Who will be the next President of the United States?

[sonar732]

Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html)

[Tchocky]

[quote]<font face="georgia, times new roman, times, serif">

[Tchocky]

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html

The conservative case for Barack Obama


Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.
Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail.
But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.
For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.


A good read

[Tchocky]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19729398/generation_squeeb/print

[sonar732]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19729398/generation_squeeb/print

I was very impressed with this article! :up:

He comes back to the main point that we need to think about...the real issues. Instead, we are worried about who's associated with who, who someone thinks can't lead the country, who can't get facts straight before opening their mouths, and finally, who can't deal with our history by moving forward.

Come on people, I want to know who's going to stick to the issues and stop the mudslingin'! I don't want to hear someone else's theory about how they can deal with our issues, because I've heard how they will tackle them. I want to hear your opinion only...not theirs as you see it. All that does is make me think you are a pompus a##.

[August]

I think this Matt Taibbi guy tends to confuse the medias depiction of the publics reaction to media stories with their true reaction. According to them, we are all wildly outraged about Obamas Ministers comments but i don't know anyone, except for a few personalities here on Subsim, who give a crap about it one way or the other.

He does make one good point about politician graft not being covered. I've long believed that politicians should be forced to display the names and logos of all their major supporters on their clothing and vehicles like a NASCAR driver wears the patches of his sponsors.

[TDK1044]

There's so much rhetoric in the air with these three candidates that it's difficult to stay on message. I think most Americans are looking for a president who will create an economic strategy that will generate internal job growth, rather than out sourcing American jobs to other Countries because it's cheaper. We are also looking for a leader who will look at getting us out of Iraq as fast as is realistically possible without negating the work already done over there.

I have little time for any of these three candidates. I'm fed up with Hillary lying through her teeth and Obama trying to be all things to all people. I'm also fed up with hearing about John McCain being a war hero. The man did what thousands of other Americans of his generation did, he served his country. If being a war hero is the criteria for running for office, then there are about 150,000 presidential candidates over in Iraq, and about 4,000 others who are sadly no longer with us.

Truth be told, the choice for president in 2008 is less than impressive. We can choose from an old fart, a liar or a mirage. Great! :D

[sonar732]

Truth be told, the choice for president in 2008 is less than impressive. We can choose from an old fart, a liar or a mirage. Great! :D

That is the best political commentary that I've read yet! :rotfl::rotfl:

[August]

If being a war hero is the criteria for running for office, then there are about 150,000 presidential candidates over in Iraq, and about 4,000 others who are sadly no longer with us.

I wouldn't be suprised if there are one or two future presidents serving over there right now.

[Skybird]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/a-mccain-moment-do-you-w_b_93165.html

It does not matter wether Huffinton is liked or not. What matters is if McCain really is so uneducated regarding some basic knowledge vital for foreign policies, or not. But since even in Europe it is reported with regularity that "gaffes" like being described in the essay seem to follow McCain like a shadow follows his man, I doubt that it really always is just a gaffe, a misunderstanding, but a clear hint of that McCain simply does not know what he is talking about regarding some issues.

To give such a man the command in war is a high risk option, to put it midly.

Since i cannot see Clinton or Obama offering any more realistic options on the war and the US' rrelations with Islamic nations (especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), I start to wonder if we will see any improved war policy not basing on illusions at all after the elections. Regarding McCain, the longer I read or hear of him, the more often I scratch my head.

I withdraw my earlier statement that of the three bad options still in the race he maybe is the less harmful bad option. I think all three options are total crap.

[Konovalov]

I think all three options are total crap.
So lucky that you don't have to vote.

[Skybird]

I think all three options are total crap.
So lucky that you don't have to vote.
Nobody has - not in Germany, and not in America as well. ;)

And where there is a legal duty to participate in voting - you always have the option to file an invalid vote.

I myself don't vote. I nevertheless sometimes participate nevertheless, first: to deny the impression I am too lazy, and second: to express my opinion that none of the candidates or parties are worth getting voted for - I give invalid votes. I wish all people not voting would do like this instead, writing something like "intentionally not valid" on the billet, so that a black-on-white number would be created regarding the many people who actively deny to support the system and parties and politicians. Saying No to it all also is a valid (and important) political message.

[August]

It's not about Huffingtons popularity, it is about her bias. Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be running on the GoP ticket and she would have nothing to good to say about either of them.

[The WosMan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/a-mccain-moment-do-you-w_b_93165.html

It does not matter wether Huffinton is liked or not. What matters is if McCain really is so uneducated regarding some basic knowledge vital for foreign policies, or not. But since even in Europe it is reported with regularity that "gaffes" like being described in the essay seem to follow McCain like a shadow follows his man, I doubt that it really always is just a gaffe, a misunderstanding, but a clear hint of that McCain simply does not know what he is talking about regarding some issues.

To give such a man the command in war is a high risk option, to put it midly.

Since i cannot see Clinton or Obama offering any more realistic options on the war and the US' rrelations with Islamic nations (especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia), I start to wonder if we will see any improved war policy not basing on illusions at all after the elections. Regarding McCain, the longer I read or hear of him, the more often I scratch my head.

I withdraw my earlier statement that of the three bad options still in the race he maybe is the less harmful bad option. I think all three options are total crap.

I agree that our choices are terrible this time around. I have to hold my nose and vote McCain. I respect the guy and his military service but I disagree with him on about every issue that is key to my values. He is not a true conservative. The problem is that the media and the independent and Democrat voters in many of the N.E. states and Florida switched to vote for McCain. If Florida's primary had been when it used to be, we probably would have a much different outcome. We got scammed and screwed. Heck, in New Hampshire the parking lots were full of folks from Mass and other NE states who said "oh yeah, I am moving to your state......give me the Republican ballot." This and religious intolerance by the the evangelicals against mormons netted us John McCain.

I am so glad that I was able to return the favor to the Democrats here in Ohio by screwing up their process as much as they helped to ruin my candidate.

[Onkel Neal]

To give such a man the command in war is a high risk option, to put it midly.


We've done it before and gotten away with it :lol:

Clinton: Her goose is cooked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186006.php) :o

EDIT: Better version of the clip here (http://www.veracifier.com/)

EDIT #2: Oh hell, what's wrong with me? They found footage of the sniper fire (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc), it was worse than I thought, and almost as bad as she described it.

Obama: He will be hearing a lot more about his pastor in 5 months. I wonder if the 527 commercials can be run with Rev. Wright shouting "Hillary ain't never been called a ******"...?? I mean, that's pretty much a no-no word, but if the man's preacher uses it so freely in public, can the networks stops someone from quoting him?.... weird.

