The Clinton Thread

[Marx]

Ah, but see the Republicans actually CARE about the wellbeing of its party--and are willing to put aside their own ambitions for its success in November. They are actually focused on WINNING the GE. In other words, they didn't WANT things to get this bad and distract from the main focus.

The same cannot be said on the Democratic side. We are dealing with folks who are suffering from a disease known as "entitlement." :whatever:

Stop the presses everyone! LIGHTNING AND I COMPLETELY AGREE ON SOMETHING! :cwink:


Hillary suffered "entitlement" first and it has nearly killed her campaign. I now see Obama suffering from that same disease. He's become rather arrogant and definately has that "coronation" frame of mind working. (In my opinion.)

[Lightning Strykez!]

Stop the presses everyone! LIGHTNING AND I COMPLETELY AGREE ON SOMETHING! :cwink:


Hillary suffered "entitlement" first and it has nearly killed her campaign. I now see Obama suffering from that same disease. He's become rather arrogant and definately has that "coronation" frame of mind working. (In my opinion.)

I don't see it that way. But even if he does feel "entitled" to win, at least he actually has a REASON to. The proof is in the numbers, popular vote, momentum, etc. Even the Republican machine views him as inevitable. People in Ireland are actually betting on an Obama/McCain match-up. Obama has run a brilliant, tight campaign and that has shown people what he is capable of. As a result, the ball is really in his corner.

Hillary felt entitled from the beginning simply because she is married to a former president. She hasn't "earned" as much as Obama, and the little she has he gets virtually half of. So....

[Marx]

I don't see it that way. But even if he does feel "entitled" to win, at least he actually has a REASON to. The proof is in the numbers, popular vote, momentum, etc. Even the Republican machine views him as inevitable. People in Ireland are actually betting on an Obama/McCain match-up. Obama has run a brilliant, tight campaign and that has shown people what he is capable of. As a result, the ball is really in his corner.

Hillary felt entitled from the beginning simply because she is married to a former president. She hasn't "earned" as much as Obama, and the little she has he gets virtually half of. So....

But we both agree that Democrats have a sense of entitlement. :yay:

[Lightning Strykez!]

But we both agree that Democrats have a sense of entitlement. :yay:

I think every candidate has to have some level of self-confidence to even attempt to make such a bold move nationally.

But Hillary's version of the self-entitlement is without basis and that's the problem. At least Obama and McCain had/have reasons. They have the most delegates.

[The Senator]

It may not have gotten this bad between them, but it did get fairly critical and harsh. Had the Republican race lasted as long as the Democratic one, I gurantee you that it would be very similiar in tone.

That depends. If it was Mitt Douch-- er, Romney versus John McCain, I believe we would have seen a long, drawn out battle. If it was Huckabee versus McCain, I believe it would have been drawn out, but I doubt it would be incredibly bitter. After all, I don't remember too many attacks from Huckabee against McCain while he was in the race, whereas Douch-- er, Romney felt the need to constantly smear McCain every chance he got.

[Zenien]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

[Matt]

Don't bother. I gave up trying to reason with Marx and Matt a long time ago.

We all know that Obama has worked hard to take the "higher" road throughout this campaign and he NEVER has dug into Hillary's past to give the Republican's ammo. Ever. He has treated her with dignity and respect--which she has not reciprocated...unless by force of arms. I will give him credit for that--he's tried to stick to the issues, not the pettiness.

Anyway. Objectivity around here is a dying art...so... :rolleyes:

I love them too. :)

And deceptive mailers to a few hundred people are nothing compared to the accusations of incompetence, plagiarism, Islamic ties--not to mention 3AM scare tactics...basically whatever would stick that Hillary has launched against him. She has tried very, VERY hard to assassinate his character before the country. Can you say the same for him? Honestly?

Do you realize that not even Huckabee or Romney treated McCain (or eachother) this harshly? That's why they can come together now. Hillary and Obama cannot and neither will their supporters. It's called "bloodied".

Objectivity? With all respect LS! (and I love you. :yay:), I find it hard for you to call objectivity into question when you're so obviously overly apologetic for Obama. Your second post quoted here shows that. You justify Obama's attack ads and say "Well, its not as bad," while at the same time you want to hang Clinton for it.

[Matt]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

Its not going to show in the primary polls. The primaries are made up of Democrats and at this point, minds are made up. However, in the GE, when you have PACs playing these non-stop on TV, it will effect undecided swing state voters (especially since Obama's comments were about three very important swing states, Michigan, PA, and Ohio...one of which is already looking for a reason not to vote for him due to the entire uncounted delegate fiasco) and help rally the Republican base.

Look at it this way, the Republican base was already entirely weakened simply by having McCain. You weren't going to see the same level of support we witnessed for G.Dub...and then the Pastor Wright scandal broke. And then the Rezko scandal. And then the Ayers scandal. And then the "rural voters" scandal. Hell, Obama is rallying the Republican base for McCain. And trust me, if there is one base you do not want rallied, it is hardcore Republicans. They always turn out in huge numbers when they are passionate about an issue and things like Wright, praising 9/11 or Obama's associations with Ayers will certainly do it.

[Zen]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.
hey girl!

this is where i have been spending all my time. have you played the new downloadable content for smackdown vs raw on ps3? hillary and Obama are downloadable characters, Hillarys special move is a shrill scream like queen sindel from mortal kombat 3 and Obama has an ability to shake the ropes and ramble on about change to regain his life.

:cwink:

[The Senator]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

There's a poll in Pennsylvania which has McCain ahead of Obama by 10 points... a poll released by the same organization only had McCain ahead by three points last week, before the scandal broke... so I think its clear that these remarks are doing damage...

[Marx]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

Obama is slowly losing more and more support among independents and republican-swing voters with every passing misstatement and controversy. That's a fact.

[Mr Sparkle]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

oh, it's ok to lie about stuff if it's feasible it could've happened?
wow, I guess you can't be mad at the Bush admin. anymore, since well, it could have been feasible that saddam HAD weapons. :up:

[The Senator]

oh, it's ok to lie about stuff if it's feasible it could've happened?
wow, I guess you can't be mad at the Bush admin. anymore, since well, it could have been feasible that saddam HAD weapons. :up:

I didn't condone his obvious lies.

I was referencing the fact that Obama's supporters are willing to overlook Obama's problems simply so they can slam Clinton.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Objectivity? With all respect LS! (and I love you. :yay:), I find it hard for you to call objectivity into question when you're so obviously overly apologetic for Obama. Your second post quoted here shows that. You justify Obama's attack ads and say "Well, its not as bad," while at the same time you want to hang Clinton for it.

Obama has not thrown a kitchen sink attack at Hillary Matt. Not once.

So no, I'm not being "overly apologetic". The point is, Obama could have rolled up his sleeves and REALLY gotten nasty with Hillary, but he's refrained. Don't you think he realizes that if he bullies Hillary like a male candidate the female voters would revolt? He's not stupid. He's tried to stay on topic and trust me--if Hillary hadn't been so grossly aggressive with him he would not have even done the bit he has so far.

So like I said, his attacks on her has not been nearly as forceful. That's a fact. The polls prove it, because a great many people are finding her less and less likable just because of her "attack modes". In other words, her gender combined with her nasty approach = b@&#* in some people's minds. Sad but true.

Obama, however, is not struggling with the likability factor the same way Hillary is.

And I am the epitome of objectivity. Don't you forget it. :heart:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I didn't condone his obvious lies.

I was referencing the fact that Obama's supporters are willing to overlook Obama's problems simply so they can slam Clinton.

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman. ;)

[The Senator]

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman. ;)

I understand that argument. However, I find it a bit irritating when Obama does something questionable and his supporters do not want to admit he has done so. Obviously, his remarks about rural voters seems to have done little damage. After a week, polling indicates he is back to where he was against McCain in Pennsylvania, and that he is closing the gap against McCain in Ohio. He is also on top in Michigan for the first time since his campaign tried to disenfranchise voters in that state. Not to mention, he is doing considerably well in Iowa, the whitest of the white states there are (with the exception of perhaps Utah and Montana-- and he's statistically tied with McCain in MT).

So, I think these comments haven't really affected him now. And the media has kind of let it disappear off the table, which is a good thing for the Obama campaign. Hopefully he's learned to watch himself before he speaks.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I understand that argument. However, I find it a bit irritating when Obama does something questionable and his supporters do not want to admit he has done so. Obviously, his remarks about rural voters seems to have done little damage. After a week, polling indicates he is back to where he was against McCain in Pennsylvania, and that he is closing the gap against McCain in Ohio. He is also on top in Michigan for the first time since his campaign tried to disenfranchise voters in that state. Not to mention, he is doing considerably well in Iowa, the whitest of the white states there are (with the exception of perhaps Utah and Montana-- and he's statistically tied with McCain in MT).

So, I think these comments haven't really affected him now. And the media has kind of let it disappear off the table, which is a good thing for the Obama campaign. Hopefully he's learned to watch himself before he speaks.

But do you really believe he was trying to insult PA voters? Because I don't think so. And I think a lot of people saw through what was an obvious attempt by the media to prolong this battle between him and Hillary. They really blew it out of proportion, and yes, they've done it before...even with Ferraro.

And that's why he's back to his original stance in the polls: he's kinda like Teflon...nothing really sticks long to him. Not saying it will always be that way but I do believe he has a seriously loyal base...one that appears to be expanding big-time.

[Marx]

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman. ;)

I wouldn't exactly call her the most polarizing. I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

[The Senator]

But do you really believe he was trying to insult PA voters? Because I don't think so. And I think a lot of people saw through what was an obvious attempt by the media to prolong this battle between him and Hillary. They really blew it out of proportion, and yes, they've done it before...even with Ferraro.

And that's why he's back to his original stance in the polls: he's kinda like Teflon...nothing really sticks long to him. Not saying it will always be that way but I do believe he has a seriously loyal base...one that appears to be expanding big-time.

Well, I have said that I agree with his comments, and that I understand what he was saying. However, voters tend to think what the media tells them to think. And if the media tells them to think that Obama thinks all of them are overly-religious, gun-toting racists, they're bound to consider it fact. He should make a better effort to avoid scandal. He doesn't need more than he has already gotten, and I hope this means he's smart enough to at least think before he speaks, as whatever vague statements he makes will be misconstrued and thrown around by all of his opponents.

[Matt]

Obama has not thrown a kitchen sink attack at Hillary Matt. Not once.

So no, I'm not being "overly apologetic". The point is, Obama could have rolled up his sleeves and REALLY gotten nasty with Hillary, but he's refrained. Don't you think he realizes that if he bullies Hillary like a male candidate the female voters would revolt? He's not stupid. He's tried to stay on topic and trust me--if Hillary hadn't been so grossly aggressive with him he would not have even done the bit he has so far.

So like I said, his attacks on her has not been nearly as forceful. That's a fact. The polls prove it, because a great many people are finding her less and less likable just because of her "attack modes". In other words, her gender combined with her nasty approach = b@&#* in some people's minds. Sad but true.

Obama, however, is not struggling with the likability factor the same way Hillary is.

Obama has used a more passive-aggressive attack strategy, granted, but an attack strategy none the less.

And likability really isn't a reflection of how forceful one is. George Bush was considered more likable than McCain and he was the guy running around saying a war hero fathered an illigitement love child with a prostitute (The child turned out to be his adopted daughter from Bangladesh). He then in 2004 called another war hero a liar about his medals. Yes, the man who was AWOL from the Air National Guard had PACs operating against a REAL war hero. Guess who polls would indicate is more likable?


And I am the epitome of objectivity. Don't you forget it. :heart:

You're the epitome of something alright. :cwink: But I still love you :heart:

[souvlaki]

I wouldn't exactly call her the most polarizing. I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

How about the most polarizing figure in this election? The polls suggest at least that much is true.

[Marx]

How about the most polarizing figure in this election? The polls suggest at least that much is true.

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

[The Senator]

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

[Marx]

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

I completely agree that this race has gotten entirely out of hand. I, for one, was shocked when she started telling stories about shooting guns with her grandfather. (Especially given her stance on guns.) I will say though, that there is such a thing as being too liberal. A Neo-Lib is no better than a Neo-Con. The extremes of anything always overshadow the rest of their respective groupings. Moveon.org lost alot of respect when they took a shot a Petraeus. I don't care what your personal feelings are, you should never take a shot like that at our military personnel. It's one thing to try and make a statement, it's quite another to cross that line and degrade the military.

[The Senator]

I completely agree that this race has gotten entirely out of hand. I, for one, was shocked when she started telling stories about shooting guns with her grandfather. (Especially given her stance on guns.) I will say though, that there is such a thing as being too liberal. A Neo-Lib is no better than a Neo-Con.

You do understand that Neo-Liberalism is not the opposite of Neo-Conservatism, correct? Neo-Liberalism advocates the redirection of spending from the public sector to the private sector; emphasizes commercial deregulation; eliminating restrictions on trade; and investing in foreign markets. Basically, Neo-Liberalism is the foundation of the Reagan conservative movement.


The extremes of anything always overshadow the rest of their respective groupings. Moveon.org lost alot of respect when they took a shot a Petraeus. I don't care what your personal feelings are, you should never take a shot like that at our military personnel. It's one thing to try and make a statement, it's quite another to cross that line and degrade the military.

I don't think it's crossing a line, and I personally agree with what MoveOn.org had to say. First of all, there is such a thing as free speech in this country, and when you're in the political spotlight there are things you have to accept, including personal attacks and insults. Second, the ad clearly defined what the organization had to say: Was General Patraeus going to give us a fair report, or was he simply going to force feed us what the Bush administration wants us to hear? They had every right to say what they wanted to say and did not deserve the flack they received.

What I find insulting is when the Senate takes an entire day out of their schedule to pass a resolution censuring an ad in a ****ing news paper rather than focusing on the real issues facing the American people. The Senate is not a campaign rally for every Senator running for President; it's a place of business, where the work of the American people needs to be accomplished. Censuring an ad which had already been published did not do anything to help the American people; it helped the politicians who don't want to look un-patriotic by giving them time to take a punch at an oh-so-liberal interest group... you know, just in case their constituents gave two ****s...

