.

[Tag279]

Again I pose this question - Could you imagine what Sherrod Brown would look like and go through if he decided NOT to endore his party's nominee for President?

It's the way you play the game Tag.

If Brown is a man of good conscience, of substantial character, and ability. And Obama is the most horrible, weak, phony candidate the Democratic party ever had how could he offer his endorsement?

My point is Obama is by no means a perfect candidate he has his shortcomings and limitations but he is no where near the worst candidate the democratic party has ever had.

He by far is the most idealistic and inspiring. And those two characteristics are assets for a President. Pragmatic pessimism has gotten us into the mess we are in now. We have got to try something different.

[Marx]

If Brown is a man of good conscience, of substantial character, and ability. And Obama is the most horrible, weak, phony candidate the Democratic party ever had how could he offer his endorsement?

My point is Obama is by no means a perfect candidate he has his shortcomings and limitations but he is no where near the worst candidate the democratic party has ever had.

He by far is the most idealistic and inspiring. And those two characteristics are assets for a President. Pragmatic pessimism has gotten us into the mess we are in now. We have got to try something different.

Brown endorsed him because he values his own political career. Any candidate who refuses to support their party's nominee for President might as well hang up their careers. It's one thing to oppose your party on legislation, it's quite another to oppose your party's presidential nominee.

[Tag279]

Brown is a pipsqueak in the political realm.

He is a member of the Democratic Party.

If Brown does not endorse Obama, he remains a political pipsqueak.

If Brown endorses Obama, his stock rises. Or at least, no damage is done to him by drawing unwanted controversy about his decision to not endorse Obama.

Rep. Boren from Oklahoma has said that he will not endorse Obama, and he has received tons of political flak. And he's just a minuscule Congressman from the middle of nowhere. Imagine the kind of repercussions a Senator of Brown's stature would receive.

That's why Clinton endorsed Obama. Do you honestly think she feels Obama will be a good president? You're totally naive if you think she endorsed him out of good intentions. She did it for political gain, so did Brown, and every other Democrat who endorsed him.

I think she does think Obama will be a good President but she is a consumate politician. She felt that her best chance at winning the nomination was tearing him down. Her advisors told her as much. It back-fired because Obama does have some good qualities and the ability to garner people's support.

The other democrats in the field did not have what he had and they were quickly knocked out. If Obama would not have run Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee and she would have had it wrapped up on Super Tuesday.

[The Senator]

If Brown is a man of good conscience, of substantial character, and ability. And Obama is the most horrible, weak, phony candidate the Democratic party ever had how could he offer his endorsement?

My point is Obama is by no means a perfect candidate he has his shortcomings and limitations but he is no where near the worst candidate the democratic party has ever had.

He by far is the most idealistic and inspiring. And those two characteristics are assets for a President. Pragmatic pessimism has gotten us into the mess we are in now. We have got to try something different.

Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry will go down as the worst nominees ever selected by the Democratic Party. Ever.

[StorminNorman]

Barack should choose Dukakis as his running mate.

Barack-Us
Dukakis '08 would make for a great rally sign.

[Matt]

Barack should choose Dukakis as his running mate.

Barack-Us
Dukakis '08 would make for a great rally sign.

...There is literally no arguing with that logic. :cwink:

[The Senator]

[/B]

I think she does think Obama will be a good President but she is a consumate politician.

I don't think so.

Why did she stay in all the way through the primaries, when she was told months ago that there was no mathematical way she would win the primary?

Why did she make statements hinting that McCain would be a better president than Obama?

Why did she constantly smear, slander and backslap Obama over every policy and every little gaffe throughout the campaign?

If she was not in such serious financial trouble, I would bet that Hillary Clinton was planning on taking this thing all the way to the convention. I believe, wholeheartedly, that she is absolutely against the idea of Obama becoming president, and that she is secretly hoping that something derails his candidacy, therefore giving her a shot at the White House in 2012. She is driven by political motive, not good intentions.


She felt that her best chance at winning the nomination was tearing him down. Her advisors told her as much. It back-fired because Obama does have some good qualities and the ability to garner people's support.

The other democrats in the field did not have what he had and they were quickly knocked out. If Obama would not have run Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee and she would have had it wrapped up on Super Tuesday.

I think that is up for debate.