McCain: simply needs to stay on message, remind independents and moderates why was their darling in 2000, and pick a popular VP who was born after 1950. I wish Condi Rice would stage up, not only would that ensure a Republican in the WH for the next 4 years, it could carry over into a Rice presidency. Of course, she says she's not interested (damn!), just like Powell. What is it with them? Lieberman would work for me...

[AVGWarhawk]

Powell was interested but his wife feared for his life and assassination attempts on it. Powell declined. Condi would be cool. She certainly has more experience then our gal Hillary. BTW, the footage of the dubbed sniper fire was hilarious. McCain just needs to keep his cool. He seems to get a bit aggressive sometimes. Not a bad flaw but some will not like it. If he is smart, he would continue to do his homework on the current state of affairs. In doing so, any debate with whoever gets the Dem nomination will have a tough time of it.

[ReallyDedPoet]

McCain just needs to keep his cool. He seems to get a bit aggressive sometimes. Not a bad flaw but some will not like it. If he is smart, he would continue to do his homework on the current state of affairs. In doing so, any debate with whoever gets the Dem nomination will have a tough time of it.

The Dems scrapping amongst themselves to the very end does make McCain's life a little easier, however the current state of affairs presents him with some major challenges. Oppositions don't necessarily bring governments down, rather government themselves.

Bush's approval rating as of the first of March was 32%, this is bound to hurt McCain, for him it may yet be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


RDP

[TDK1044]

For either Obama, Clinton or McCain to be the next President of the USA is a very sad indictment of the times.

[Tchocky]

It's not about Huffingtons popularity, it is about her bias. Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be running on the GoP ticket and she would have nothing to good to say about either of them.

probably, but it doesn't get us away from the fact that John McCain is either very confused about Iraq/Iran, or doesn't give a crap.
His great strength (at least from the coverage I've seen), is that Americans respect his military service and foreign policy credentials. I don't see how being wrong on the most important issue facing the US overseas right now qualifies as a strength.
I don't see McCain as being anything other than Bush II, in terms of foreign policy.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

[Tchocky]

Paul Krugman :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ex=1364443200&en=d73b2eef95ad73d3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

All in all, the candidates’ positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they’re often portrayed.

Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

[Tchocky]

Time - Putting McCain to the Ethics Test

Doesn't tell you much more than was already known, but I liked this line.

"Appearance in politics," McCain said years later, "is reality." Shows he has at least a basic understanding of how crazy the whole thing is.
Also, see Obama on megalomania.

EDIT - Dum de dum, I forgot to append the URL
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725768-1,00.html

[August]

It's not about Huffingtons popularity, it is about her bias. Abraham Lincoln or George Washington could be running on the GoP ticket and she would have nothing to good to say about either of them.
probably, but it doesn't get us away from the fact that John McCain is either very confused about Iraq/Iran, or doesn't give a crap.
His great strength (at least from the coverage I've seen), is that Americans respect his military service and foreign policy credentials. I don't see how being wrong on the most important issue facing the US overseas right now qualifies as a strength.
I don't see McCain as being anything other than Bush II, in terms of foreign policy.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

C'mon Tchocky. Everyone makes mistakes like that upon occasion. Jet lag from flying halfway around the world, fielding questions about Al Quaeda operating in IraQ and Shiite militias being trained by IraN to operate in IraQ, I think it would be an easy mistake to make.

Unlike Bush, or Clinton or Obama for that matter, McCain has a solid record working with members from both sides of the Congressional aisle and I believe a centrist like him is what this country desperately needs.

[Tchocky]

C'mon Tchocky. Everyone makes mistakes like that upon occasion. Jet lag from flying halfway around the world, fielding questions about Al Quaeda operating in IraQ and Shiite militias being trained by IraN to operate in IraQ, I think it would be an easy mistake to make. I thought that as well, but he's done it quite a few times now.
As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq. I really doubt that's a slip-up. From here (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=ae522a49-6c82-4791-a76e-44ebb718bf32).

Unlike Bush, or Clinton or Obama for that matter, McCain has a solid record working with members from both sides of the Congressional aisle and I believe a centrist like him is what this country desperately needs. Not sure about Clinton, but I know Obama was heavily involved in bipartisan legislation, he's just not had the same length of time in the Senate as McCain (bills on nuclear proliferation and arms dealing, I think, were cosponsored with Republicans).
The Senate McCain could indeed be called a centrist, I doubt that President McCain will be one. He's going to be flying all over the country, convincing everyone that he's conservative enough. Stand by for hunting-trip photos. He'll spend his Presidency trying to live up to his campaign promises.

EDIT - The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/27/johnmccain.uselections2008) on McCain's environmental record. I remember McCain making a big deal out of climate change when in new Hampshire. Looking for young voters, I guess.

[August]

I thought that as well, but he's done it quite a few times now.
As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq. I really doubt that's a slip-up. From here (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=ae522a49-6c82-4791-a76e-44ebb718bf32).

I've only heard about one occasion which was during his last trip to Jordan. Could you list some other instances where he made that particular mistake?

[Tchocky]

First I can find is him saying it in February, in Texas. Ignore the tone of the site, the video and audio are here
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-asserted-iranal-qaeda-ties-last-month/

Then "several times" during his visit in Jordan, I don't know if the WashPost are including the Hewitt radio show I linked above.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

EDIT - It's still nice to see that the moron contingent is good and vocal.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_Muslim_lie_lingers.html

[August]

First I can find is him saying it in February, in Texas. Ignore the tone of the site, the video and audio are here
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/20/mccain-asserted-iranal-qaeda-ties-last-month/

Then "several times" during his visit in Jordan, I don't know if the WashPost are including the Hewitt radio show I linked above.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

EDIT - It's still nice to see that the moron contingent is good and vocal.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_Muslim_lie_lingers.html

Those sites you linked use the exact same wording and at least the first one seems taken out of context judging by the extreme brevity of the clip. That last site you edited in to your post doesn't even mention McCain.

It looks like somebody is trying to make this as big a deal as possible, perhaps to deflect attention away from other candidates gaffes. Considering McCains lengthy service and his multiple trips to the region there seems to be very little to condemn him with.

[TDK1044]

For me, age is an issue regarding John McCain. I'm bored with hearing about what a great war hero he is. He served like many thousands of others, and he showed the right stuff like many thousands of others. That has nothing to do with his credentials for becoming president in my view, it's simply a device by his campaign to deflect away from his age.