[Marx]

You do understand that Neo-Liberalism is not the opposite of Neo-Conservatism, correct? Neo-Liberalism advocates the redirection of spending from the public sector to the private sector; emphasizes commercial deregulation; eliminating restrictions on trade; and investing in foreign markets. Basically, Neo-Liberalism is the foundation of the Reagan conservative movement.

I know, I was just making a point. Perhaps I shouldn't have used Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons, but I hope you knew what I was getting at.


I don't think it's crossing a line, and I personally agree with what MoveOn.org had to say. First of all, there is such a thing as free speech in this country, and when you're in the political spotlight there are things you have to accept, including personal attacks and insults. Second, the ad clearly defined what the organization had to say: Was General Patraeus going to give us a fair report, or was he simply going to force feed us what the Bush administration wants us to hear? They had every right to say what they wanted to say and did not deserve the flack they received.

I completely agree that you should expect personal attacks, insults, and praise when in the public spotlight. Do I personally think that Petraeus was objective in his report? Absolutely not. I just don't think it's necessary to slander our military.


What I find insulting is when the Senate takes an entire day out of their schedule to pass a resolution censuring an ad in a ****ing news paper rather than focusing on the real issues facing the American people. The Senate is not a campaign rally for every Senator running for President; it's a place of business, where the work of the American people needs to be accomplished. Censuring an ad which had already been published did not do anything to help the American people; it helped the politicians who don't want to look un-patriotic by giving them time to take a punch at an oh-so-liberal interest group... you know, just in case their constituents gave two ****s...

That was beyond ridiculous. I completely agree with you Jman. They should have focused on REAL ISSUES as opposed to that. The purpose behind the censuring of that ad was quite transparent. Anyone with half a brain knew what was going on and why.

[souvlaki]

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

If Obama is just as polarizing, the polls are not showing it. Of course, I'm not completely convinced about the polls showing defection to the Republican party, so I am pretty much contradicting what I just said. Emotions are high right now, but after the convention I really doubt there will be many Clinton or Obama supporters switching sides. Some may use it as an excuse to stay home on election day, but I can't see people on either side being so bitter about the outcome that they would make an effort to go out and vote for the other party. Not traditional Democrats at least.

[Marx]

If Obama is just as polarizing, the polls are not showing it. Of course, I'm not completely convinced about the polls showing defection to the Republican party, so I am pretty much contradicting what I just said. Emotions are high right now, but after the convention I really doubt there will be many Clinton or Obama supporters switching sides. Some may use it as an excuse to stay home on election day, but I can't see people on either side being so bitter about the outcome that they would make an effort to go out and vote for the other party. Not traditional Democrats at least.

Well another thing that we can agree on Souv is the fact that polls are not reliable. This election has proven that. Emotions are definately high. I know some pretty "traditional" Democrats that have told me that they will vote for John McCain if their candidate does not win the nomination. So I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to hear of defections.

[Lightning Strykez!]

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

:eek:

Okay, I hereto dub thee as the most objective person here. Wow. :up:

Obama has used a more passive-aggressive attack strategy, granted, but an attack strategy none the less.

I never said he didn't use an attack strategy--because he has. But Matt, he HAS to counter these attacks; otherwise he will be considered weak by others in the party. He has tried to play the "nice guy" routine but Hillary & Co. have tried to bring him down to their level because they feel he hasn't been properly "vetted". That same perception has hurt Dem candidates in the past. Sadly, swift attacks have their place in these processes.

My point is he has not tried to literally destroy his opponent with low-blows and smear campaigns. When you consider the amount of skeletons in Hillary's closet, I am impressed that he hasn't made an effort to pull more crap to the public's attention. He hasn't told the WHOLE WORLD that he and McCain are better for the job than his own fellow party members. He hasn't burned any bridges to a joint ticket the way Hillary has.

If anything, I'd say that Obama's attacks have been more reactionary than proactive.

[Marx]

I never said he didn't use an attack strategy--because he has. But Matt, he HAS to counter these attacks; otherwise he will be considered weak by others in the party. He has tried to play the "nice guy" routine but Hillary & Co. have tried to bring him down to their level because they feel he hasn't been properly "vetted". That same perception has hurt Dem candidates in the past. Sadly, swift attacks have their place in these processes.

My point is he has not tried to literally destroy his opponent with low-blows and smear campaigns. When you consider the amount of skeletons in Hillary's closet, I am impressed that he hasn't made an effort to pull more crap to the public's attention. He hasn't told the WHOLE WORLD that he and McCain are better for the job than his own fellow party members. He hasn't burned any bridges to a joint ticket the way Hillary has.

If anything, I'd say that Obama's attacks have been more reactionary than proactive.

I disagree. As I have said many times before, Obama has done his own fair share of initiating attacks. I wouldn't exactly call Obama's deliberately misstating various positions and stances that she has, "reactionary." Has Hillary gone too far? Maybe, but the case can be argued either way. That being said, you have to realize that if Obama gains the nomination, Hillary's attacks will seem like child's play compared to John McCain and RSM. Obama whining and crying about tough questions from moderators and "lowball" tactics by Clinton will be nothing come November. If he wants to be President, he might want to try toughening up a little. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Excel]

Hillary looks set to lose in pledged delegates, votes, and states.The problem is, these big state wins-California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania-all mean NOTHING. And super delegates KNOW IT.

The argument has nothing to do with Hillary Vs. Obama. Nothing. What Hillary has to do is this:

Prove that Barack Obama CANT beat John McCain in those states, but she CAN.

Thats it. Hillary saying she's better to take on McCain because she has won states Obama would beat McCain does not make much sense, does it? Because the points moot, if they both will win the state, it doesnt matter who takes it by more. Its winner take all. So lets look at these big states. The list she uses is California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

California: Hillary cannot brag about this. Everybody inthe whole country knows California is going democrat, no matter who it is. Supers know Obama has this state in the bag.

New York: Same damn thing.

Ohio: Here is the current Obama Vs. McCain match up in Ohio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html

Right now McCain leads Obama by 2%. 2%. Lets be realistic. Whenever Hillary gets out of the race, the Democrats will get behind Obama. McCain is a huge NAFTA supporter. McCain does not offer health care. McCain has admitted he does not know very much about the economy. Obama and Clintons policies are 95% the same.

Be real. Is McCain going to beat Obama in Ohio come November? HELL NO.

Texas: Hillary barely beat him, with the caucus included she won by 2%. Is that 2% of the vote really not going to go for Obama? Or will it be enough to give McCain a Texas win? Or does Hillary even have shot in Texas? Obama would do just about if not equally as well as Clinton would here.

Pennsylvania:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html

Obama is ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania polls. The lead will grow when Hillarys gone. Enough said.

The only state that holds ANY WEIGHT is Florida. McCain leads Obama by 11% in the average poll, he will more than likely take the state in a November match up against Obama. The problem? HE LEADS HILLARY TOO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_clinton-417.html

Of course, if Obama left the race, chances are Hillary would take the lead. But, if you gave Obama Cali, Ny, Ohio, and Penn, that would be 131 delegates. He could match Hillary getting the dems florida (25 votes) with Obama getting us Illinois.

So out of the whole big state argument, it only works with 1 state. That 1 state will not be nearly enough to get supers to go against the popular vote.

For this argument to work, Hillary needs to prove shell win those states in November and Obama will lose them and that simply does not look to be the case.

[Malice]

I simply think, the people are starting to see the crap Obama has been hiding...we already know the crap Hillary has (granted, she should be in prison for it....but hey I digress)

I think in the end, Hillary will be a better D candidate as Obama is slowly piling himself in crap of his own doing.

[Matt]

Did this really warrant its own thread? It seems like it could easily be in the Clinton, Obama, or PA thread.

[rdh007]

I simply think, the people are starting to see the crap Obama has been hiding...we already know the crap Hillary has (granted, she should be in prison for it....but hey I digress)

We didn't know that much as a nation about Bush in 99/00. We found out he is allegedly half-literate, enjoyed coke, has a drinking problem, and couldn't run almost anything successfully. He still became President. Let alone the fact that we re-elected him.

[Excel]

Did this really warrant its own thread? It seems like it could easily be in the Clinton, Obama, or PA thread.

Yeah it did. This is her only argument for the nomination and it does not hold up.

[hippie_hunter]

Not really, I feel that this could have easily gone into the Clinton thread.

[amazingfantasy15]

We didn't know that much as a nation about Bush in 99/00. We found out he is allegedly half-literate, enjoyed coke, has a drinking problem, produced offspring of the Lohan-Hilton variety, and couldn't run almost anything successfully. He still became President. Let alone the fact that we re-elected him.

This is the only thing I take issue with, the media totally overplayed the Bush twins partying. They were college freshman when he took office, of course they were gonna go out partying. Hell I have plenty of friends that went wild in college and now have very successful careers. They aren't nearly as bad as the Lohans or Hiltons of the world.

On topic, I really don't think the Hillary argument holds water, once the primary race is over, most of the Democrats will rally behind their candidate, sure a small minority will be bitter and vote against the party, but it won't be nearly very significant. I really don't like this idea of Superdelagates planning to nominate someone against who the country has voted for. That will definitely get me to vote for McCain in November, something I'm totally against, another 4 years of a republican White House, because it's showing the Democrats are against the Democratic system.

[rdh007]

Removed. But only because of the respect I have for Stanley. ;)

[bell110]

Hillary is trying her hand at fear tactics. She really has nothing more to offer than Obama, plus she has the hateability factor (her mutant power), so she knows she probably won't win against Obama. She has to make up the rediculous, "Obama DIDN'T win these states, so that means he CAN'T win them against McCain." And she hopes that people are dumb enough to beleive that, and unfortunitly, they probably are.

[Marx]

Hillary is trying her hand at fear tactics. She really has nothing more to offer than Obama, plus she has the hateability factor (her mutant power), so she knows she probably won't win against Obama. She has to make up the rediculous, "Obama DIDN'T win these states, so that means he CAN'T win them against McCain." And she hopes that people are dumb enough to beleive that, and unfortunitly, they probably are.

The argument is that when given the choice, the states that Democrats absolutely have to win, they prefer Clinton over Obama. Is that to say that Obama wouldn't win them anyway? No. But when given the choice between the two in those states, people have voted for Clinton. I do see her point. And I for one, am certainly NOT dumb.

[Matt]

I'd say Clinton's argument is fairly solid. As Marx said, MUST win states favor Clinton. Therefore, by simply logic, it is more likely she will win those states than Obama. Does it mean he cannot? No. Does it mean she has a better chance. Yes.

[hippie_hunter]

Not only that while New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, and California don't matter. California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York will vote Democrat and Texas will vote Republican regardless of who is the candidate, states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida do.

Obama is losing to McCain in Ohio and Florida (states that gave the Republicans victory in 2000 and 2004) and Obama got the boost from Pennsylvania because he just spent six weeks campaigning there and spent millions in advertising against Clinton. Not only that but Obama has trouble in Michigan as well, a Democratic stronghold thanks to his efforts to block their delegates from seating.

[Kelly]

I don't believe she will be able to catch up.................there is just no way....so IMO there is no argument there.

Before the convention the big 4 will meet, Gore, Pelosi, Reed and Dean secretly with the Super Delegates, they will tell them "we are not going to tell you who to vote for....but please let us know at least 10 days before the convention"....

The super delegates will have a secret convention.....and they will let them know....

And my guess is they will choose Clinton, and Clinton will get the nomination. I'm not totally secure on that guess, but I'll put it out there for the fun of it.

Obama is having problem with the Reagan Democrats and the working class, Hispanic vote and senior citizen vote.....he has to show the SD's over the next few states that he can get that vote........and I don't think he can do that.......so if the SD's choose Obama, then IMO, they are choosing because of the popular vote, not because they think he can win the Presidency.......so many may kick themselves in the ass.

The elderly that are Roosevelt Democrats will vote a straight Democrat ticket, so that probably won't be a problem.......but the Reagan Democrats and Hispanics have already shown that they can be turned......and McCain could be a much safer vote for them...

[Excel]

Thats is just about impossible. If the states go as they appear to (note the only real upset of the entire race has been Iowa, everywhere else the person whose lead early wins) for the rest of the way, Obama will finish with roughly 1700 pledged delegates to Hillarys 1534.

Add incurrent super delegate numbers, it looks like this:

Obama: 1936
Clinton: 1793

There are 300 left. Of the 300, Obama needs 89 while hillary needs 232 of them. That means Obama only needs 30% of the remaining supers; Hillary needs 77% fo them to go. Hillary could very well take the vast majority of them, but Obama would have very little trouble finding 90 or so supers. You need to figure a decent amount, probably atleast 45 or so, would go to him simply because he won the popular vote and pledged delegates and out of guilt, they dont want to over turn that.

People are underestimating the Math on Obamas side. She could them 2-1 and it would not be enough. I dont see this going to the convention, after NC you'll gradually see more and more coming out to him. Right now they are just waiting for him to win a big state so they have an excuse to go for him without risking pissing off the Clintons, and a huge win in NC is just what they need.

[Lightning Strykez!]

The super delegates will have a secret convention.....and they will let them know....

And my guess is they will choose Clinton, and Clinton will get the nomination.

I actually agree with this, and it's exactly what I'm anticipating. I also shudder at the uproar that will follow because of that outcome.

If they "give the nom away" to Hillary over the man who won it fair and square, it will certainly send a powerful message to everyone--especially young, new and African American voters. Hillary will NOT be able to retain them if they are disinfranchised by such a move.

And she'll lose the bid as a result. One way or the other, I really believe McCain has got this now. Too much damage has been done.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Thats is just about impossible. If the states go as they appear to (note the only real upset of the entire race has been Iowa, everywhere else the person whose lead early wins) for the rest of the way, Obama will finish with roughly 1700 pledged delegates to Hillarys 1534.

Add incurrent super delegate numbers, it looks like this:

Obama: 1936
Clinton: 1793

There are 300 left. Of the 300, Obama needs 89 while hillary needs 232 of them. That means Obama only needs 30% of the remaining supers; Hillary needs 77% fo them to go. Hillary could very well take the vast majority of them, but Obama would have very little trouble finding 90 or so supers. You need to figure a decent amount, probably atleast 45 or so, would go to him simply because he won the popular vote and pledged delegates and out of guilt, they dont want to over turn that.