If Obama had not run, I would bet that John Edwards would have won Iowa and South Carolina, and that he would probably be the Democratic nominee instead of Hillary. He would have wrapped up the nomination sooner than Obama, because his appeal the blue collar voters in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania was genuine. He wouldn't have to put on a beer-guzzling, muzzle-loading song and dance number to impress the voters, and he would have owned Clinton in those states.

[The Senator]

Barack should choose Dukakis as his running mate.

Barack-Us
Dukakis '08 would make for a great rally sign.

I love how none of the comparisons to Michael Dukakis have any weight, yet people are comparing Obama to him left and right.

It's like if someone compared McCain to Bob Dole, and... er... wait... :hehe:

[Matt]

Screw if Obama didn't run. If it weren't for the completely undemocratic caucus system Edwards would've carried South Carolina due to the momentum of an Iowa win, Obama would've been forced to drop out after losing the first three primaries and Edwards would've gone on to take the nomination after winning Ohio and Texas.

[Tag279]

Screw if Obama didn't run. If it weren't for the completely undemocratic caucus system Edwards would've carried South Carolina due to the momentum of an Iowa win, Obama would've been forced to drop out after losing the first three primaries and Edwards would've gone on to take the nomination after winning Ohio and Texas.

So it's all the Caucuses fault? Why didn't Edwards win it then? So Obama shipped in supporters to Iowa?

[StorminNorman]

I love how none of the comparisons to Michael Dukakis have any weight, yet people are comparing Obama to him left and right.

It's like if someone compared McCain to Bob Dole, and... er... wait... :hehe:

I don't compare Obama to Dukakis at all - I compare him to Jimmy Carter or George McGovern.

In fact one could credit McGovern as being the father of the current Democratic Party.

[StorminNorman]

So it's all the Caucuses fault? Why didn't Edwards win it then? So Obama shipped in supporters to Iowa?

Edward's organization is not even comparable to Obamas.

[Tag279]

Edward's organization is not even comparable to Obamas.

Obama's organization was not built by luck. He had to have some ability to put together an effective organization. I say effective because he won the nomination.

[StorminNorman]

Obama's organization was not built by luck. He had to have some ability to put together an effective organization. I say effective because he won the nomination.

It was effective - I do not all question that. It was not built by luck, his campaign was fantastic, you simply asked why Edwards could not of done what Obama is - that was the reason. He lacked Obama's organization.

[The Senator]

So it's all the Caucuses fault? Why didn't Edwards win it then? So Obama shipped in supporters to Iowa?

Actually, the funny thing is, it was reported that voters from Nebraska and Illinois participated in the Iowa caucuses...

[Matt]

Not to mention basically all polls indicate that if elections were done in Iowa, Edwards would've won.

[Matt]

It was effective - I do not all question that. It was not built by luck, his campaign was fantastic, you simply asked why Edwards could not of done what Obama is - that was the reason. He lacked Obama's organization.

The beautiful thing about caucuses for the Obama camp is that they are not all day events. They last a matter of hours, often in the morning. Obama's largest base in Iowa were college students. College students have the ability to blow off classes to attend caucuses. Most working adults cannot blow off work to attend a caucus and being as election day is not a holiday...

[Tag279]

The beautiful thing about caucuses for the Obama camp is that they are not all day events. They last a matter of hours, often in the morning. Obama's largest base in Iowa were college students. College students have the ability to blow off classes to attend caucuses. Most working adults cannot blow off work to attend a caucus and being as election day is not a holiday...

Okay your assertion is that misled college kids gave Obama a win in Iowa.

But what about the millions of people that voted for him after that? Were they dimwitted also? Were they just brainwashed sheep that said "I'm going to vote the same way Iowa did."

[The Senator]

The beautiful thing about caucuses for the Obama camp is that they are not all day events. They last a matter of hours, often in the morning. Obama's largest base in Iowa were college students. College students have the ability to blow off classes to attend caucuses. Most working adults cannot blow off work to attend a caucus and being as election day is not a holiday...

The Iowa caucuses took place during winter break, meaning these kids were on vacation and had more incentive to vote.

[The Senator]

Okay your assertion is that misled college kids gave Obama a win in Iowa.

But what about the millions of people that voted for him after that? Were they dimwitted also? Were thay just brainwashed sheep that said "I'm going to vote the same way Iowa did."