The fact of the matter is that he's already making mistakes because he's tired. The primaries are the easy part...If he's tired now, God help him in about six months time when things really start to heat up.

There isn't a single Fortune 500 company out there who would appoint a 72 year old man or woman to be president of the borad, so why would we appoint such a man to be president of the USA?

Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution sets the minimum age requirement to become President at 35. There should also be a maximum age of 65 set in my view.

[DeepIron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7321119.stm
Ok, so Hilliary's position has weakened against Obama. Still, there's no call for either Leahy or Dodd to suggest she "throw in the towel" and that she's "helping the Republican Party". It's not over until it's over.

I like Bill Clinton's response, "For his part, Mr Clinton said those calling for his wife to pull out of the race should "just relax"."

Maybe Dodd and Leahy should take that advice. Quoting from Good Morning Viet Nam: "You are in more dire need of a bl*wj*b than any white man in history."

[Tchocky]

For me, age is an issue regarding John McCain. I'm bored with hearing about what a great war hero he is. He served like many thousands of others, and he showed the right stuff like many thousands of others. That has nothing to do with his credentials for becoming president in my view, it's simply a device by his campaign to deflect away from his age. I've always wondered why campaigns bring up military service as a qualification.

His age does worry me, not as much as some of his policies, though.

[DeepIron]

I've always wondered why campaigns bring up military service as a qualification. It appeals to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office I guess.

Won't Get Fooled Again ~The Who

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that' all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[August]

I've always wondered why campaigns bring up military service as a qualification. It appeals to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office I guess.

You guess incorrectly, Who song notwithstanding.

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation. Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree?

[DeepIron]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation. Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree?
I imagine each person to whom that question was put would answer according to their convictions... In that context I can neither agree nor disagree.

For myself, I wouldn't question a "prior military service" candidate's committment to the country more or less than someone who had not served militarily. Personally, I don't add any "weight" to it. There have been great politicians in our history who were not accepted for military service but still found ways to serve their country to the best of their abilities. And there have been Presidents who were veterans and were less than committed IMO.

On November 2, 2000, four days before the most disputed election in American history, military veterans in the US Senate lashed out at candidate George W Bush for his failure to explain a six month lapse in his National Guard service. "At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Senator Daniel Inouye said.
If I'm not mistaken, FDR, who served as the Secretary of the Navy, as well as 4 terms as President, was not a Veteran.

[August]

I imagine each person to whom that question was put would answer according to their convictions... In that context I can neither agree nor disagree.

You're hedging. A president not committed to the defense and welfare of their country versus a president who IS committed is an obvious choice to make in my book. :roll:

For myself, I wouldn't question a "prior military service" candidate's committment to the country more or less than someone who had not served militarily. Personally, I don't add any "weight" to it.

Well what do you care how we Americans weight our presidential qualifications anyways? I mean didn't you say you were intending to leave this country soon for sunny Canada or do i have you mixed up with Stealth Hunter?

[DeepIron]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

A resource listing all Presidents from 1789 to 1992, both who did and did not serve in the military: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_T2.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_1/milsvc_T1.html
Few of the men either elected or running for the highest political position in the land, even if veterans, could have met military experience or training requirements of any consequence, if such had been established under the Constitution. Of the forty-one individuals who have held the office of President of the United States to date, either by election or accession from their Vice Presidential positions, over one-third -- sixteen in number, or thirty-nine percent -- had no direct experience at all, even fleeting, of life as a soldier or sailor, commissioned or enlisted, before assuming their weighty constitutional responsibilities. These sixteen Presidents gained the status of supreme military commander through their presentation to the electorate of entirely civilian virtues, qualifications, and experience. The other twenty-five men who became President and assumed command of the armed forces could claim service as a soldier or sailor, even though only briefly or unsubstantially in some instances. It would appear that military service had little or nothing to do with getting most of these men elected.

From an article in the Albuquerque Tribune: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr/28/few-candidates-rsums-include-military-service/
Since at least the 1992 election, being a war hero hasn't been a ticket to the White House.
Former President Clinton, who never served in the armed forces, defeated two World War II combat veterans - former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996.
President George W. Bush served as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air Nation Guard during the Vietnam era, but never saw combat. Yet he defeated three men who did serve in Vietnam - McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries, Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft.
Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number. And the same trend continues to the present day...

You're hedging. A president not committed to the defense and welfare of their country versus a president who IS committed is an obvious choice to make in my book. :roll: Hedging? No, I gave you an honest answer. I have my own convictions you have yours. You are happy with choosing a candidate who conveys an image concerning national security that coincides more with your own convictions.

Well what do you care how we Americans weight our presidential qualifications anyways? I mean didn't you say you were intending to leave this country soon for sunny Canada or do i have you mixed up with Stealth Hunter? Well dude, whether you like it or not I'm still an American citizen and I will vote so I'm included in the "we".

[August]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

Ok DeepIron, since you're going to continue to deny the obvious i'll let you win. Obviously military service has no bearing on anything. People will continue to make a big deal about it just so us veterans can feel better that a candidate, how did you put it?, "has been there and done that".

So until you abandon your homeland you just continue to vote on the issues you think are important and i'll continue to vote for the issues that matter to me and we'll see who gets elected m'kay?

[DeepIron]

[quote] Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...
Ok DeepIron, since you're going to continue to deny the obvious i'll let you win. Obviously military service has no bearing on anything. People will continue to make a big deal about it just so us veterans can feel better that a candidate, how did you put it?, "has been there and done that".
You can't refute the facts I presented and when you're confronted with your inaccuracies, I'M the one who is "denying the obvious"? :rotfl:and you'll "let me win"? :rotfl::lol:

So until you abandon your homeland you just continue to vote on the issues you think are important and i'll continue to vote for the issues that matter to me and we'll see who gets elected m'kay? Well dude, seeing as I'm not going anywhere outside the US... fine by me.

[Tchocky]

Military service can indeed be seen as a signifier of commitment to the nation.

So can the act of running for the Presidency, which looks like an enormously demanding role to voluntarily take, and an extremely demanding job to get.

[DeepIron]

Military service can indeed be seen as a signifier of commitment to the nation. So can the act of running for the Presidency, which looks like an enormously demanding role to voluntarily take, and an extremely demanding job to get.
I think that it's up to the individual as to how much he or she considers a candidates prior military record or service.