People are underestimating the Math on Obamas side. She could them 2-1 and it would not be enough. I dont see this going to the convention, after NC you'll gradually see more and more coming out to him. Right now they are just waiting for him to win a big state so they have an excuse to go for him without risking pissing off the Clintons, and a huge win in NC is just what they need.


It's not just about math anymore. It is truly about politics now Excel. And it's about preference.

Obama is not going to get the nomination--even WITH the math on his side. Will it be fair? No. But politics is rarely fair (see Florida, 2000, Bush vs. Gore, etc.). I'm just bracing for the impact when the news hits that they've nominated Hillary based on some loose argument that won't carry an ounce of water.

[Excel]

No it wont Lightning; Obama will quite simply be too close. It is math. The supers wont get together in one huge room and say "were going for Hillary". Hillary can take the supers at a margin better than 2-1 and she still will not win. Obama will quite simply just be too damn close. Obamas magic number is 114. Realistically, he will only need about 320-340 supers. If Obama achieves 350 supers, the nomination is his. It is HUGHLY unlikely he finished with under 1675 pledged delegates.

Right now Obama is at 236, so his magic number of 114 is how many supers away he is. Realistically he is 90-100 supers away from clinching the nomination and there are 300 left. He will find away to get that number, wether its from them voting for him mout of guilt or fear of killing the party or backroom promises.

[Matt]

90-100 SDs is a lot. If they have a back door meeting and talk about it...actually discuss it...well..when you factor in her political pull and power, its just not an argument Clinton can lose.

[Tron5000]

I actually agree with this, and it's exactly what I'm anticipating. I also shudder at the uproar that will follow because of that outcome.

If they "give the nom away" to Hillary over the man who won it fair and square, it will certainly send a powerful message to everyone--especially young, new and African American voters. Hillary will NOT be able to retain them if they are disinfranchised by such a move.

And she'll lose the bid as a result. One way or the other, I really believe McCain has got this now. Too much damage has been done.

Well, if Hillary gets the nom from the Supers, then that kinda means that she "won it fair and square." Though Obama may win the popular vote, if the Supers sway the nom to Hillary, that will be fair, because those are the rules under which the Dems play the game.

[Excel]

90-100 SDs is a lot. If they have a back door meeting and talk about it...actually discuss it...well..when you factor in her political pull and power, its just not an argument Clinton can lose.

Out of 300, 90-100 wont be too hard for Obama to find. Quite a few will go just because he won the pledged delagetes and popular vote. After that Obama could simply pull aside however many he needs and say "If you guys come fo rme, I win, and Ill give you all this ****".

You guys will see. Many supers right now are just waiting for an excuse to go to Obama so they dont piss off Hillary or the majority of the voters in this election. North Carolina will be that excuse.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, if Hillary gets the nom from the Supers, then that kinda means that she "won it fair and square." Though Obama may win the popular vote, if the Supers sway the nom to Hillary, that will be fair, because those are the rules under which the Dems play the game.

You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.

[Tron5000]

You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.

I didn't mean to imply anything about being "unfair." I meant this definition of "sway": to move or incline to one side or in a particular direction. That doesn't mention anything about being fair.

I consider "unfair" to be breaking the rules. If she's not breaking any rules and wins under the rules the Dems have set up, there's really nothing "unfair" about it.

[Matt]

Out of 300, 90-100 wont be too hard for Obama to find. Quite a few will go just because he won the pledged delagetes and popular vote. After that Obama could simply pull aside however many he needs and say "If you guys come fo rme, I win, and Ill give you all this ****".

You guys will see. Many supers right now are just waiting for an excuse to go to Obama so they dont piss off Hillary or the majority of the voters in this election. North Carolina will be that excuse.

No it won't. Especially if she wins Indiana the same night. And am I crazy or have you been saying this since day one?

[Matt]

You know what I mean. :whatever:

The very fact you used the term "sway" shows it would carry an "unfair" connotation--and that is exactly how millions of voters will interpret it.

They can interpret it however they'd like. It wouldn't be unfair in the least. Obama made the choice to run in the Democrat Party, which is a private institution which is free to set its own rules. Therefore he either abides by their rules or if he does not like those, he can leave the party and run independently. They don't even have to have elections as to who their candidate is. In primaries, elections truly are a privledge, not a right. The super delegates owe Obama and the voters absolutely jack.

[Kelly]

It's politics people........welcome to the real world......

[Tron5000]

They can interpret it however they'd like. It wouldn't be unfair in the least. Obama made the choice to run in the Democrat Party, which is a private institution which is free to set its own rules. Therefore he either abides by their rules or if he does not like those, he can leave the party and run independently. They don't even have to have elections as to who their candidate is. In primaries, elections truly are a privledge, not a right. The super delegates owe Obama and the voters absolutely jack.

The problem I see with the Supers is that if they subvert the will of their constituents (which they're allowed to do under the Dem rules), they are likely putting at risk their future political careers. Say Obama wins the popular vote in a particular area (district, state, whatever) but a Super with constituents in that area votes for Clinton. Next time this person is up for re-election, he/she will have to explain to their voting bloc why they chose to go against the wishes of their constituents. That's an interesting component to this campaign that I think is going largely undiscussed.

And Matt, I can't help you make a Sticky, but I am pretty good with pasties.

[hippie_hunter]

It looks like Obama shouldn't have ruined the prospects of a Michigan revote:

Michigan Is Becoming Clinton's Secret Weapon
Susan J. Demas
Detroit News

If you punched your ballot for "uncommitted" in Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary to back Barack Obama, your vote might have essentially gone to Hillary Clinton anyway.

While all eyes were locked on Pennsylvania for the last six weeks, Clinton was quietly amassing delegates in the Wolverine State. And she was rewarded this past weekend with a significant victory at the district conventions.

This development naturally has been overshadowed by her big win Tuesday night in Pennsylvania. But the race for the Democratic nomination wasn't decided then and won't be by the remaining contests -- not North Carolina, Indiana or even Guam -- because the real fight is over delegates. And Michigan remains a key battleground.

On Aug. 25, Clinton will march into the national convention in Denver stronger than most people realize, thanks to her aggressive ground game in Michigan.

Buoyed by party elder support, Clinton seems likely to capture more than 60 percent of the state's 128 pledged delegates, according to an analysis by the Michigan Information & Research Service. Including the 28 superdelegates, which lean heavily in the New York senator's favor, she could win upward of 70 percent of delegates, provided that they're seated with full voting power.

That depends on the Democratic National Committee, which punished Michigan for leapfrogging the primary schedule. There is no deal yet to seat the delegation. But the Clinton camp is working overtime to ensure the elected slate is sent. Keep in mind that Clinton won 55 percent to uncommitted's 40 percent since Obama wasn't on the ballot. He has pushed for a 50-50 percent delegate split, but that proposal hasn't gained traction.

It's becoming apparent that Obama should have consented to a revote here. He certainly wouldn't have lost by 15 percentage points or more; polls have pegged the pair in a dead heat. But Obama seemed spooked that Clintonites put forth the plan and the money, so he quashed the do-over last month.

Now Obama is paying the price in delegates, starting with the Michigan Democratic Party's 15 district conventions on Saturday. The Clinton battle plan was flawlessly executed with an eye toward a contested convention. Their delegate roster is crammed with big names like former Gov. Jim Blanchard and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

"We wanted to pick people who would be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots," Blanchard says.

Michiganders for Obama, a ragtag group of new volunteers, triumphed in turnout Saturday but were steamrolled by the Clinton machine. Obama has proved to be a master of organization, but he made a tactical error not to plump up his skeletal apparatus in Michigan.

As a result, he will almost certainly fall short of the 36 uncommitted delegates selected. Volunteers argued that only Obama supporters should be uncommitted delegates, but they were outmaneuvered. About half of the uncommitted delegates reserved the right to vote for Clinton, depending on whom their unions eventually endorse.

While union officials flatly deny they're in the tank for Clinton, Obama supporters point out that United Auto Workers Legislative Coordinator Nadine Nosal was elected in the 8th District as an alternate Clinton delegate. That underscores the fact that Obama's speech to the Detroit Economic Club last year, calling for higher federal fuel economy standards, went over with labor leaders like a lead balloon.

In May, the party's labor-heavy, Clinton-friendly central committee chooses the remaining 45 delegates, setting up a scenario of more uncommitted delegates switching to Clinton.

Given her narrow path to the nomination, Clinton and her aides have argued that pledged delegates are fair game to flip. Although they've since backed away from such statements, the Michigan delegate conventions show the Clinton delegate strategy is being set into motion. What this could mean is four very interesting days in Denver. Although the odds still favor Obama -- who leads in delegates, the popular vote and states won -- he has to be a bit rattled over two losses in one week.

If Clinton comes out on top in a floor war, we might well look back at the Michigan mêlée as the turning point.

[rdh007]

I voted "uncommitted". I will not be happy. Her leaving her name on the ballot here was cheap and tawdry, like most of her husband's girlfriends.

[bell110]

HAHA, the Democratic party is slowly killing itself. A few more elections and there might not be a Democratic party left.

[Marx]

I voted "uncommitted". I will not be happy. Her leaving her name on the ballot here was cheap and tawdry, like most of her husband's girlfriends.

Obama could have easily done the same, he instead chose not to. And then killed a re-vote option. I still find it so amusing that people attack her for her husband's extra-curriculars. It's actually more ridiculous and sad, rather than amusing. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Arkady Rossovich]

Clinton does things behind people's backs. Bad choice.

[Addendum]

Obama could have easily done the same, he instead chose not to. And then killed a re-vote option. I still find it so amusing that people attack her for her husband's extra-curriculars. It's actually more ridiculous and sad, rather than amusing. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

The same holds true with regard to whom Obama associates himself with and the comments of his wife.

Besides, when has politics ever been anything more than ridiculous?

[StorminNorman]

Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.

[Matt]

Hmm, I think O'Reilly will go soft ball on her as most Republicans would prefer she gets the nomination, I'd imagine.

[The Overlord]

Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.

oh who cares? After watching the colbert report, I can't take O'reilly seriously.

Seriously conservatives used had Bill F. Buckley, who would actually provided intelligent debate, O'Reilly just shouts and talks over people, he is an idiot, a dumbed down, mass produced, pop culture product, instead of an actually intelligent debater.

[SuBe]

I agree with Matthew. Bill O'Reilly tends to play soft with "high" Ranking Democrats, he does want them to come back some day. It really should be interesting.

[rdh007]

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.
Then why didn't you put it there?
That's what she said.
Link for proof: http://twsssw.ytmnd.com/

[The Senator]

This will be interesting. He'll either treat her "politely," or he'll start yelling and cramming his crap down her throat like he does all his other guests.

I have no intention of watching, but I'm sure someone will spill the details later.

[Kelly]

Should be an interesting interview - though it is a sign of desperation from Hillary. It will be interesting to see how forceful O'Reilly is with her, he could be the best interviewer he has. A strong showing here would do her some good and only increase her ever growing momentum.

And yes, before anyone is a smart ass, it could of gone in the Hillary thread.

In my opinion, its the smartest thing she has done thus far in her campaign......she gets millions upon millions viewers (he does beat all other cable news in his time slot, and over all by double digits, I might add) and she gets those viewers for 2 nights (many if not most of the viewers, I predict will be swing voters)......and she gets all of this without spending a dime.

Billy O may be an ass, but he's an ass that people watch....:yay:

Hmm, I think O'Reilly will go soft ball on her as most Republicans would prefer she gets the nomination, I'd imagine.

I think Bill saying...."you do know that people don't like you right...." (not exact quote, but that is the jest)......isn't exactly softball..........and telling here that she is crazy, and that her tax plan will bankrupt the country, isn't exactly softball.....

I think it will be an interesting interview, and I have a feeling it will beat the everyone in its time slot, including the mainstream media. As I said before, smartest move she has made in this campaign.

[StorminNorman]

In my opinion, its the smartest thing she has done thus far in her campaign......she gets millions upon millions viewers (he does beat all other cable news in his time slot, and over all by double digits, I might add) and she gets those viewers for 2 nights (many if not most of the viewers, I predict will be swing voters)......and she gets all of this without spending a dime.

Billy O may be an ass, but he's an ass that people watch....:yay:

I agree completely :up:

[The Overlord]

I agree completely :up:

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

[The Overlord]

I agree completely :up:

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

[StorminNorman]

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

I disagree completely :huh:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Um. Yay?

[The Senator]

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

So... people can't like Bill O'Reilly now? You've lost you're faith in humanity because there are people who disagree with you?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Also, if this makes O'Reilly a talentless hack like Britney Spears... what shameless pop diva does that make Keith Olbermann? Christina Aguilera? Jessica Simpson? Maybe even Jamie Lynn Spears?

Because most political pundits, with few exceptions in my opinion, are talentless hacks...

[The Overlord]

So... people can't like Bill O'Reilly now? You've lost you're faith in humanity because there are people who disagree with you?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

Also, if this makes O'Reilly a talentless hack like Britney Spears... what shameless pop diva does that make Keith Olbermann? Christina Aguilera? Jessica Simpson? Maybe even Jamie Lynn Spears?

Because most political pundits, with few exceptions in my opinion, are talentless hacks...

No, people can like him if they want, bad taste isn't a crime.

I'm embellishing obviously.

Its not that disagrees with me, its the way he present. I disagree William F. Buckley, but I wouldn't call him an idiot, Bill O'Reilly is an idiot, not because of his beliefs (though those seem to be subject to change, he's not even constant) but the fact he acts like an @ss clown and people reward him for it.

Most public American public pundits are idiots, that's the problem, civil discourse and common manners are becoming things of the past and yes O'Reilly is of the biggest offenders in this regard. Debates used to be intelligent and insightful, all you see on his show is a god damn circus. The fact that anyone sex fiend seriously, boggles the mind. This man is completely without class, more concerned with pandering to people, then informing people.

[StorminNorman]

No, people can like him if they want, bad taste isn't a crime.