Well, I can't speak for Matt, but my assertion is that the caucuses helped Obama-- not the demography. Had elections been held in place of a caucus, Edwards probably would have won Iowa instead of Obama. This is mostly because caucuses are loud, confusing gatherings which take place during a narrow window of time, thus causing many older, working-class voters to skip out on the process altogether. Had the contest taken place in quiet, private voting booths, Edwards probably would have come out on top-- and thus, Obama would not be where he is today.

[Tag279]

Well, I can't speak for Matt, but my assertion is that the caucuses helped Obama-- not the demography. Had elections been held in place of a caucus, Edwards probably would have won Iowa instead of Obama. This is mostly because caucuses are loud, confusing gatherings which take place during a narrow window of time, thus causing many older, working-class voters to skip out on the process altogether. Had the contest taken place in quiet, private voting booths, Edwards probably would have come out on top-- and thus, Obama would not be where he is today.

Huckabee won in Iowa is he the presumptive republican nominee? Bill Clinton came in 3rd in Iowa and became President that election cycle.

[The Senator]

Romney won in Iowa is he the presumptive republican nominee? Bill Clinton came in 3rd in Iowa and became President that election cycle.

Actually, Huckabee won in Iowa, and Iowa usually incorrectly predicts the winner of the Republican primary. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton lost Iowa because he was up against a native son, Tom Harkin. No one actively campaigned in Iowa in 1992.

Edwards winning Iowa would have given him an instant boost in media attention, and would have especially helped him in South Carolina, his birth state, just a few weeks later. If he came in first place in South Carolina, he probably would have won most of the deep south and "heartland" states on Super Tuesday, and he would probably be in Obama's place now as the Democratic nominee.

[rdh007]

Screw if Obama didn't run. If it weren't for the completely undemocratic caucus system Edwards would've carried South Carolina due to the momentum of an Iowa win, Obama would've been forced to drop out after losing the first three primaries and Edwards would've gone on to take the nomination after winning Ohio and Texas.

...and then we'd still have a one term senator running. Only this time, he'd voted for the war, he'd proven to be a three-time loser (once in the primaries, once as VP, once when he knew he couldn't win his Senate seat back), and he got $400 haircuts.

Look, I'm a big Edwards guy. I like the way he talks about economics and his background story. But he had "lose" written all over him. The American people don't like losers. Nixon's the last major guy we've let "come back".

[Matt]

Biden on the vice-presidency (Meet the Press, 6/22/2008),

I have no interest in being vice-president, but if Senator Obama asks me, I will say yes, but I have made it clear that I do not want to be asked.

:huh: That is like, the worst case of double talk ever. :o

[Tag279]

Biden on the vice-presidency (Meet the Press, 6/22/2008),

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Biden
I have no interest in being vice-president, but if Senator Obama asks me, I will say yes, but I have made it clear that I do not want to be asked.

:huh: That is like, the worst case of double talk ever. :o

Matt for once I agree with you; that makes little or no sense...The more I think about it, it seems more and more funny:hehe:

[Marx]

...and then we'd still have a one term senator running. Only this time, he'd voted for the war, he'd proven to be a three-time loser (once in the primaries, once as VP, once when he knew he couldn't win his Senate seat back), and he got $400 haircuts.

Look, I'm a big Edwards guy. I like the way he talks about economics and his background story. But he had "lose" written all over him. The American people don't like losers. Nixon's the last major guy we've let "come back".

He only had lose "written all over him" because the media put it there.

Biden on the vice-presidency (Meet the Press, 6/22/2008),

:huh: That is like, the worst case of double talk ever. :o

"I don't want it, but if I'm asked I'll say yes!"

Hmm... :funny:

[Excel]

:huh: That is like, the worst case of double talk ever. :o

:hehe: :hehe:

...and then we'd still have a one term senator running. Only this time, he'd voted for the war, he'd proven to be a three-time loser (once in the primaries, once as VP, once when he knew he couldn't win his Senate seat back), and he got $400 haircuts.

Look, I'm a big Edwards guy. I like the way he talks about economics and his background story. But he had "lose" written all over him. The American people don't like losers. Nixon's the last major guy we've let "come back".