Look what happened to Kerry in '04 and Bush in '00... Their respective military records were called into question and in Kerry's case at least, hurt his campaign. In the case of Bush, the scrutiny was deflected and he was elected before the issue was resolved or it could damage his campaign. The sword cuts both ways and people generally tend to seize upon the negative aspects IMO.

I would also expect non-veterans to possibly have a different view because of their lack of military service experieince and the committment it entails. Let's face it, vets tend to support US military policy because they "lived" it. However if all we considered was military service, I'm pretty sure we'd be living in a much different America than we are today...

I actually place more thought on your second point, running for the office. It is a huge responsibility. That is until my cynism kicks in and I realize the guy will get a 6 figure salary for the rest of his life after "retiring"... ;)

My spin on "military service" was in response to August's bait:
Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree? As I consider the issue a matter of personal opinion, and he considers it mre of a "fact", I refuted the issue and found that historically, military service really didn't figure prominently with the electorate in Presidential elections.

I'm a veteran and what I consider important, is "the been there, done that" aspect. I do feel that a candidate who has served *should* have a better understanding of issues important to veterans than someone who has not served. But that is just my opinion.

[August]

You can't refute the facts I presented and when you're confronted with your inaccuracies, I'M the one who is "denying the obvious"? and you'll "let me win"

So you're saying that the last three times you've said that to me was because you couldn't "refute the facts I presented" either? :roll: I'm letting you win because you are not worth arguing with.

It doesn't matter to me if you think that a candidates military service is not an indicator of commitment to their country, that the only reason it's been made a big deal in every election since George Washington was to "appeal to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office [you] guess".

So yeah you "win" DeepIron... :yep:

[DeepIron]

It doesn't matter to me if you think that a candidates military service is not an indicator of commitment to their country, that the only reason it's been made a big deal in every election since George Washington was to "appeal to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office [you] guess". This is totally ludicrious. You continue to try and twist my opinion into something "factual". You think it's important for "your" reason, I don't... so what? Do you think that each and every veteran out there thinks the way you do? Is there something about your OPINION that makes it any more valid than mine or anyone else's?

And on the other point, you're just plain wrong. Military service WASN'T made a "big deal" of "in every election since George Washington" ... If you'll actually take the time to read the links I've provided, you see this is historically (factually) true. While a number of Presidents DID HAVE "military service" only in A FEW CASES was this of any primary concern to the electorate. And that electorate would include veterans as well so I would assume that they voted for a particular candidate based on their own convictions.

Be content to have your opinion and gracious enough to let me have mine. I'm a veteran too dude, and I didn't serve my country just to have you tell me what I should say, do, or believe... Or be cuckolded for having an opinion that differs from yours.

[August]

You see DeepIron this is why it's useless to discuss anything with you. I never said "primary concern", i said "an indicator of commitment", if you can't fathom the difference in meaning between the two phrases then why should i bother taking anything you say even remotely seriously?

The truth is, I can't so really Dude "you win".

[DeepIron]

You see DeepIron this is why it's useless to discuss anything with you. I never said "primary concern", i said "an indicator of commitment", if you can't fathom the difference in meaning between the two phrases then why should i bother taking anything you say even remotely seriously?

"While a number of Presidents DID HAVE "military service" only in A FEW CASES was this of any primary concern to the electorate..."
Criminy... If you actually applied a little thought and less time trying to nitpick the verbage, you may have deduced or inferred from my statement that military service evidently wasn't important as an "an indicator of committment" and hence a not "primary concern" of the people. On the other hand, there were some elections were folks were very concerned with the candidates military background so you could say it was a "prmary concern" as it figured prominently into the campaign.

The election of Truman (a veteran) over Dewey (non-veteran) and Eisenhower (a veteran) over Adlai Stevenson (non-veteran) are good examples of this. People wanted to know that someone with military experience would be able to prosecute the end of WWII and in Korea. Truman taking over from Roosevelt and Eisenhower after Truman. And yes, I know Truman took the office after FDR died, but he also was elected to his full term during the Korean War.

Time to move on August. You were wrong, we both know it and you lack even the simple grace to admit it.

[August]

Time to move on August. You were wrong, we both know it and you lack even the simple grace to admit it.

Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation. Not one single thing you have said refutes that simple fact DeepIron so it seems if anyone lacks simple grace it is you.

[DeepIron]

Time to move on August. You were wrong, we both know it and you lack even the simple grace to admit it.
Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation. Not one single thing you have said refutes that simple fact DeepIron so it seems if anyone lacks simple grace it is you. :rotfl:August, not once have you substantiated your simple "fact" that "Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation". You "state" it as such and just expect people to accept it. Well I don't accept it and I have more than refuted your "fact" and proved that once again, your long on mouth and real short on substance.

And what of those who did military service not because they wanted to, but because they HAD to as mandated by law? They didn't want to be there in the first place. I guess you think that because someone was "drafted" or that Daddy pulled some strings and they went in, got their time done and got out as soon as possible, that they display some worthy "indicator of committment"? And when people find out that "So and so" has some special treatment in the service, that they look upon it as a positive aspect? Your "fact" disintegrates at every turn.

August, show me ONE, just ONE scrap of evidence to support your opinion. C'mon, August it can't be that hard. If what you say is accurate, and is accepted as factual by more people than just yourself, then it should be a simple matter to substantiate your point of view. There must be some reputable source you can link to? Isn't there?

[August]

Why should i bother DeepIron? You don't think George Washingtons military service played a significant factor in his election to the presidency? How about Grants? Teddy Roosevelts? Ikes? Kennedys? Bah. You've already said that a candidates previous service means absolutely nothing to you, so why should i carry on a serious conversation with someone who just doesn't get such a basic fact? Answer is i'm wasting my time, so you "win", kthnksbye.

[NEON DEON]

Of the 43 U. S. Presidents, only 11 did not serve in the military.

74.4 % of U S Presidents wore the uniform. (32)

72 % were officers. (31)

56 % served in a command capacity. (LTCmndr/Major and above) (24)
56 % served during war time. (24)


I think the numbers speak for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

[DeepIron]

I don't dispute the numbers ND. My dispute is with this statement: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." Somehow, in the previous posts I'm supposed to accept this rationale but it doesn't explain why non-veterans win the presidential race.

Why and by whom is what I'm asking. In 56 elections, from 1789 to 2004, 32 of then were won by veterans, and 24 by non-veterans.
So I keep asking the question: Why does military service matter in this issue? Especially in the context of "a comittment the nation"? It seems to me statistically that a fair number of non-veterans have won the Presidency without dint of military service. Was their committment any less worthy than their veteran opponents? Were they perceived by the electorate as somewhat diminished? If so, why did so many win the office?