I'm embellishing obviously.

Its not that disagrees with me, its the way he present. I disagree William F. Buckley, but I wouldn't call him an idiot, Bill O'Reilly is an idiot, not because of his beliefs (though those seem to be subject to change, he's not even constant) but the fact he acts like an @ss clown and people reward him for it.

Most public American public pundits are idiots, that's the problem, civil discourse and common manners are becoming things of the past and yes O'Reilly is of the biggest offenders in this regard. Debates used to be intelligent and insightful, all you see on his show is a god damn circus. The fact that anyone sex fiend seriously, boggles the mind. This man is completely without class, more concerned with pandering to people, then informing people.

...do you intentionally leave out words? Do you feel that if you make it harder to read your post, it makes it more thoughtful?

[lazur]

I watched the first two parts of this interview, and I have to say that while it didn't completely change my impression of Hillary, it certainly improved my impression.

Bill, being the jackass that he is, was wildly candid with her and he did ask her some pretty tough questions. There were a few moments when she went into 'talking point' mode, but for the most part she was calm, articulate and careful to address all of the points to his questions with what I considered to be very reasonable answers. It was interesting to see Bill agree with her answers even though his original questions came off as accusatory at times. For example, he told her that her 'Hillary medical care' would bankrupt the country, and Hillary responded that those who currently have health care (who make enough to afford it) would not be pushed to the new system. Bill went on to say that he didn't want to have to cover the health bills of drug users. Hillary countered that by asking him if he would want to help with the health care of a small boy with a fatal disease who doesn't have health care. Bill, of course, replied that he would.

I'm not saying that I'd vote for Hillary, but at least now I am looking at her as a possibility given her interview. Prior to seeing her 'be real' during the interview, all I'd ever experienced were her campaign speeches, which often came across as overly aggressive and preachy.

It was a good interview. I hope Hillary learns what she achieved by making the appearance and then adopts a similar approach when she's on the campaign trail, and I'd really like to see her do some Town Halls.

[Memphis Slim]

At least OReilly has guest on his show that differ from him ideologically. Hence the Clinton interview and many others.....

Olbermann only has his buddies on his show. That's why Bill slays him in the ratings.

People see thru his crap. He's a wuss. "SIR!" :hehe:

Good nite and good luck....:hehe:

[Addendum]

Though with regard to cable ratings, it's the same with sales for blu-ray as opposed to DVD.

[Memphis Slim]

Hmm, I think O'Reilly will go soft ball on her as most Republicans would prefer she gets the nomination, I'd imagine.


He didn't push her like he should have.

[Marx]

I can't stand Bill O'Reilly.

[Knives]

At least OReilly has guest on his show that differ from him ideologically. Hence the Clinton interview and many others.....

Olbermann only has his buddies on his show. That's why Bill slays him in the ratings.

People see thru his crap. He's a wuss. "SIR!" :hehe:

Good nite and good luck....:hehe:

Olbermann at least tells the truth, and touches on topic FOX or Billo will never in a million years talk about. Billo only appeals to the mindless lemmings who agree with the garbage he says. He's useless.

[MetalloX]

I can't stand Bill O'Reilly.
People who have brains can't either.

[Kelly]

People who have brains can't either.

I have a few friends that are big fans of O'Reilly, family members as well......I can assure you, they have brains, and they use them quite often. Generalizations like this usually are accompanied by ignorance of the dynamics of the issues.

[Handsome Rob]

I have a few friends that are big fans of O'Reilly, family members as well......I can assure you, they have brains, and they use them quite often. Generalizations like this usually are accompanied by ignorance of the dynamics of the issues.

I don't care for O'Reilly, myself. But, just the fact that so many on the left have such a seething hatred of him as well as Fox News Channel (which I don't have on my cable) makes having both him and FNC on the air so worth it. :grin:

[Marx]

I don't care for O'Reilly, myself. But, just the fact that so many on the left have such a seething hatred of him as well as Fox News Channel (which I don't have on my cable) makes having both him and FNC on the air so worth it. :grin:

The extremes of both major parties have their respective idiots. No one can deny that Rob.

[Handsome Rob]

The extremes of both major parties have their respective idiots. No one can deny that Rob.

Very true. I've disowned Michael Savage, after all. Still . . . :woot:

[comicgirl]

May I say that if I didn't think she was a pandering troll before.......:cmad:....





GOP suckup

[That'ssuper!]

I'm afraid she may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

[The Senator]

I'm afraid she may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.

Where's the source which proves this claim?

[Venom'sDad]

I've done "Talk Radio" for a little more than two years... so I feel I have a pretty good pulse of the American psyche and American Politics. With that said, members of the Democrat Party Establishment are refusing to meet with billary. She is desparately trying to appeal for the Supers to back her.

I've said a few months ago, that the Establishment wants to rid themselves of the Clintons dominance and would back anyone who could lead the charge to vanquish them. Remember, this was suppose to be a coronation party for billary... a crowning ceremony if you will. Yet with all the drama that is surrounding Barrack Obama campaign, that would certainly doom any other candidate, billary, who was suppose to be inevitable, cannot not seem to gain any ground or reach over and grab his constituents. Now, there is real pressure for her to get out of the race. They gave her all the rope she needed to hang herself.

BUT... and this is a big BUT, she and Rev. Bill have completely divided the Democrat Party. Well, I say there is possibly more in store. I think billary may attempt the reck the party. Let me explain...

There is an unspoken rule for party candidates that candidates should not attack fellow candidates from the same party in a Primary. This is exactly what billary has been doing ever since she realize the party had turn on her and don't want her. She is doing the dirty work for McCain and the Republicans... in her attempt to ensure a run in 2012. My feeling is McCain is one and out, and if McCain could run for a second term, he will be very vulnerable. Unfortunate for her, Obama will most likely defeat McCain and may bring a few Senate & House seats with him.

So billary stragety may be, IMO, petition the Supers at the Convention; otherwise, she may be content to reck the Party by running as an Independent... effectively spliting the vote in the General Election enough for McCain to win(a la Ross Perot). If she does that, the Democrat Pary will never allow her to come back to the party and when her term is up as Senator, they will support one of their own to run against her(a la Lieberman). By that time, with her bruised feelings, she may not want to come back. The Clintons would be effectively vanquish from the Democrat Party... but at what cost.

So now she has a decision to make about her future with the Democrat Party. She is treading dangerous waters. I for one, hopes she dives right in. :hehe:

This is why I say she's not worthy to become President, because she would put her own ambitions over the country's interest... regardless if it means recking the country. History has proven, most Socialist does exactly that... I say good riddance.

[Marx]

I've done "Talk Radio" for a little more than two years... so I feel I have a pretty good pulse of the American psyche and American Politics. With that said, members of the Democrat Party Establishment are refusing to meet with billary. She is desparately trying to appeal for the Supers to back her.

I've said a few months ago, that the Establishment wants to rid themselves of the Clintons dominance and would back anyone who could lead the charge to vanquish them. Remember, this was suppose to be a coronation party for billary... a crowning ceremony if you will. Yet with all the drama that is surrounding Barrack Obama campaign, that would certainly doom any other candidate, billary, who was suppose to be inevitable, cannot not seem to gain any ground or reach over and grab his constituents. Now, there is real pressure for her to get out of the race. They gave her all the rope she needed to hang herself.

BUT... and this is a big BUT, she and Rev. Bill have completely divided the Democrat Party. Well, I say there is possibly more in store. I think billary may attempt the reck the party. Let me explain...

There is an unspoken rule for party candidates that candidates should not attack fellow candidates from the same party in a Primary. This is exactly what billary has been doing ever since she realize the party had turn on her and don't want her. She is doing the dirty work for McCain and the Republicans... in her attempt to ensure a run in 2012. My feeling is McCain is one and out, and if McCain could run for a second term, he will be very vulnerable. Unfortunate for her, Obama will most likely defeat McCain and may bring a few Senate & House seats with him.

So billary stragety may be, IMO, petition the Supers at the Convention; otherwise, she may be content to reck the Party by running as an Independent... effectively spliting the vote in the General Election enough for McCain to win(a la Ross Perot). If she does that, the Democrat Pary will never allow her to come back to the party and when her term is up as Senator, they will support one of their own to run against her(a la Lieberman). By that time, with her bruised feelings, she may not want to come back. The Clintons would be effectively vanquish from the Democrat Party... but at what cost.

So now she has a decision to make about her future with the Democrat Party. She is treading dangerous waters. I for one, hopes she dives right in. :hehe:

This is why I say she's not worthy to become President, because she would put her own ambitions over the country's interest... regardless if it means recking the country. History has proven, most Socialist does exactly that... I say good riddance.

Alot of politicians put their own interests ahead of the country's. George W. Bush is a prime example, and he's president.

[Malice]

I for the most part agree with what you have said.

[kainedamo]

If the supes nominate Hillary ahead of Obama if Obama still has the popular vote then it's basically a failure of democracy.

You can quote the rule book and say what you want about the rules of the party and such.

Doesn't change the fact that that's how I see it and that's how the voters will see it.

[Matt]

If the supes nominate Hillary ahead of Obama if Obama still has the popular vote then it's basically a failure of democracy.

You can quote the rule book and say what you want about the rules of the party and such.

Doesn't change the fact that that's how I see it and that's how the voters will see it.

Well, the DNC is a private institution, they do not have to be democratic. They can run whomever they'd like. They can tell both nominees "we don't want you, we want to run Hulk Hogan." and that is perfectly within their rights.

[rdh007]

Nah, Hulk's got too much baggage with the recent divorce and then the pics of him lathering up his daughter.

Two words: Rowdy Roddy

[Raiden]

Nah, Hulk's got too much baggage with the recent divorce and then the pics of him lathering up his daughter.

Two words: Rowdy Roddy

How about Kurt Angle, the Olympic hero? ;)

[comicgirl]

How about Kurt Angle, the Olympic hero? ;)
not tough enough....what about Stone Cold Steve Austin or the Undertaker?

[comicgirl]

Well, the DNC is a private institution, they do not have to be democratic. They can run whomever they'd like. They can tell both nominees "we don't want you, we want to run Hulk Hogan." and that is perfectly within their rights.That doesn't make it right.........might as well pick you or me.....this whole thing is sickening












They're not totally stupid................Obama's got it.

[YsoSerious]

Clinton: " Come back here, I'll bite your legs off ! "
Obama: " You got no arms or legs you stupid B^%$%1"

[The Senator]

I've done "Talk Radio" for a little more than two years... so I feel I have a pretty good pulse of the American psyche and American Politics. With that said, members of the Democrat Party Establishment are refusing to meet with billary. She is desparately trying to appeal for the Supers to back her.

I've said a few months ago, that the Establishment wants to rid themselves of the Clintons dominance and would back anyone who could lead the charge to vanquish them. Remember, this was suppose to be a coronation party for billary... a crowning ceremony if you will. Yet with all the drama that is surrounding Barrack Obama campaign, that would certainly doom any other candidate, billary, who was suppose to be inevitable, cannot not seem to gain any ground or reach over and grab his constituents. Now, there is real pressure for her to get out of the race. They gave her all the rope she needed to hang herself.

BUT... and this is a big BUT, she and Rev. Bill have completely divided the Democrat Party. Well, I say there is possibly more in store. I think billary may attempt the reck the party. Let me explain...

There is an unspoken rule for party candidates that candidates should not attack fellow candidates from the same party in a Primary. This is exactly what billary has been doing ever since she realize the party had turn on her and don't want her. She is doing the dirty work for McCain and the Republicans... in her attempt to ensure a run in 2012. My feeling is McCain is one and out, and if McCain could run for a second term, he will be very vulnerable. Unfortunate for her, Obama will most likely defeat McCain and may bring a few Senate & House seats with him.

So billary stragety may be, IMO, petition the Supers at the Convention; otherwise, she may be content to reck the Party by running as an Independent... effectively spliting the vote in the General Election enough for McCain to win(a la Ross Perot). If she does that, the Democrat Pary will never allow her to come back to the party and when her term is up as Senator, they will support one of their own to run against her(a la Lieberman). By that time, with her bruised feelings, she may not want to come back. The Clintons would be effectively vanquish from the Democrat Party... but at what cost.

So now she has a decision to make about her future with the Democrat Party. She is treading dangerous waters. I for one, hopes she dives right in. :hehe:

This is why I say she's not worthy to become President, because she would put her own ambitions over the country's interest... regardless if it means recking the country. History has proven, most Socialist does exactly that... I say good riddance.

First, It's DEMOCRATIC Party.

And is it too hard to type "Bill and Hillary" or "The Clintons?" Do you have to type it out as "Billary?"

I mean, it's hard to take you seriously when you a) don't show any objectivity whatsoever and b) can't get the names of the people or institutions you're criticizing correct.

[Marx]

First, It's DEMOCRATIC Party.

And is it too hard to type "Bill and Hillary" or "The Clintons?" Do you have to type it out as "Billary?"

I mean, it's hard to take you seriously when you a) don't show any objectivity whatsoever and b) can't get the names of the people or institutions you're criticizing correct.

I would dare say that's on purpose.

[Handsome Rob]

I would dare say that's on purpose.

Yeah, that goes back to the days when Bill Clinton was President. The joke (among conservatives, at least) was that Hillary Clinton, especially early on, was as much the President as he was . . . so we actually had President Billary Clinton. And, like all good nicknames, it's stuck around far past its time.

[Marx]

Yeah, that goes back to the days when Bill Clinton was President. The joke (among conservatives, at least) was that Hillary Clinton, especially early on, was as much the President as he was . . . so we actually had President Billary Clinton. And, like all good nicknames, it's stuck around far past its time.

Oh I'm familiar with it. It's just not necessary to use it. It is quite a partisan phrase and people really lose credibility when they use things like that in their conversations.

[souvlaki]

I have no clue how legit this is, but I saw this on another site and thought I'd post this here. Apparently Hillary's powerpoint presentation to the super delegates leaked onto the internet. Only glanced at it so far, but here it is for those interested:

http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dfjkx3rr_46cg2xxc6b

[Marx]

I have no clue how legit this is, but I saw this on another site and thought I'd post this here. Apparently Hillary's powerpoint presentation to the super delegates leaked onto the internet. Only glanced at it so far, but here it is for those interested:

http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=dfjkx3rr_46cg2xxc6b

I wonder if that is legit...