:up:

[The Senator]

...and then we'd still have a one term senator running. Only this time, he'd voted for the war, he'd proven to be a three-time loser (once in the primaries, once as VP, once when he knew he couldn't win his Senate seat back), and he got $400 haircuts.

Look, I'm a big Edwards guy. I like the way he talks about economics and his background story. But he had "lose" written all over him. The American people don't like losers. Nixon's the last major guy we've let "come back".

Edwards was shown with a 15-point lead over McCain nationally, and he owned McCain in Ohio and North Carolina. This poll was taken after the New Hampshire primary, if I remember correctly.

[Matt]

The entire "we're stuck with a loser," argument does not really apply either, because if Edwards is a "loser," having lost the 2004 primary, than McCain is as well having lost the 2000 primary. So they cancel one another out.

[The Senator]

Biden suffers from a constant case of "Foot-in-mouth" disease. Not to mention, he's a lifelong politician (having been a Senator since he was thirty, and a Congressman before that) from the most insignificant state in the country who has little experience appealing to the demographics Obama needs to win over in some of these crucial swing states. Needless to say, I do not see how Biden is even in the running for VP at this point.

[Matt]

Foreign policy experience.

[The Senator]

Foreign policy experience.

And he can't choose Wesley Clark, Bob Kerrey, or Jim Webb, who not only have military and foreign policy experience, but could help bring a swing state or two into Obama's column?

[Matt]

He could, but both Clark and Kerrey were very critical of him, and well, we know the drawbacks of Webb. Biden did not endorse anyone when he dropped out, but almost all of his statements were very pro-Obama. He silently endorsed him. We do not know what Obama's train of thought is or what he is looking for in a VP, but there is a good chance that he, like Bush, could value loyalty above all else.

[The Senator]

He could, but both Clark and Kerrey were very critical of him, and well, we know the drawbacks of Webb. Biden did not endorse anyone when he dropped out, but almost all of his statements were very pro-Obama. He silently endorsed him. We do not know what Obama's train of thought is or what he is looking for in a VP, but there is a good chance that he, like Bush, could value loyalty above all else.

But picking Biden only gives him foreign policy experience and nothing else. Obama-Biden would be the most 'elitist' presidential ticket in modern history. And that doesn't even get into Biden's plagiarizing scandal (though, I guess that just means the two have more in common than previously thought :hehe:), the unwarranted controversy which came from calling Obama "articulate," and his inability to shut his mouth when necessary.

Also, Clark was not very vocal against Obama. In fact, I cannot recount a single incident where he attacked Obama by name. As for Kerrey, his remarks were taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Both prospective candidates bring so much to the ticket which make them better choices than Biden, starting with their 'common-man' appeal and ending with the electoral votes they could secure.

[Matt]

Okay revision: Clark was very vocal in his support of Clinton.

I agree with you that Biden brings nothing to the ticket and if anything detracts from it, but again, that does not change the fact that none of us are mind readers or know what Obama wants out of a running mate. If Obama desires a loyal running mate over one who brings something to the ticket but may not have Obama's best interest at heart, Biden may be ideal to him. He short listed Biden for a reason. What that reason is,none of us can say.

[The Senator]

Okay revision: Clark was very vocal in his support of Clinton.

I agree with you that Biden brings nothing to the ticket and if anything detracts from it, but again, that does not change the fact that none of us are mind readers or know what Obama wants out of a running mate. If Obama desires a loyal running mate over one who brings something to the ticket but may not have Obama's best interest at heart, Biden may be ideal to him. He short listed Biden for a reason. What that reason is,none of us can say.

To be fair, he didn't shortlist Biden. His VP team did. And they also shortlisted George Mitchell and John Kerry, so I would assume "reason" has been left off the table in assembling this list.

[Matt]

Touche

[Marx]

Obama hits McCain on help for cities, levees
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/index.html

[StorminNorman]

And he can't choose Wesley Clark, Bob Kerrey, or Jim Webb, who not only have military and foreign policy experience, but could help bring a swing state or two into Obama's column?

Jim Webb is pro drilling, I think that will hurt his VP chances.

[Matt]

Obama hits McCain on help for cities, levees
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/21/campaign.wrap/index.html

For someone who spent so much time criticizing negative speeches and attack campaigns earlier in the year, he certainly has become good at it.