As I posted earlier (from 1789 to 1992):
"Few of the men either elected or running for the highest political position in the land, even if veterans, could have met military experience or training requirements of any consequence, if such had been established under the Constitution. Of the forty-one individuals who have held the office of President of the United States to date, either by election or accession from their Vice Presidential positions, over one-third -- sixteen in number, or thirty-nine percent -- had no direct experience at all, even fleeting, of life as a soldier or sailor, commissioned or enlisted, before assuming their weighty constitutional responsibilities. These sixteen Presidents gained the status of supreme military commander through their presentation to the electorate of entirely civilian virtues, qualifications, and experience. The other twenty-five men who became President and assumed command of the armed forces could claim service as a soldier or sailor, even though only briefly or unsubstantially in some instances."

So while a great many number did have some form of "military service" in many cases it was minimal or unsubstantial. Of course men like Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and John Kennedy were renowned for their military experiences and I'm sure this would have figured promenently in the campaign strategies. But these men, and a few others are the minority...

[Tchocky]

I don't dispute the numbers ND. My dispute is with this statement: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." Somehow, in the previous posts I'm supposed to accept this rationale but it doesn't explain why non-veterans win the presidential race.
It's not supposed to explain why non-vets win.
You're arguing over something that has not been said.

[August]

It's not supposed to explain why non-vets win.
You're arguing over something that has not been said.

Thank you Tchocky.

Nor might i add does it imply that military service is or should be the only factor a voter should consider when deciding a candidates suitability for office.

[DeepIron]

Dudes, this: "Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation." is all I'm trying to understand. My take is that by doing military service, a presidential candidate shows a <greater/more serious/more substantial/???> "indicator of commitment to the nation" that is somehow different from a non-veterans.

The questions I'm not getting an answer to is why? And by whom? What evidence is there to substantiate this claim?

I'm 51 and in all my years of voting (since I was 18, every election since 1976), I never once heard this said. Either I've missed out on something over the last 33 years or ???

The people I know and vote with have never said "Gee, the guy did 4 years in the Navy. He must really be committed to the country." We all did it because it was our duty as citizens. Not because we felt it was some special "committment". We were just regular joes doing what was expected of us and thought that's the way most people felt.

[EDITED] I rephrased my questions ...

[NEON DEON]

Well I must have missed the part of the arguement that stated you had to be in the military to be president.

Last time I checked the Prez was still the Commander and Chief.

Serving in the Military even in peace time says a lot about someones commitment to the country just based on the fact that he has agreed to put his life in peril to protect his country.

So I myself dont see how that is not significant to voters espescially since the majority of Presidents have served.

I also dont think you have to be in the military to be president either.

[DeepIron]

Well I must have missed the part of the arguement that stated you had to be in the military to be president. You didn't miss it ND, it was never stipulated...

[DeepIron]

Ah, after thinking about it more, I see the differences here:

I should have caught this earlier. I've never considered military service to be any more or less than what citizens are expected to do. As I mentioned before, people I know who shipped out or joined did it because it was the right thing to do... no more, no less. No one ever said "I'm laying my life on the line for my country by joining the service." We just did what we were told to do...
To consider that because a president or candidate has done military service somehow demonstrates a "indication of commitment" is somewhat foreign to me because it wasn't anything special to me when I did my own military service. The President is just another guy who puts his dungarees or fatigues on the way I do...

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation. As interpreted by an the individual. The reason I disagreed with this is because I've never thought that way nor have I ever heard any of the people I hang out with make a big deal about it. I read this as a "blanket statement" initially without considering its personal interpretation... Which then lead to the veteran/non-veteran comparisons.

The phrase is subjective in that regard. If one sees a candidates military service as some special form of commitment to the nation, fine. I don't and that's fine too because I don't...

So, to August, I owe an apology... You see it your way, I see it mine.

[August]

So, to August, I owe an apology...

Ah fuggedaboudit. Maybe if i had explained my position better you wouldn't have misunderstood me.

[NEON DEON]

I've never considered military service to be any more or less than what citizens are expected to do. As I mentioned before, people I know who shipped out or joined did it because it was the right thing to do... no more, no less. No one ever said "I'm laying my life on the line for my country by joining the service." We just did what we were told to do...

I get that. I see that same sentiment reflected in Coast Guardsmen, firefighters, and police officers. I dont know how many times I have read a story in the paper or watched the news on TV where a firefighter has just rescued someone and risked his life in the process only to turn around and say ..................................

"I was just doing my job."

I appreciate what you and the men and women of our armed services have done to safeguard our freedom. I would not be so quick to trivialize it tho. After all, not everyone can or will do what you have done.

So whether you like or not.......

THANKS! :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

This is why McCain needs to be president. He understands American. Please read his comment below:






Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."



:rotfl:

If anything, we will get a good 4 years of good jokes and come-back lines.


(http://reuters-en.custhelp.com/)

[NEON DEON]

This is why McCain needs to be president. He understands American. Please read his comment below:






Turning to the future, McCain said Americans are cynical about their country and their idea of liberty is "the right to choose among competing brands of designer coffee."



:rotfl:

If anything, we will get a good 4 years of good jokes and come-back lines.


(http://reuters-en.custhelp.com/)


"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno." :D


John you are bad:D

[Tchocky]

That wasn't a debate. It was a mess. It was an embarrassment to American media.

EDIT - Never mind this clinging to guns/god. This shows that the media, or at least certain elements of it, believe that Americans cling to bull****.

Edit the second - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stepha napoulos.html

Owch.

[NEON DEON]

That wasn't a debate. It was a mess. It was an embarrassment to American media.

EDIT - Never mind this clinging to guns/god. This shows that the media, or at least certain elements of it, believe that Americans cling to bull****.

Edit the second - http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/An_open_letter_to_Charlie_Gibson_and_George_Stepha napoulos.html

Owch.

Well I missed the deabate and the blog page you put up is empty right now.

I am going to take A wild guess and say that Obama got asked some tough questions for a change.

[Skybird]

Clinton and Obama fighting on this stalemate means the score is 2:0 for McCain.

However, this is a reprint from the NYT:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,druck-548215,00.html

Welcome to 2008. Everybody’s miserable.

[Von Tonner]

I am going to take A wild guess and say that Obama got asked some tough questions for a change.

Well, I suppose some will call questions like "Why don't you wear a lapel pin" and " Does Minister Wright love America as much as you do" etc tough questions. Speaking for myself, I call them inane.