[Matt]

It seems fake to me.

[souvlaki]

It seems fake to me.

Just did some research. It appears to be real. It's actually an attachment being emailed to all the undeclared super delegates, not the one from the super delegate meeting on Wednesday (though I suppose she probably used it then as well).

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clintons_PowerPoint.html

[Joker'sHenchman]

I am for Hillary and I would just like to know, honestly, how likely is it that we will be seeing her win over Barack?

[Marx]

I am for Hillary and I would just like to know, honestly, how likely is it that we will be seeing her win over Barack?

At this point, it would take a small miracle. There is a chance though. He isn't the nominee yet.

[souvlaki]

How was Mark Penn not sacked long before he was?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"


How can Clinton's top strategist run a campaign if he doesn't even know the basic rules of the primary?

[StorminNorman]

:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:

[Excel]

How was Mark Penn not sacked long before he was?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"


How can Clinton's top strategist run a campaign if he doesn't even know the basic rules of the primary?

:up: :up

[Arkady Rossovich]

I am for Hillary and I would just like to know, honestly, how likely is it that we will be seeing her win over Barack?

Doubtful,start going to Obama meetings. You will get ahead of the millions who will follow.:hehe:

[comicgirl]

Doubtful,start going to Obama meetings. You will get ahead of the millions who will follow.:hehe:
Obama Takes Lead in Superdelegate Tally

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4818637&page=1

"plink"..................Hillary's light going out:oldrazz:

[YsoSerious]

RIP:yay:

[Marx]

I just wonder what all of you "Hillary-Haters" are going to do if she does end up landing the VP nomination...

[The Senator]

She'd better not land the VP nomination, otherwise McCain will cruise to an easy victory in November.

[Excel]

I have a hard time believing she will get it, but we'll see.

[Mr Sparkle]

I just wonder what all of you "Hillary-Haters" are going to do if she does end up landing the VP nomination...

Psychological projection is a hell of a thing.

[Marx]

She'd better not land the VP nomination, otherwise McCain will cruise to an easy victory in November.

It's a possibility.

[The Senator]

It's a possibility.

I don't think it is a big one, if it is a possibility at all. How will she help him? Will her masquerade as a gun-toting, alcoholic high school drop-out work in the general election? Will she be able to secure any swing states for him?

Frankly, I see them as two extremely polarizing figures whose personalities will clash time and time again on the campaign trail. Obama is better off picking a moderate governor or a military official-- someone who won't overshadow his campaign.

[Marx]

I don't think it is a big one, if it is a possibility at all. How will she help him? Will her masquerade as a gun-toting, alcoholic high school drop-out work in the general election? Will she be able to secure any swing states for him?

Frankly, I see them as two extremely polarizing figures whose personalities will clash time and time again on the campaign trail. Obama is better off picking a moderate governor or a military official-- someone who won't overshadow his campaign.

And to that I say, good luck trying to find a suitable VP that doesn't support Clinton.

[The Senator]

And to that I say, good luck trying to find a suitable VP that doesn't support Clinton.

In the end, it won't matter if Obama's prospective VP choice supported him or Clinton in the primary.

[Bill]

I just wonder what all of you "Hillary-Haters" are going to do if she does end up landing the VP nomination...

Stay at home on Election Day.

[Marx]

Stay at home on Election Day.

But wouldn't that mean abandoning your presidential candidate that you've supported so tenaciously all along?

[Bill]

But wouldn't that mean abandoning your presidential candidate that you've supported so tenaciously all along?

I never tenaciously supported Obama, and I was able to see through Clinton from the beginning. I don't trust her at all. I never have.

If Obama made such a move, then he wouldn't be worth my vote as she is possibly the worst choice he could make for a VP. She does absolutely nothing for him that would make him a better candidate. Not so much as one who could get votes, but one who could do something worthwhile as President. I think a VP should enhance your strengths and augment your weaknesses. She does neither.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Olbermann at least tells the truth

:whatever:

Personally, I think it was a matter of "too little, too late" for Clinton. If she wanted to make an impact with the O'Reilly interview, she should have done it months ago...back when it was a tight race and still could have gone in her favor.

[Marx]

It looks like all of you "Hillary-Haters" that we've all come to know and love on this board are in the minority.


Majority of Democrats want Clinton as VP
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/

[The Senator]

I wonder if they also want McCain to win the election?

[jaguarr]

http://txpage.org/fork.jpg

jag

[Marx]

I wonder if they also want McCain to win the election?

I'm still not entirely convinced that McCain would win the election. Nationally, both Democratic candidates are still beating him. I don't know. I have a hard time seeing the two of them coexisting on a ticket, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that two bitter rivals came together to win the election. You know?

[rdh007]

The thing that comes to mind immediately is Kennedy/Johnson. Though I'm as tired as anyone of everyone from every party comparing themselves to JFK, that's the first one that comes to mind where two people who didn't necessarily get along ran on the same ticket. Of course, Clinton and Gore weren't always tight, either.

[The Senator]

I'm still not entirely convinced that McCain would win the election. Nationally, both Democratic candidates are still beating him. I don't know. I have a hard time seeing the two of them coexisting on a ticket, but it wouldn't be the first time in history that two bitter rivals came together to win the election. You know?

But this has been the most bitter and vicious primary battle in modern history. I will not buy into an Obama-Clinton ticket. I most certainly will vote against it, considering that would be a distinct instance of Obama playing politics to win. He has numerous other choices he could make. Why settle for her when he can pick someone better-- you know, someone who didn't blatantly insult his campaign over and over and over again?

[Marx]

The thing that comes to mind immediately is Kennedy/Johnson. Though I'm as tired as anyone of everyone from every party comparing themselves to JFK, that's the first one that comes to mind where two people who didn't necessarily get along ran on the same ticket. Of course, Clinton and Gore weren't always tight, either.

That's very true.

[jaguarr]

The thing that comes to mind immediately is Kennedy/Johnson. Though I'm as tired as anyone of everyone from every party comparing themselves to JFK, that's the first one that comes to mind where two people who didn't necessarily get along ran on the same ticket. Of course, Clinton and Gore weren't always tight, either.

There's a huge amount of speculation that Johnson had JFK offed to get to the Oval Office, too. Could history repeat itself?

jag

[The Senator]

The thing that comes to mind immediately is Kennedy/Johnson. Though I'm as tired as anyone of everyone from every party comparing themselves to JFK, that's the first one that comes to mind where two people who didn't necessarily get along ran on the same ticket. Of course, Clinton and Gore weren't always tight, either.

But Clinton never ran against Gore, so that's not comparable.

And it's a different age. It's the cable news era-- do you really think some of these pundits are going to let Obama get away with picking her?

[Marx]

There's a huge amount of speculation that Johnson had JFK offed to get to the Oval Office, too. Could history repeat itself?

jag

That's all just a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories Jag.

[jaguarr]

But this has been the most bitter and vicious primary battle in modern history. I will not buy into an Obama-Clinton ticket. I most certainly will vote against it, considering that would be a distinct instance of Obama playing politics to win. He has numerous other choices he could make. Why settle for her when he can pick someone better-- you know, someone who didn't blatantly insult his campaign over and over and over again?

I have a feeling that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a result of the party leaders putting the screws on him to have her as his VP for the sake of the party and the election as a whole, rather than something he'd be very enthusiastic about.

jag

[Marx]

But Clinton never ran against Gore, so that's not comparable.

And it's a different age. It's the cable news era-- do you really think some of these pundits are going to let Obama get away with picking her?

Do you really think that the "pundits" are going to single-handedly change the landscape of the american public?

[rdh007]

But Clinton never ran against Gore, so that's not comparable.

And it's a different age. It's the cable news era-- do you really think some of these pundits are going to let Obama get away with picking her?

I personally don't. Though maybe the pundits shouldn't matter. Maybe we can make them not matter.

*skips off into his field of daisies, rainbows, and happy feelings*

[jaguarr]

That's all just a bunch of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories Jag.

:oldrazz:

jag

[rdh007]

But this has been the most bitter and vicious primary battle in modern history. I will not buy into an Obama-Clinton ticket. I most certainly will vote against it, considering that would be a distinct instance of Obama playing politics to win. He has numerous other choices he could make. Why settle for her when he can pick someone better-- you know, someone who didn't blatantly insult his campaign over and over and over again?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Jim_Webb_official_110th_Congress_photo.jpg

[The Senator]

Do you really think that the "pundits" are going to single-handedly change the landscape of the american public?

The pundits kept the Swift Boat ads alive long after they aired, so yeah, anything's possible.

[Marx]

The pundits kept the Swift Boat ads alive long after they aired, so yeah, anything's possible.

I agree about it being possible...but is it likely? After 8 years of the Bush Administration, one would hope that people could see through those kinds of tactics.

[The Senator]

I agree about it being possible...but is it likely? After 8 years of the Bush Administration, one would hope that people could see through those kinds of tactics.

Hope in one hand, crap in the other... see which one gets filled first.

[moraldeficiency]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Jim_Webb_official_110th_Congress_photo.jpg

Think he'd run against McCain though? They've got some history and a lot of mutual respect. Though I agree he'd be ideal. Instantly lands experience plus the man is practically a saint.

[Marx]

Think he'd run against McCain though? They've got some history and a lot of mutual respect. Though I agree he'd be ideal. Instantly lands experience plus the man is practically a saint.

So let me get this straight...

Alot of people feel that Obama is a "messiah."

You feel that Webb is a "saint."

Wow...who knew that the Democrats could put together such an "enlightening" ticket.

:hehe:

[The Senator]

Webb is hardly a saint. His three marriages speak against that.

[moraldeficiency]

So let me get this straight...

Obama is a "messiah."

Webb is a "saint."

Wow...who knew that the Democrats could put together such an "enlightening" ticket.

:hehe:

Never said anything about obama being a messiah, you're putting stupid words in my mouth and assuming things you shouldn't to make a preformulated point in your mind. You should just close your eyes and have the rest of this conversation in your head since you've already decided to randomly pick what I'm saying so it supports whatever you want, it would save time and I would have to correct you.

Yeah I do think Webb is a saint. He's still spoken of with reverence in the service and his record of dedication, courage and care for his men is a little more important to me then whether his marriages failed. My father has had three marriages and he's still a good man, I don't really see divorce as that big of a deal. Better than staying in a marriage just for the appearence, that's the coward's way out.

[Marx]

Never said anything about obama being a messiah, you're putting stupid words in my mouth and assuming things you shouldn't to make a preformulated point in your mind. You should just close your eyes and have the rest of this conversation in your head since you've already decided to randomly pick what I'm saying so it supports whatever you want, it would save time and I would have to correct you.

Yeah I do think Webb is a saint. He's still spoken of with reverence in the service and his record of dedication, courage and care for his men is a little more important to me then whether his marriages failed. My father has had three marriages and he's still a good man, I don't really see divorce as that big of a deal. Better than staying in a marriage just for the appearence, that's the coward's way out.

I would suggest you take a step back. Alot of people feel as though Obama is some kind of Messiah. I never said that you said that. You said that Webb is a saint. So I put both assumptions together.

Have a little bit more respect MD. There's no need to be so abrasive.

[hippie_hunter]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Jim_Webb_official_110th_Congress_photo.jpg

I am so jealous of Virginia for having Democrats that are so competent :csad:

[hippie_hunter]

But Clinton never ran against Gore, so that's not comparable.

And it's a different age. It's the cable news era-- do you really think some of these pundits are going to let Obama get away with picking her?

Not only that but Obama would probably lose a lot of the independent vote if he chose Clinton as his running mate. It would completely negate his campaign of change and make him look like a hypocrite for having someone who he says represents the same ol', same ol'. He'll have someone on his campaign who voted to authorize the Iraq War, who he has repeatedly criticized Clinton for doing. Plus Clinton just does poorly with Republicans and independents overall in red states.

[moraldeficiency]

I would suggest you take a step back. Alot of people feel as though Obama is some kind of Messiah. I never said that you said that. You said that Webb is a saint. So I put both assumptions together.

Have a little bit more respect MD. There's no need to be so abrasive.

If you quote someone and say let me see then summarize what they've said (though incorrectly) then the person you're quoting has no choice but to think you're speaking to them.

I'd respect you more if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm only abrasive when someone is an ass to me and you were doing that for some cute point that I'm no where near.

Respect is earned by showing it.

[Marx]

If you quote someone and say let me see then summarize what they've said (though incorrectly) then the person you're quoting has no choice but to think you're speaking to them.

Yes you took one thing I said because of a personal belief founded on many people that have served and some owe their lives to and then extrapolated that to include that messiah nonsense which I've never even came close to saying once, ever.

I'd respect you more if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm only abrasive when someone is an ass to me and you were doing that for some cute point that I'm no where near.

So I'll make you a deal, you stop putting words in my mouth that I don't believe in and have never said and I'll stop being abrasive in response to you putting words in my mouth that I don't believe in and have never said.

From what I have seen, you have a tendency to be abrasive on this board.

I will apologize for lumping together your statement with something that OTHERS HAVE SAID. But I told you right after that response that I never said that you believed Obama was a messiah.

[moraldeficiency]

From what I have seen, you have a tendency to be abrasive on this board.

For me at least, my responses are based on the level of respect I'm shown. But from what I've seen you tend to disregard and lump people which is something I really don't jive with very well. If you ask me a legit question and I don't feel like I'm just being prepped for a premade response then I answer with more civility, but really I haven't really been that abrasive to you.

See if you had asked, "why do you say, webb's a saint?" I would have given you my opinion without the attitude. But when it appears you're mocking me and putting words in my mouth to make some blithe point which in no way represents me, then don't expect either respect or civility, because you've not earned it.

I will apologize for lumping together your statement with something that OTHERS HAVE SAID. But I told you right after that response that I never said that you believed Obama was a messiah.

And I read that and editted my followup response, go check. I took out some of that attitude and just explained what people infer when you quote them then make a statement (which you should understand already). If you didn't mean that as being attributed to me then you shouldn't have quoted me and listed a response.

[Marx]

For me at least, my responses are based on the level of respect I'm shown. But from what I've seen you tend to disregard and lump people which is something I really don't jive with very well. If you ask me a legit question and I don't feel like I'm just being prepped for a premade response then I answer with more civility, but really I haven't really been that abrasive to you.

I disregard people who largely look at things with blinders on and refuse to show any objectivity to what they're talking about. When it comes to those people, I lump them all together because to me, they're all the same.

I have apologized for lumping your statement about Webb in with those people. I will go back and edit that comment.


See if you had asked, "why do you say, webb's a saint?" I would have given you my opinion without the attitude. But when it appears you're mocking me and putting words in my mouth to make some blithe point which in no way represents me, then don't expect either respect or civility, because you've not earned it.



And I read that and editted my followup response, go check. I took out some of that attitude and just explained what people infer when you quote them then make a statement (which you should understand already). If you didn't mean that as being attributed to me then you shouldn't have quoted me and listed a response.

I'm done discussing what I have already apologized for.

So why is it that you feel Webb is a saint?

[moraldeficiency]

So why is it that you feel Webb is a saint?

Mainly from his military service. He's a god to any man that's ever served under him and that carries a lot of weight for me personally.

In addition to that and he's been a crusader veterans rights, working for free to help them. His one really stupid thing was his article "Women can't fight" about women in the service. He's helped work against drug use and racism in the service and actually quit under regan as the Sec Navy because he disagreed with regan (he was against cutbacks), which shows balls in politics as well as in combat.

He's also shown that his principles are above politics by running against his former friend Allen. And he's repeatedly stated how the current Iraq occupation is the stupidest thing since vietnam.

There's a great book called the nightingales song about him, John McCain and Ollie North which shows a lot of who they were and are now, which I couldn't recommend highly enough.

[Marx]

Mainly from his military service. He's a god to any man that's ever served under him and that carries a lot of weight for me personally.

In addition to that and he's been a crusader veterans rights, working for free to help them. His one really stupid thing was his article "Women can't fight" about women in the service. He's helped work against drug use and racism in the service and actually quit under regan as the Sec Navy because he disagreed with regan (he was against cutbacks), which shows balls in politics as well as in combat.

He's also shown that his principles are above politics by running against his former friend Allen. And he's repeatedly stated how the current Iraq occupation is the stupidest thing since vietnam.

There's a great book called the nightingales song about him, John McCain and Ollie North which shows a lot of who they were and are now, which I couldn't recommend highly enough.

I may have to check that out. If Webb somehow lands the ticket, I want to know alot more about him.

[moraldeficiency]

I may have to check that out. If Webb somehow lands the ticket, I want to know alot more about him.

It has a lot about McCain as well, plus some other famous ring knockers.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/timberg.html

The Nightingale's Song by Robert Timberg. Simon & Schuster, 1230 Avenue of the America, New York, 10020, 1995, 544 pages, $27.50.

Robert Timberg--Annapolis graduate, Marine veteran of Vietnam, and now deputy chief of the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau--has written a book that is fascinating and flawed. The book is a study of five extraordinary men, all Annapolis graduates, whose names and faces are well known to millions of Americans.

Timberg provides five small biographies of John McCain, who suffered terribly in a North Vietnamese camp before entering the world of politics where, if we can believe him, he suffered even more (p. 459); of Robert McFarlane, a truly decent and humble man, finally driven to a suicide attempt because of his Annapolis honor sullied, in part, by his own confusion in the Washington power game (p. 421); of James Webb, a courageous combat leader and later lawyer and novelist, who served for a short time as Secretary of the Navy, but who could be "mean, vindictive, self-important, and overbearing" (p. 457); of John Poindexter, by all accounts a worthy officer with a brilliant mind, yet one who never understood politics and politicians (p. 247); and of Oliver North, described by McFarlane as "deceitful, mendacious, and traitorous," as well as "devious, self-serving, self-aggrandizing and true first and foremost to himself" (p. 472).

This is a powerful and provocative book. It deals strongly, even arrogantly, with five strong and often arrogant men, all of whom, in different ways, were bright and talented, supremely ambitious, and deeply courageous. A generation after David Halberstam's book The Best and the Brightest, which described the American entry into Vietnam, comes this volume, which describes these five men, more "best and brightest," all of whom were involved, directly or indirectly in that war, and in its wake, which Timberg sees as the Iran-Contra imbroglio.

Although Timberg seems to treat North with contempt (pp. 352, 475), he is also quick to point out North's courage, dramatic flair, and teaching talent. At a time when so many seemed to dodge their duty, North, after all, served--as did the others, often with great distinction and valor. Meanwhile some of their countrymen thought of themselves as "people who can do more good in a lifetime in politics or academics or medicine than by getting killed in a trench" (p. 90). That theme runs through this book like a red thread: The McCain-McFarlane-Webb-North-Poindexter generation served our country in war, or turned their backs on the war, the country, and those who served (pp. 90, 163). Reconciliation, Timberg seems to say, will never come to pass; the chasm is too wide.

What has brought grief to these five men, aside from their own hubris, is their Annapolis education, which taught them to obey without question (p. 25). "They knew," Timberg writes, "there were times when a subordinate must say no to a superior, but as the Iran-Contra affair makes clear, their threshold was appallingly high" (p. 416). Their lockstep educations and their personal ambition made it virtually impossible for them to ask the question, during the Iran-Contra scandal, that Timberg wanted them to ask: "We're not going to do anything stupid here, are we?" (p. 417). But does any university offer its graduates an education which effectively vaccinates them against moral myopia?

This is an extraordinary volume, of immense possible value to senior officers. It suffers, however, from Timberg's tendency to write caustic prose. President Reagan, for example, is dismissed as a man "with the attention span of a fruit fly" (p. 448). Yet Reagan is the "nightingale." Therein lies the chief difficulty of this book. Timberg desperately searches for some kind of hub around which to make the spokes of his book revolve. Thus he settles upon the nightingale, which Timberg fecklessly attempts to use as organizing force for the book (p. 16), arguing that Reagan's example helped the young nightingales of his story finally to sing their song. No ornithologist seems to have told Timberg that nightingales are not found in the United States.

The book is Procrustean. That is, it jams together too many characters. One can see the connections among McFarlane, Poindexter, and North, but he force-fits McCain and Webb into his mold, attempting "to use all five men as metaphors for the emotions, motivations, and beliefs of a legion of well-meaning but ill-starred warriors" (p. 18). That is known as the fallacy of composition, and Timberg is constantly at pains to weave together one fabric from too many threads.

I can think of no one who will come away from this book entirely pleased with its arguments. That may be its chief strength, for it once again calls into question the oldest arguments about duty, about honor, and about country. Timberg quotes with approval John McCain's June 1994 speech at Quantico, in which he said that "my happiness these last twenty years has not let me forget the friends who did not return with me to the country we loved so dearly" (p. 462). "The first duty," Jim Webb said at Arlington in 1987, "is to remember" (p. 457). This book cogently reminds us of honor and shame, of virtue and vice, of courage and cowardice. We see them all reflected in the joys and sorrows of these five remarkable lives about which Timberg writes so compellingly. And we see them, too, if less distinctly, in our own lives.

James H. Toner
Professor of International Relations &
Military Ethics, Air War College
Maxwell AFB, Alabama

[The Senator]

I wish Webb had a full Senate term under his belt, or had been elected to another political office before becoming a Senator. He spent less than a year as Reagan's Navy Secretary, so he only has two and a half years of experience in government. I think the Republicans would slaughter him for that, in addition to his many personal problems which they love to attack on a regular basis.

Obama needs to pick either a Clinton supporter, such as Ed Rendell; a woman, such as Janet Napolitano; or someone who would counter Obama's negatives and hasn't endorsed yet, such as Sherrod Brown. Picking Clinton could be campaign suicide, and picking someone who would be repeatedly under fire by the Republican attack machine isn't a smart move, either.

[rdh007]

Rendell and Brown would both work. But they need both states...

[The Major]

I wish Webb had a full Senate term under his belt, or had been elected to another political office before becoming a Senator. He spent less than a year as Reagan's Navy Secretary, so he only has two and a half years of experience in government. I think the Republicans would slaughter him for that, in addition to his many personal problems which they love to attack on a regular basis.

Couldn't Webb counter that by saying he didn't believe in Reagan's policies in that role so he left because he had to follow his own principals and couldn't do that if he stayed.

Reagan isn't a saint, either. The reason must have been huge to leave his post and I'd like to hear that in a public forum. It would deflate the false idea the Republicans have spent years building him up in the media he's an infallible god.

This would anger the Republicans and the so-called "Reagan" Democrats but I don't think the rank and file Democrats or the independents would care what he says about Ronald.


Obama needs to pick either a Clinton supporter, such as Ed Rendell; a woman, such as Janet Napolitano; or someone who would counter Obama's negatives and hasn't endorsed yet, such as Sherrod Brown. Picking Clinton could be campaign suicide, and picking someone who would be repeatedly under fire by the Republican attack machine isn't a smart move, either.

I agree.

[YsoSerious]

Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush.

[Marx]

Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush.

What makes anyone think that she would be worse than Bush?

[moraldeficiency]

What makes anyone think that she would be worse than Bush?

that rather than learning from his mistakes she mirrors them?

[comicgirl]

Clinton doesn't have the sense to drop out of the race when she mathematically can't win and was out of money months ago. What makes people think she would be any better than Bush. Whenever I think her not dropping out, I always get this vision of a spoilt child throwing a tantrum.....But, it's mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....You can't have it!!!!!

Myself, I think she'll do everything she can to make sure McCain wins, so she can come back in '12.:cmad:

[The Senator]

I am so jealous of Virginia for having Democrats that are so competent :csad:

You just dissed Chuck. :csad:

[The Senator]

Couldn't Webb counter that by saying he didn't believe in Reagan's policies in that role so he left because he had to follow his own principals and couldn't do that if he stayed.

Reagan isn't a saint, either. The reason must have been huge to leave his post and I'd like to hear that in a public forum. It would deflate the false idea the Republicans have spent years building him up in the media he's an infallible god.

This would anger the Republicans and the so-called "Reagan" Democrats but I don't think the rank and file Democrats or the independents would care what he says about Ronald.

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have a sick love obsession with Reagan... the American people overwhelmingly approve of him... and I think any attacks on Reagan would reflect poorly on the Democratic candidate. Plus, it's been twenty years since Reagan left office, so his policies are a bit irrelevant right now.

Of course, I do wonder how much longer mainstream Republican candidates will give Reagan's corpse a postmortem rim job...

[Marx]

The Republicans aren't the only ones who have a sick love obsession with Reagan... the American people overwhelmingly approve of him... and I think any attacks on Reagan would reflect poorly on the Democratic candidate. Plus, it's been twenty years since Reagan left office, so his policies are a bit irrelevant right now.

Of course, I do wonder how much longer mainstream Republican candidates will give Reagan's corpse a postmortem rim job...

They will until there is another "great" Republican President.

[The Senator]

They will until there is another "great" Republican President.

Good luck with that.

[Marx]

Good luck with that.

I'm just saying...that's when they will stop invoking the name of Reagan. When there is a suitable replacement. Obviously, the Bush family doesn't qualify.

[The Senator]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Can somebody say "delusional?"


Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday Hillary Clinton has overcome Barack Obama in the total popular vote.

“Senator Clinton took the lead in the popular vote last night because voters believe she is the candidate best able to beat John McCain and lead our country," McAuliffe said.

Is he right? That depends on which measure of the popular vote is used.

Four different scenarios of the total popular vote have been kicked around: (1) only counting primary contests without factoring in Florida and Michigan, whose contests were not sanctioned by the national party, (2) counting primary and caucus contests without Florida and Michigan, (3) counting primaries and contests and Florida but not Michigan, and (4) counting all primaries and caucuses including Florida and Michigan.

Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.

The fourth scenario does not give Obama any votes out of Michigan, where he did not appear on the ballot.

The only scenario in which Clinton would appear to have the lead is a fifth scenario that only counts primary states – including both Florida and Michigan – and excludes any votes cast in the party’s caucuses. In that count, Clinton currently holds a lead of about 225,000 votes.

[kainedamo]

Nutso.

The best thing Hillary can do for the democratic party at this point is make a big public announcement that she's dropping out of the race and throwing her support behind Obama. There is no need for the division that currently exists, which only exists because Hillary keeps going with this.

[souvlaki]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Can somebody say "delusional?"

I understand the whole "caucuses are undemocratic" argument, but regardless of your opinion about caucuses, how can anyone demand Michigan and Florida be seated and in the same sentence disenfranchise the voters of caucus states just because you don't like the way they did things. God, I would love to live in the world of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and just make up the rules for everything to work for me.

[kainedamo]

Reminds me of the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry is ahead of a woman in a que at the doctors office, but the woman gets seen to first because her appointment time was first.

Larry complained that it was unfair because he was first in line.

The next time Larry gets to the office, he sees the same woman and she manages to beat him in a race to the desk. His appointment time is first though, so he figures he'll get seen first. But because of his complaining last time they changed it to first come first serve, so the woman gets before him again. Larry again complains, and the woman he's complaining to basically says "you bascially want us to change the rules so that no matter what you get seen first", and Larry says "Exactly!", hilarious.

This is basically the same situation.

Whatever scenario makes Hillary look like a winner her camp is happy with.

[Marx]

I understand the whole "caucuses are undemocratic" argument, but regardless of your opinion about caucuses, how can anyone demand Michigan and Florida be seated and in the same sentence disenfranchise the voters of caucus states just because you don't like the way they did things. God, I would love to live in the world of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and just make up the rules for everything to work for me.

The whole system needs to be redone.

[The Senator]

I understand the whole "caucuses are undemocratic" argument, but regardless of your opinion about caucuses, how can anyone demand Michigan and Florida be seated and in the same sentence disenfranchise the voters of caucus states just because you don't like the way they did things. God, I would love to live in the world of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and just make up the rules for everything to work for me.