[Jimbuna]

I am going to take A wild guess and say that Obama got asked some tough questions for a change.

Well, I suppose some will call questions like "Why don't you wear a lapel pin" and " Does Minister Wright love America as much as you do" etc tough questions. Speaking for myself, I call them inane.

How about a real toughie..."What do you feel you'll be able to change to the satisfaction of those who elect you"

[NealT]

How about a real toughie..."What do you feel you'll be able to change to the satisfaction of those who elect you"

To those who voted in your favor? Probably everything.

To those who did not vote for you? Absolutely nothing.

:know:

[Jimbuna]

How about a real toughie..."What do you feel you'll be able to change to the satisfaction of those who elect you"

To those who voted in your favor? Probably everything.

To those who did not vote for you? Absolutely nothing.

:know:

Meh, politicians...don't vote it only encourages them :lol:

[NEON DEON]

I am going to take A wild guess and say that Obama got asked some tough questions for a change.

Well, I suppose some will call questions like "Why don't you wear a lapel pin" and " Does Minister Wright love America as much as you do" etc tough questions. Speaking for myself, I call them inane.

Of course you would, you dont live in the US and the fact that someone wants to be President without wearing the symbol of US is not downright silly to you. The Highest post in the land trusted to someone who has questionable partriotism is a MAJOR ISSUE. Dodging sniper fire is fluff compared to having a racist pastor as a mentor and spirtual quide for 20 years. His and his wives actions and statments back up those issue too.

His outright play the audience ala Huey P long style is slight of hand politics at its best. His change platform has been disclosed for what it is BS. His core support comes from 80 to 90% of the black vote. That is just a fact. What is also a fact is that if he wins the nomination his core support will be further diluded because there are a heck of a lot less blacks in the republican party when running against a republican in November. Not to mention that all the republicans have to do is scare everyone into believeing that Obama will turn the US into a second rate Military power and thus weaken National security. This guy is beyond a doubt the weakest and most dangerous man for the job.

[August]

Cross posted from another forum i frequent. Kinda says it all about the election:


We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election

On one side, you have a arsehole who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer . . . and a lawyer who is married to a arsehole who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a war hero married to a good looking woman with a big rack who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?"

[Ishmael]

McCain will win because Clinton will either steal the nomination outright or so damage Obama that he'll be unelectable. Both scenarios will put the election in the stealable category and it will be stolen again like 2000 and 2004.

Go here for details:

http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

or here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jason_le_080424_groundbreaking_new_b.htm

or here:

http://www.gregpalast.com/

or here:

http://www.bradblog.com/

So we'll get 100 more years of war, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran and the total bankruptcy of the US government, allowing the Shock Doctrine to play out here paving the way for the North American Union, government of, by and for the Corporatocracy.

[Stealth Hunter]

McCain will win because Clinton will either steal the nomination outright or so damage Obama that he'll be unelectable. Both scenarios will put the election in the stealable category and it will be stolen again like 2000 and 2004.

Go here for details:

http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

or here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jason_le_080424_groundbreaking_new_b.htm

or here:

http://www.gregpalast.com/

or here:

http://www.bradblog.com/

So we'll get 100 more years of war, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran and the total bankruptcy of the US government, allowing the Shock Doctrine to play out here paving the way for the North American Union, government of, by and for the Corporatocracy.

And if he does in fact win, then the United States shall have a final farewell by yours truly as I depart what is to become a doomed country. I want to move either to Sweden, Switzerland, or Germany (probably Sweden). Anyone else think the United States might possibly become the country that had the shortest life?

[Tchocky]

@ Ishmael - I agree somewhat about Hillary damaging Obama's electability in the long-term, but the current situation isn't as bad as it may seem.
Firstly, the competition between two Democrats in states like Ohio.Penn is going to be very different than the general election. For example, neither of the two Dems are addressing McCain at the moment (well, Hillary not at all, and Barack only slightly). Internecine fighting is gonna be gone in a few weeks
Secondly, I'd really prefer to see Obama stumbling over incidents like the "clinging" remark now rather than in October. Recovery is possible.

EDIT - One interesting thing about the PA primary that I forgot to mention. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee each got over 10% of the GOP vote. Huckabee is long-gone, and Paul has wound his campaign down. Whether this is a magnification due to Republicans crossing the line to vote for Hillary, or an expression of GOP base distaste for McCain remains to be seen.

[les green01]

As of right now McCain has my vote

[August]

And if he does in fact win, then the United States shall have a final farewell by yours truly as I depart what is to become a doomed country. I want to move either to Sweden, Switzerland, or Germany (probably Sweden). Anyone else think the United States might possibly become the country that had the shortest life?

Just quotin' this for posterior... :D

[Tchocky]

Posterity, august? :p

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx

Hmph.

[Tchocky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?_r=2&ei=5088&en=4e3fc06611edcc0e&ex=1366948800&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1209258247-pwRhRe0P3AokExGb4CFfxw&oref=slogin

Huh. Seems McCain has been getting around his own campaign finance law by using his wife's bizjet.
It's a loophole, so not illegal. There's legislation in the pipeline to close it, but the FEC hasn't got quorum.
Same reason we're not hearing so much about matching funds from the McCain camp. I've been keeping an eye on this one, it's an unusual story that will either drop away altogether or become a big Democratic talking point in the general election. Strange that it's been in stasis so long.

Shine seems to be coming off Obama, too. I guess Pennsylvania made a difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/politics/26ticket.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=0774754c4d1e652f&ex=1209441600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1209301311-0ot62TJ5pCo/unjPqiWqwg

[Tchocky]

Paul Krugman on McCain's tax plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[DeepIron]

Great article! This is the part that scares me the most:
It’s the sort of fiscal double-talk that has been a Bush administration hallmark. In any case, it offers no answer to the principal point raised by the Tax Policy Center analysis, which has nothing to do with scoring: the McCain tax plan would leave the federal government with far too little revenue to cover its expenses, leading to huge budget deficits unless there were deep cuts in spending.So, where will the Fed turn for $$$ then? Hmmm... Social Security, Military Pensions, any long term "retirement" type funds IMO. I've got 14 years to age 65 and I'd sure like my SS to be there... With a recession going on and a very costly war, my portfolio is lagging a bit these days.

[Konovalov]

Paul Krugman on McCain's tax plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
So vote McCain for more of the same. :hmm:

[Jacky Fisher]

more worrying about McCain is his almost 19th century view of the nature of war. He thinks war is just swell, even in this day and age.