She knew what the rules were when she decided to seek the Democratic Party's nomination. Her campaign was fully aware that there would be primaries and caucuses. So regardless of whether she thinks they're undemocratic or not, she knew what the rules were in every single state and she did not show any opposition to the system. Hell, she spent most of her time campaigning in Iowa. She even won Nevada. So basically all her campaign is doing is saying, "well, if you count these states, but don't count these states, we win." That proves she's grasping for straws right there, and that the Clinton campaign has lost any remaining credibility it once had.

[souvlaki]

The whole system needs to be redone.

Yeah, but unfortunately Doc Brown hasn't invented that time machine yet. For now we are stuck with the choices the DNC made.

[StorminNorman]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Can somebody say "delusional?"

Terry McAuliffe is crazy :(

[Marx]

Yeah, but unfortunately Doc Brown hasn't invented that time machine yet. For now we are stuck with the choices the DNC made.

Hopefully this will all lead to some kind of reorganization of the DNC and its way of doing things in the future. (I doubt it, but I can hope.)

[souvlaki]

Hopefully this will all lead to some kind of reorganization of the DNC and its way of doing things in the future. (I doubt it, but I can hope.)

After the way this went, I can almost guarantee there will be major changes by the time of the next major Democratic Presidential primary. This whole primary was a disaster in multiple ways and the DNC knows it.

[Marx]

After the way this went, I can almost guarantee there will be major changes by the time of the next major Democratic Presidential primary. This whole primary was a disaster in multiple ways and the DNC knows it.

There has to be some kind of change to this process. The DNC better get their act together.

[Raiden]

After the way this went, I can almost guarantee there will be major changes by the time of the next major Democratic Presidential primary. This whole primary was a disaster in multiple ways and the DNC knows it.

I agree. This kind of drag-out race between the nominees should never happen again.

[Matt]

After the way this went, I can almost guarantee there will be major changes by the time of the next major Democratic Presidential primary. This whole primary was a disaster in multiple ways and the DNC knows it.

I doubt it. Everyone was saying the electoral college would be gone by 2004 after the 2000 debacle.

That being said, if the Democrats were smart, they would change it to winner take all primaries and do away with super delelgates like the Republicans. Oddly enough however, if there were winner take all primaries, Hilldog would have a commanding lead and Obama likely would've been forced to drop out ages ago. Also, get rid of caucuses.

[StorminNorman]

I doubt it. Everyone was saying the electoral college would be gone by 2004 after the 2000 debacle.

That being said, if the Democrats were smart, they would change it to winner take all primaries and do away with super delelgates like the Republicans. Oddly enough however, if there were winner take all primaries, Hilldog would have a commanding lead and Obama likely would've been forced to drop out ages ago. Also, get rid of caucuses.

The Electoral College isn't corrupt though, the Democrat system of nominating candidates are - it requires attention.

[Matt]

The Electoral College isn't corrupt though, the Democrat system of nominating candidates are - it requires attention.

It does need attention, but the Democrats are too arrogant to say admit it does. I mean, hell, when Jon Stewart asked the chairman, Howard Dean about the undemocratic super delegate system, Dean's only response was "Its more democratic than the Republican system." I really wish it were a Republican who said that so Stewart would've actually forced him to elaborate on that instead of letting him get away with such an outrageously stupid comment.

[Marx]

You know, in all honesty, the Democrats should just adopt the Republican way of nominations. I don't see a problem with winner take all, and get rid of the stupid caucuses!

[Marx]

It does need attention, but the Democrats are too arrogant to say admit it does. I mean, hell, when Jon Stewart asked the chairman, Howard Dean about the undemocratic super delegate system, Dean's only response was "Its more democratic than the Republican system." I really wish it were a Republican who said that so Stewart would've actually forced him to elaborate on that instead of letting him get away with such an outrageously stupid comment.

Howard Dean doesn't have a clue.

[The Senator]

The Electoral College isn't corrupt though, the Democrat system of nominating candidates are - it requires attention.

The electoral college is not corrupt, but it needs to be eliminated. It doesn't serve a purpose anymore.

The Democrats need winner-take-all primaries, and they should get rid of the caucuses altogether. That's the best way to fix the system, but that probably won't happen.

[The Senator]

Howard Dean doesn't have a clue.

Howard Dean was the best choice for chairman of the DNC. His fifty state strategy has done wonders for the Democratic Party. As for the presidential primary, it's not his fault two "rockstar" candidates sought the nomination. This is the only time under the current system that the party has faced such a convoluted mess.

[kainedamo]

The Democrats need winner-take-all primaries, and they should get rid of the caucuses altogether. That's the best way to fix the system, but that probably won't happen.

Winner-take-all doesn't make much sense.

You have a LOT of states where the vote margin was almost half and half between Hillary and Obama. How fair would it be if ALL the delegates in one state went to one single canditate, if just a little less than half the voters voted the other person.

[Matt]

Howard Dean was the best choice for chairman of the DNC. His fifty state strategy has done wonders for the Democratic Party. As for the presidential primary, it's not his fault two "rockstar" candidates sought the nomination. This is the only time under the current system that the party has faced such a convoluted mess.

It is his fault that he can't keep his mouth shut. The chairman should be raising money, not making an ass of himself and in turn the party every time he opens his mouth. Dean should've never been in a position where a late night talk host could make such an ass of him.

[Marx]

Winner-take-all doesn't make much sense.

You have a LOT of states where the vote margin was almost half and half between Hillary and Obama. How fair would it be if ALL the delegates in one state went to one single canditate, if just a little less than half the voters voted the other person.

It works pretty well for the Republicans Kaine.

[kainedamo]

It works pretty well for the Republicans Kaine.

But the republicans didn't have two canditates so closely matched in terms of votes.

When the votes are so close, winner-takes-all isn't very democratic.

[Marx]

Howard Dean was the best choice for chairman of the DNC. His fifty state strategy has done wonders for the Democratic Party. As for the presidential primary, it's not his fault two "rockstar" candidates sought the nomination. This is the only time under the current system that the party has faced such a convoluted mess.

It is his fault that he can't keep his mouth shut. The chairman should be raising money, not making an ass of himself and in turn the party every time he opens his mouth. Dean should've never been in a position where a late night talk host could make such an ass of him.

Howard Dean may have good strategies from time to time, but he can't keep his mouth shut. If I recall correctly, it was his mouth that ended up costing him the nomination in the first place. Obviously, he hasn't learned that lesson yet.

[Marx]

But the republicans didn't have two canditates so closely matched in terms of votes.

When the votes are so close, winner-takes-all isn't very democratic.

I completely understand your point, but something has to be done Kaine. It cannot continue this way.

[StorminNorman]

The Democrats need winner-take-all primaries, and they should get rid of the caucuses altogether. That's the best way to fix the system, but that probably won't happen.

Getting rid of the Super Delegates is a good way to start fixing the Democrats problems.

[StorminNorman]

But the republicans didn't have two canditates so closely matched in terms of votes.

When the votes are so close, winner-takes-all isn't very democratic.

Romney and McCain?

[The Senator]

Howard Dean may have good strategies from time to time, but he can't keep his mouth shut. If I recall correctly, it was his mouth that ended up costing him the nomination in the first place. Obviously, he hasn't learned that lesson yet.

Umm... no. He lost the nomination because the media made an issue out of a scream. Not something he said, but a sound which came out of his mouth and was projected by the microphone he was using, and was turned into a political talking point because the pundits had nothing better to do with their time.

But hey, if you want to discredit the man because he went on a late night talk show and repeated the same Democratic talking points, fine. But remember, it's because of his efforts that we have governors in states we used to never be competitive in, it's because of his efforts we won back the House and the Senate... so yeah, just throw all that out because of an appearance he made on the Daily Show where he acted like every other Democrat who goes on that show...

[Marx]

Romney and McCain?

Huckabee was also pretty close in a couple of the states, wasn't he?

[souvlaki]

I doubt it. Everyone was saying the electoral college would be gone by 2004 after the 2000 debacle.

That being said, if the Democrats were smart, they would change it to winner take all primaries and do away with super delelgates like the Republicans. Oddly enough however, if there were winner take all primaries, Hilldog would have a commanding lead and Obama likely would've been forced to drop out ages ago. Also, get rid of caucuses.

And if it were proportional on the Republican's side Huckabee probably would still be very much in the race as well. Personally, I think proportional allocation during the primary is more fair than winner take all, but it doesn't chance the fact that this primary is for the most part over, and there is no way to change what already happened.

[Marx]

Umm... no. He lost the nomination because the media made an issue out of a scream.

But hey, if you want to discredit the man because he went on a late night talk show and repeated the same Democratic talking points, fine. But remember, it's because of his efforts that we have governors in states we used to never be competitive in, it's because of his efforts we won back the House and the Senate... so yeah, just throw all that out because of an appearance he made on the Daily Show where he acted like every other Democrat who goes on that show...

You are underestimating the American people. It doesn't take alot of intelligence to know that people are sick of the Republican control. I believe that the Democrats would have won regardless of Dean's involvement.

As for his losing the nomination, word it however you want. He lost because of "the scream."

[Matt]

And if it were proportional on the Republican's side Huckabee probably would still be very much in the race as well. Personally, I think proportional allocation during the primary is more fair than winner take all, but it doesn't chance the fact that this primary is for the most part over, and there is no way to change what already happened.

If you are going to go with porportional delegates with no super delegates, then just get rid of the delegate system all together and go based on national popular vote. Of course, then you run the risk of making Florida, New Hampshire, etc, irrelevant. Winner takes all keeps small states relevant and does away with the ridiculous super delegate system.

[Matt]

Umm... no. He lost the nomination because the media made an issue out of a scream. Not something he said, but a sound which came out of his mouth and was projected by the microphone he was using, and was turned into a political talking point because the pundits had nothing better to do with their time.

But hey, if you want to discredit the man because he went on a late night talk show and repeated the same Democratic talking points, fine. But remember, it's because of his efforts that we have governors in states we used to never be competitive in, it's because of his efforts we won back the House and the Senate... so yeah, just throw all that out because of an appearance he made on the Daily Show where he acted like every other Democrat who goes on that show...

I will concede to you he is great at organization and fund raising, but again, he does a lot of damage through his constant attention whoring. Come now Jman, The Daily Show is not an isolated incident. Dean makes an ass out of himself and the party basically any time he has a camera on him.

[moraldeficiency]

Winner take all seems a little skewed but the superdelegates are just an awful mess. That at the least should be done away with. Though I doubt that too cause politicans hate giving up any form of power. The only way I see this happening is if McCain beats Obama and the blame gets laid on this.

[The Senator]

As for his losing the nomination, word it however you want. He lost because of "the scream."

Again, the scream has nothing to do with him "opening up his mouth and losing the nomination because of it." He made an exclamation and was slaughtered by the pundits because it made him look "crazy."

"Ooooh, that Howard Dean, he's up there screaming! What a crazy-pants-- I guess that means he can't be President! He'll just yell all the time!"

That's a true example of the media turning a non-issue into an issue. Forget Obama's pastor, forget his "sweetie" comments... the media destroyed a man's campaign because he yelled excitedly...

Had he said something like "all women are whores" I could see how your argument would have any merit. But it doesn't even compare to what we were discussing, which was his appearance on 'The Daily Show' when he actually said something which can at least be debated.

[Marx]

Again, the scream has nothing to do with him "opening up his mouth and losing the nomination because of it." He made an exclamation and was slaughtered by the pundits because it made him look "crazy."

"Ooooh, that Howard Dean, he's up there screaming! What a crazy-pants-- I guess that means he can't be President! He'll just yell all the time!"

That's a true example of the media turning a non-issue into an issue. Forget Obama's pastor, forget his "sweetie" comments... the media destroyed a man's campaign because he yelled excitedly...

Had he said something like "all women are whores" I could see how your argument would have any merit. But it doesn't even compare to what we were discussing, which was his appearance on 'The Daily Show' when he actually said something which can at least be debated.

All I'm saying, and what Matt has said, is that his Daily Show appearance was not the first time he's made a complete a** of himself.

[The Senator]

I will concede to you he is great at organization and fund raising, but again, he does a lot of damage through his constant attention whoring. Come now Jman, The Daily Show is not an isolated incident. Dean makes an ass out of himself and the party basically any time he has a camera on him.

Regardless of whether he makes an ass out of himself or not, the man's strategies are part of the reason why Democrats are regaining control of the federal government and state governments in states we typically don't win.

[StorminNorman]

Again, the scream has nothing to do with him "opening up his mouth and losing the nomination because of it." He made an exclamation and was slaughtered by the pundits because it made him look "crazy."

"Ooooh, that Howard Dean, he's up there screaming! What a crazy-pants-- I guess that means he can't be President! He'll just yell all the time!"

That's a true example of the media turning a non-issue into an issue. Forget Obama's pastor, forget his "sweetie" comments... the media destroyed a man's campaign because he yelled excitedly...

Had he said something like "all women are whores" I could see how your argument would have any merit. But it doesn't even compare to what we were discussing, which was his appearance on 'The Daily Show' when he actually said something which can at least be debated.

It wasn't JUST the scream, he was losing his momentum as is - he did just get a John Edwards third in Iowa.

[The Senator]

All I'm saying, and what Matt has said, is that his Daily Show appearance was not the first time he's made a complete a** of himself.

No, you implied that he opened his mouth and lost the nomination because of it.

He didn't make an ass out of himself because he yelled. The media made him look like an ass by making it into an issue.

Many Democrats say the same things Dean says. Just like how many Republicans say things like 'the Democrats support terrorism' or 'we're safer because of Bush.' I don't think his comments were said articulately, but really, this is just making yet another issue out of nothing.

[Marx]

No, you implied that he opened his mouth and lost the nomination because of it.

He didn't make an ass out of himself because he yelled. The media made him look like an ass by making it into an issue.

Many Democrats say the same things Dean says. Just like how many Republicans say things like 'the Democrats support terrorism' or 'we're safer because of Bush.' I don't think his comments were said articulately, but really, this is just making yet another issue out of nothing.

Fair enough. But just don't pretend that Howard Dean doesn't have a knack for whoring the attention and making himself look like an idiot from time to time.