That and the tax plan:dead:

I'd like Obama, but it looks like Hillary is going to be the nominee for the Dems. Obama may be her VP, despite Bill's dislike of him.

[Tchocky]

Krugman on the gas tax proposal.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/

I remember in New Hampshire, seeing McCain going on and on about how important the fight against climate change is.
Huh.
Whatever.
Renewable tax credits are dying in Congress, lets give the oil companies a nice big gift.
Right.
To quote Tom Friedman, borrow your money from China and ship it straight to Saudi Arabia.

[dean_acheson]

Ah, it's been a long time since I posted here.

[August]

Ah, it's been a long time since I posted here.

Some of us have missed you.

[nikimcbee]

They need to update the poll for the remaining candidates. It would be interesting to see the results after the sniper and Wright scandals.:hmm:

[Jacky Fisher]

what's interesting is that in most polling i've seen, Obama still leads against McCain...

Anything can happen at this point.

[Tchocky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03herbert.html?em&ex=1210046400&en=db6066deb7b9264d&ei=5087%0A

Americans are hurting on the jobs front. Those who are employed are working fewer hours and for less pay. Some sectors are crippled by unemployment. There are big-city neighborhoods in which the real jobless rate of young African-Americans is 80 percent or higher.Do the candidates have concrete strategies for engaging these problems? Could we hear about them? Explore them? Critique them?
Are we in the news media going to be serious about this election, or is it really going to be all about Wright and race all the time?
Most of the electorate understands that the U.S. is in sorry shape, which is why more than 80 percent of poll respondents say we’re on the wrong track. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with any of that. The idea that his nonsense may shape the outcome of this election is both tragic and absurd.

EDIT - My own prediction for a general election campaign: Expect more and more rubbish about flag pins and pledges.
The GOP can push this stuff and it will get huge coverage. Mass media love this kind of irrelevant, easily polarising stuff, and they can always say that its what the average American wants to watch, an assertion that is as impossible to prove as it is ridiculous.
Example from today's Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/03/ST2008050302296.html?hpid=topnews

[NEON DEON]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03herbert.html?em&ex=1210046400&en=db6066deb7b9264d&ei=5087%0A

Americans are hurting on the jobs front. Those who are employed are working fewer hours and for less pay. Some sectors are crippled by unemployment. There are big-city neighborhoods in which the real jobless rate of young African-Americans is 80 percent or higher.Do the candidates have concrete strategies for engaging these problems? Could we hear about them? Explore them? Critique them?
Are we in the news media going to be serious about this election, or is it really going to be all about Wright and race all the time?
Most of the electorate understands that the U.S. is in sorry shape, which is why more than 80 percent of poll respondents say we’re on the wrong track. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with any of that. The idea that his nonsense may shape the outcome of this election is both tragic and absurd.

EDIT - My own prediction for a general election campaign: Expect more and more rubbish about flag pins and pledges.
The GOP can push this stuff and it will get huge coverage. Mass media love this kind of irrelevant, easily polarising stuff, and they can always say that its what the average American wants to watch, an assertion that is as impossible to prove as it is ridiculous.
Example from today's Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/03/ST2008050302296.html?hpid=topnews

Flag pins: odd.

Flag pins and pledges: strange.

Flag pins, pledge, and wife comments for the first time I am proud to be an American. Whats up with that?

Wright and Obama relationship for 20 years.

Oh thats the connection now I get it.

[Skybird]

I think now is the time when Clinton has to pull back. She can win only by tricks and cheats now. And there already is much damage for the Democratic candidate from this race that already went on far too long. If she really waits until the Democrats' general convention, there will be only one winner: John McCain.

Do democrats really want to split and polarise American people like Bush already has done? If Clinton carries on, I see a lot of hostile emotions backfiring - against her, against the final democratic candidate, and a wide gap braking open between Clintonists and Obamanistas. Again, the happy guy will be McCain.

Enough is enough. Stop playing now, kids, and come in for lunch.

[Tchocky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/05/the_end.html

Can't help but note, with undisguised glee, Andrew Sullivan's Quote of the Day

"This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country -- probably even a lot of the world -- is looking to see what North Carolina decides," - Senator Hillary Clinton (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-tuesday.html).

She will, of course, now pretend she never said it. But she did. And she is now in danger of looking ... ridiculous.

[Platapus]

Well it looks like Senator Obama got NC by 14% and Senator Clinton got IN by 2%.

I think she really needed double digits in IN.

[Tchocky]

Some reports are saying that 7% of Sen. Clinton's support came from Limbaugh Republicans, which puts her lead of 2% in the very troubling shade.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-limbaugh-ef.html

[AVGWarhawk]

I think now is the time when Clinton has to pull back. She can win only by tricks and cheats now. And there already is much damage for the Democratic candidate from this race that already went on far too long. If she really waits until the Democrats' general convention, there will be only one winner: John McCain.

Do democrats really want to split and polarise American people like Bush already has done? If Clinton carries on, I see a lot of hostile emotions backfiring - against her, against the final democratic candidate, and a wide gap braking open between Clintonists and Obamanistas. Again, the happy guy will be McCain.

Enough is enough. Stop playing now, kids, and come in for lunch.

I agree here with Skybird. Time to throw in the towel for Hillary. Let the two potential candidates for Republicans and Democrates take the stage.

[DeepIron]

I don't even think I care anymore. At the outset, the race was exciting, with a large field of hopefuls, lots of issue to discuss, etc.

Now, months and numerous debates later... I've seen the "true colors" of the remaining 3 hopefuls and I know that no matter what happens, the next President will be as lackluster as the current one but hopefully less damaging...:nope:

But, I will vote regardless. That way I can "gripe" when the new Prez doesn't come up to snuff...

[NEON DEON]

I think now is the time when Clinton has to pull back. She can win only by tricks and cheats now. And there already is much damage for the Democratic candidate from this race that already went on far too long. If she really waits until the Democrats' general convention, there will be only one winner: John McCain.

Do democrats really want to split and polarise American people like Bush already has done? If Clinton carries on, I see a lot of hostile emotions backfiring - against her, against the final democratic candidate, and a wide gap braking open between Clintonists and Obamanistas. Again, the happy guy will be McCain.

Enough is enough. Stop playing now, kids, and come in for lunch.

I agree here with Skybird. Time to throw in the towel for Hillary. Let the two potential candidates for Republicans and Democrates take the stage.

Now would be a good time for Obama to convince Clinton to quit.