[The Senator]

It wasn't JUST the scream, he was losing his momentum as is - he did just get a John Edwards third in Iowa.

Yeah, his momentum was fading, but the media made the "scream" into a far greater issue than it needed to be.

[The Senator]

Fair enough. But just don't pretend that Howard Dean doesn't have a knack for whoring the attention and making himself look like an idiot from time to time.

Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Terry McAuliffe, and many more within the Democratic Party qualify as attention whores.

[moraldeficiency]

Here's the thing. You're in politics and it's kinda like sports, everyone's watching. If you screw up you have to do something to get yourself out of it, but if you screw up in a funny way you're gonna be watching that sportscenter highlight for a long time. You either laugh it off and do something to distract attention or you make it an issue by focusing on it.

Dean was at that time losing momentum, then he screamed BYAW! and his voice cracked like a 9 year old. Then he made the mistake of talking about it again and again which only fed the fires.

You can have the greatest presidental nominee ever and if by some act of god his/her pants fall down on him/her while on the campaign trail and that's caught on film, he/she is a joke and done. It's not fair, but that's how it will play.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, his momentum was fading, but the media made the "scream" into a far greater issue than it needed to be.

Naturally, but it didn't lose him the election - or his career.

[The Senator]

Here's the thing. You're in politics and it's kinda like sports, everyone's watching. If you screw up you have to do something to get yourself out of it, but if you screw up in a funny way you're gonna be watching that sportscenter highlight for a long time. You either laugh it off and do something to distract attention or you make it an issue by focusing on it.

Dean was at that time losing momentum, then he screamed BYAW! and his voice cracked like a 9 year old. Then he made the mistake of talking about it again and again which only fed the fires.

You can have the greatest presidental nominee ever and if by some act of god his/her pants fall down on him/her while on the campaign trail and that's caught on film, he/she is a joke and done. It's not fair, but that's how it will play.

Don't get me wrong, Dean was not without fault when it came to his downfall. But the reason why he kept talking about it was because the media kept asking him about it. They made it into a huge issue, and he felt the need to address it. How do you react when you're in that situation? Like you said, anything can kill a politician's chance of reaching the office they hope to seek. So he had a choice, he could laugh off this scream which was whoring the media airwaves during the week between Iowa and New Hampshire, or he could have addressed it and hoped that by addressing it, people would stop asking him about it. Unfortunately, he did the latter, and folks still asked him about it, and that killed his chances in New Hampshire while simultaneously killing the Democrats' chances of having a nominee with a backbone.

[The Major]

All I'm saying, and what Matt has said, is that his Daily Show appearance was not the first time he's made a complete a** of himself.

Everyone makes mistakes. He's got nothing on Dubya. Yet the media says nothing when George screws up every time he opens his mouth or does something stupid (Merkle, not being able to open a door etc).

[Marx]

Everyone makes mistakes. He's got nothing on Dubya. Yet the media says nothing when George screws up every time he opens his mouth or does something stupid (Merkle, not being able to open a door etc).

That would take up too much time. There wouldn't be any other news that would be able to be reported!

[The Major]

Here's the thing. You're in politics and it's kinda like sports, everyone's watching. If you screw up you have to do something to get yourself out of it, but if you screw up in a funny way you're gonna be watching that sportscenter highlight for a long time. You either laugh it off and do something to distract attention or you make it an issue by focusing on it.

Dean was at that time losing momentum, then he screamed BYAW! and his voice cracked like a 9 year old. Then he made the mistake of talking about it again and again which only fed the fires.

You can have the greatest presidental nominee ever and if by some act of god his/her pants fall down on him/her while on the campaign trail and that's caught on film, he/she is a joke and done. It's not fair, but that's how it will play.

Didn't stop Dubya from winning a general election twice.

[The Major]

That would take up too much time. There wouldn't be any other news that would be able to be reported!

It would be more relevant then what they're usually reporting.

The ratings might go up, too.

[Spider-Bite]

I will concede to you he is great at organization and fund raising, but again, he does a lot of damage through his constant attention whoring. Come now Jman, The Daily Show is not an isolated incident. Dean makes an ass out of himself and the party basically any time he has a camera on him.


Honestly I feel the media makes an ass out of him, by focusing on completely irrelevant remarks, that have no bearing on anything going on in this country, and often times for being honest. Remember when he called for a withdrawl? The media made him sound crazy. Now everybody agrees with him.

Remember when he said Bush knew about 9/11 and could have stopped it? Well it turned out that Bush did know Alquida was planning to fly airplanes into buildings at around that date, yet he waited untill after to increase security at airports and on airplanes. This was the findings of the 9/11 commission, who also concluded he could have prevented it. I'll admit they concluded that Bill Clinton could have prevented it, but it doesnt' change the fact that the media made an ass out of Dean for speaking the truth.

We also have to remember everything he accomplished as governor of Vermont. Increased the job rate by 20%. Cut the child molestation rate in half. got graduation ratesup and teen pregnancies down. Turned their state deficit into a state surplus, while cutting taxes at the same time.

Remember he did all that with a camera on him, and that hardly made him look like an ass. With all the mud and ******** in politics, I say we have a moral obligation to show some appreciation when somebody actually helps this country.

[Spider-Bite]

Don't get me wrong, Dean was not without fault when it came to his downfall. But the reason why he kept talking about it was because the media kept asking him about it. They made it into a huge issue, and he felt the need to address it. How do you react when you're in that situation? Like you said, anything can kill a politician's chance of reaching the office they hope to seek. So he had a choice, he could laugh off this scream which was whoring the media airwaves during the week between Iowa and New Hampshire, or he could have addressed it and hoped that by addressing it, people would stop asking him about it. Unfortunately, he did the latter, and folks still asked him about it, and that killed his chances in New Hampshire while simultaneously killing the Democrats' chances of having a nominee with a backbone.


That's not quite true. I watched that campaign very closely, and he did try real hard to laugh it off and act like a good sport about it.

[Spider-Bite]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Can somebody say "delusional?"

Not delusiona. Just dishonest.

[The Senator]

That's not quite true. I watched that campaign very closely, and he did try real hard to laugh it off and act like a good sport about it.

But he also addressed it seriously on several occasions.

[Spider-Bite]

But he also addressed it seriously on several occasions.


I do remember one incident where he was serious and said he was trying to pump up the crowd, as if they needed any pumping, they looked like they were on aderol, but that wasn't a bad move on his part. He laughed about it, and offered an explanation. Both should have been acceptable.

[Spider-Bite]

Great, social discourse in America and my faith in humanity in general are both
taking a plunge.

This guy is like Britney Spears in 2002, a talentless hack who makes up for it by having a great PR machine, that is why he is popular, not because he brings anything useful to the table. He is nothing more than political jock shock, you might as take political advice from Howard Stern.

i disagree with him, but he is talented. He's clearly good at what he does, which is attract viewers, fire people up, and present a biased view with a confident tone of voice presenting the illusion of intelligence. He's got the same PR machine and producers as all the other fox shows which dont' attract those ratings.

[Spider-Bite]

Personally I thought Hillary kicked his ass in the interview, and I thought it was inmature for liberal bloggers to criticize her for going on the show. why hide from conservatives on other stations? Why not confront them face to face?

[Spider-Bite]

I'm afraid she may go ahead with his announced plan to liberate Cuba using military force if they did not make a democratic reform by 2010. I don't think the world wants to see another illegal war in the name of freeing an oppressed people from their government.


it depends. she still needs congress to giveher the go ahead, who might out of a desire to stand by their president, but I don't think she would be able to command the same kind of loyalty from her party that bush had a few years back. There are such a huge number of liberals who hate her, that if she were to become President, I could see her being challenged for the nomination in 2012, or get hit with a 3rd party candidate, or have congress simply not bow to her every command.

[The Overlord]

i disagree with him, but he is talented. He's clearly good at what he does, which is attract viewers, fire people up, and present a biased view with a confident tone of voice presenting the illusion of intelligence. He's got the same PR machine and producers as all the other fox shows which dont' attract those ratings.

I guess you didn't see the video of acting like a raving psycho for no reason on Inside Edition some odd years ago. The man has mental problems.

[Spider-Bite]

Hillary waved the white flag today. She admitted she will not be the nominee, but said there is no harm in finishing the contests. She's positioning herself to be VP or a second run in 2012.

[Marx]

Hillary waved the white flag today. She admitted she will not be the nominee, but said there is no harm in finishing the contests. She's positioning herself to be VP or a second run in 2012.

When did this happen?

[Spider-Bite]

When did this happen?

I just watched it on fox news five minutes ago.

[The Senator]

She's still claiming she's won more votes.

She's going to have a hard time accepting that she isn't the nominee come August. If this is any indication, she'll probably continue to campaign, thinking she's the party's nominee.

[SentinelMind]

I don't think Hillary is stupid. Just because she ACTS like she is the nominee, doesn't mean she believes she's convinced everyone else.....she just has a strong, disciplined mind. Part of persuading other is acting likes it obvious you're right. From her standpoint, she has nothing to lose. It's the party that has to fight her to prove she's wrong.

[The Senator]

I don't think Hillary is stupid. Just because she ACTS like she is the nominee, doesn't mean she believes she's convinced everyone else.....she just has a strong, disciplined mind. Part of persuading other is acting likes it obvious you're right. From her standpoint, she has nothing to lose. It's the party that has to fight her to prove she's wrong.

It is a good strategy, but the one thing she fails to see is that most of the party sees through her shtick. The only way she wins the popular vote is if you discount caucus states and include Florida and Michigan. She's making her own rules at this point, and she becomes less and less credible with every outrageous claim she makes.

So she's definitely acting like the nominee, and she certainly has a strong, disciplined mind. But her problem is, she doesn't live in reality. She can't become the Democratic nominee if she's losing on all fronts... even if she claims she's winning...

[Marx]

It's only a matter of time now before Obama is confirmed as the nominee. Hillary cannot continue to make up the rules as she sees fit. As undemocratic and ridiculous as they may be, caucuses are a part of our voting system. (Hopefully that will change.) But for right now we have to work with what we have.

[The Senator]

Clinton compares seating Michigan and Florida to the Civil Rights Movement
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_compares_the_Florida_and_Michigan_fight_to _civil_rights_movement.html

[Marx]

Clinton compares seating Michigan and Florida to the Civil Rights Movement
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_compares_the_Florida_and_Michigan_fight_to _civil_rights_movement.html

Wow...

[jaguarr]

http://eaglewings-eyrie.com/TiffanyFork.JPG

jag

[The Senator]

Hmmm.

XDHbHcOV1N4


The following five quotations are from Alec Flegon's Dictionary of English Sex Quotations (London: Flegon Press, 1996):

* L.D. Brown, a member of Clinton's former security staff and bodyguard in Arkansas, stated that Hillary is "as foul-mouthed as any sailor you'd ever meet." (p. 147)

As reported by Bill's security staff, Hillary frequently erupted in expletive-filled tirades against him. "I can't believe you would ask a ****ing question like that!" Or, about his shaky driving, "You're gonna get us ****ing killed!" (p. 147)

She shouted at Bill over his unfaithfulness: "I need to be ****ed more than twice a year!" (p. 170)

Hillary to Larry Patterson, an Arkansas state trooper and Clinton bodyguard from 1986 to 1993, who was bringing a judge's wife to the Little Rock airport: "What the **** do you think you're doing? I know who that whore is." (p. 171)

Coming out of the Arkansas governor's mansion early morning on Labor Day 1991, Hillary screamed: "Where is the goddamn ****ing flag? I want the goddamn ****ing flag up every ****ing morning at ****ing sunrise!" (p. 173).


If she disagreed with Bill Clinton or she disagreed with some of the Jewish community in Little Rock -- or some of the ethnic community -- she would often make these statements." "She would say 'Jew Bastard' or call her husband a 'Jew boy' or a 'mother****ing Jew'," Patterson told the WABC New York radio audience. [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

Larry Patterson confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use "n*****" to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black leader Robert "Say" McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton's use of "n*****." "Not only did he use the 'N' word, he called him a 'GDN' [goddamn n*****], if you catch my drift," Browning told Fox News in 1999. [NewsMax, 17 July 2000] Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. "He has used the 'N' word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks behind their backs." [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

Patterson said Hillary was no stranger to the "N" word either. He heard her say "n*****" "probably six, eight, ten times. She would be upset with someone in the black community and she would use the 'N' word, like, you heard they've got the president's brother on tape using the 'N' word." [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

[jaguarr]

"I need to be ****ed more than twice a year!" - Hillary Clinton

:lmao:

jag

[souvlaki]

Had Kieth Olbermann on in the background while I was doing other things, but I heard him mention Clinton today compared her effort to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida to that of freeing the slaves. Please tell me I just heard this completely out of context.

[The Senator]

Had Kieth Olbermann on in the background while I was doing other things, but I heard him mention Clinton today compared her effort to seat the delegates in Michigan and Florida to that of freeing the slaves. Please tell me I just heard this completely out of context.

Nope, that's what she said. I have a link to the article above.

[souvlaki]

Nope, that's what she said. I have a link to the article above.

Oh for God's sake, someone put this dog to sleep.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I just saw the news. Now she's comparing the Michigan/Florida thing to Bush/Goregate from 2000. Talk about fear-mongering and deliberately raising an inner-party backlash! :eek:

This woman is officially OUT. OF. CONTROL.

[Matt]

I just saw the news. Now she's comparing the Michigan/Florida thing to Bush/Goregate from 2000. Talk about fear-mongering and deliberately raising an inner-party backlash! :eek:

This woman is officially OUT. OF. CONTROL.

I think she is funny. But I want Obama to lose in November...so maybe that is why.

[souvlaki]

I just saw the news. Now she's comparing the Michigan/Florida thing to Bush/Goregate from 2000. Talk about fear-mongering and deliberately raising an inner-party backlash! :eek:

This woman is officially OUT. OF. CONTROL.

I must have missed the news where Florida broke the rules and bumped up their election day in 2000.

[souvlaki]

Last week Bill Clinton said seating only half the delegates in Florida and Michigan was a fair compromise. Anyone want to make bets his wife wont accept anything less then them being counted in full, and completely contradict her husband?