Before West VA, KY, and Purerto Rico.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't even think I care anymore. At the outset, the race was exciting, with a large field of hopefuls, lots of issue to discuss, etc.

Now, months and numerous debates later... I've seen the "true colors" of the remaining 3 hopefuls and I know that no matter what happens, the next President will be as lackluster as the current one but hopefully less damaging...:nope:

But, I will vote regardless. That way I can "gripe" when the new Prez doesn't come up to snuff...
I do not think the three in question are lack luster as to what we currently experiencing in the White House. However, I will give the Devil his due and will say Bush was handed a bad set of cards at the beginning of his second term. At any rate, I invision the same old status quo with Hillary and McCain. This status quo not really working anymore. I see a change in the status quo with Obama but have to admit, he is very young. He needs more time under his belt. No matter what we think, Obama will make the White House. Prepare for a 28% increase in taxes. Prepare for a tax and spend government. Prepare to keep paying the high gas prices. Either way, we are stuck with status quo for 4 years or stuck with a president not ready and bumbling around for 4 years.

Welcome to the rudderless ship on the voyage to nowhere:up:

[DeepIron]

At any rate, I invision the same old status quo with Hillary and McCain. This status quo not really working anymore.I think that sums it up nicely. The status quo is verba non acta (words without action) and I can't realistically see that changing, especially if Obama wins. He's simply to new/young/inexperienced/deluded to make it happen.

I think Clinton or McCain would have more "weight" to throw in the system but then again, videre ist credere (seeing is believing).

Howevre, I expect no matter the outcome, the average American citizen, as usual, will be the one to bite the bullet, tighten the belt and get the job done...


I love Latin... :up:

[Tchocky]

America is in horrendous amounts of debt, a lot of it very recent. (regrettably necessary disclaimer - That's not any sort of anti-americanism, it's just the truth. Nor is it a situation specific to the US.)
No matter who you elect, taxes are going to go up, or the debt will get worse.

"Tax and spend government" - This is what every government does. The business cycle implies years of surplus and years of deficit, none of this is totally good or totally bad. Governments don't balance budgets becase it's not always a good idea, and it's very rarely posssible/desirable.

No candidate is going to lower your gas prices. By lower I mean significantly and for a reasonable period of time, so no rabbitting on about tax holidays. Cheap oil is ho-ver.

[Tchocky]

W

T

F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2XTDHltNVU


Someone explain this to me

[Platapus]

What's not to understand about this video?

It is a political campaign venue to put a more human side to John McCain.

Seems pretty harmless to me.

What specifically don't you understand about this advertisement?

[Tchocky]

I get the point of the ad alright, it's just so cringeworthy and forced. i can barely stay focused on it, my fingers keep crawling towards Alt-F4 of their own accord. I can't believe it got out the campaign door.
It's to make him look younger, right? :p

Almost as bad as this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

[Platapus]

I wonder why people keep talking about how inexperienced Obama is?

Obama served seven years as a member of the state senate
Obama served four years as a member of the federal senate

Thats 11 years of political leadership experience

Lets see how that experience matches up with the past presidents who have served in the last 30 years.

George W Bush served five years as a governor. He had no other experience

Thats 6 years less political leadership experience than Obama.

Bill Clinton served eleven years as a governor. He had no other experience

He had the same number of years political leadership as Obama

George H W Bush served four years in the federal congress
George H W Bush served eight years as the Vice President

He has one year more experience than Obama

Ronald Reagan served eight years as a governor. He had no other experience

Thats 3 years less political leadership experience than Obama

Jimmy Carter served four years on the state senate
Jimmy Carter served four years as a Governor.

Thats 3 years less political leadership experience than Obama

Out of the previous five presidents (3 of which served two terms) stretching over the past 31 years:

One person had more political leadership experience than Obama - George H W Bush and most of that as the VP

One person has the same number of years of political leadership as Obama - Bill Clinton

Three people had less years of political leadership as Obama when they ran for President.

There is good and bad to be said about Obama, but claiming that he is too inexperienced for the presidency does not match up with the past 31 years.

Now an argument can be made on the quality of the leadership, but that will be very subjective.

[Platapus]

I get the point of the ad alright, it's just so cringeworthy and forced.

Oh I agree totally. Very contrived and you could see how both of them were very uncomfortable doing this.

[August]

political leadership experience

Erm, a senator, especially a state senator, is hardly a leadership position. Governor, speaker, minority whip, even i suppose a committee chairman yeah, but not a rank and file representative seat.

[Platapus]

political leadership experience

Erm, a senator, especially a state senator, is hardly a leadership position.


Really? Have you ever worked any state government issues? The state senates do a lot both in and outside their states. Evidently much of it unknown by the citizens.

But, for the sake of argument, lets remove all state government positions. Then the list gets bigger for presidents who had no political leadership experience.

GWB? Zero experience
Bill Clinton? Zero experience
Reagan? Zero experience
Carter? Zero experience

That leaves only one person that was elected president that equals or has greater political leadership experience than Obama and that would be GHWB.

I don't think you are making the argument you intended :)

I guess if we limit the argument to specifically the jobs that Obama never held then I guess he is inexperienced. Yes Obama has never been a governor and I will grant you that four of the past five presidents were ex-governors.

So if your criteria for "experience" is limited to being a governor than yes the claim that Obama is inexperienced would be correct.

I chose not to limit the criteria, but to include all the state and federal leadership positions. I do not accept that a "rank and file" Senator is not in a leadership position. They may not be in a leadership position WITHIN congress but they are still the ones who make the laws and make decision for the entire country.

In my book that is a leadership position

YMMV

[August]

Really? Have you ever worked any state government issues?

No, have you? :lol:

But, for the sake of argument, lets remove all state government positions.

No, just the ones in the LEGISLATIVE branch. We can keep the EXECUTIVE branch positions, since it's the job of chief EXECUTIVE that we're talking about.

I don't think you are making the argument you intended :)

But I wasn't making an argument on Obamas leadership experience, I was just pointing out a flaw in yours. Imo NONE of the three candidates have much in the way of leadership experience.

[Tchocky]

Would national Senators not have considerable leadership experience in the state they represent?
Well, maybe not considerable, but at least some.

[Steel_Tomb]

Whats this I hear about Obama wanting to reduce the US military to levels pre-wwII? Is this true? If so, gg obama... disarm when every state who chats "death to America and Israel" are scrambling for nukes. He may have political experience, but so does GWB... doesn't mean they have common sence or would make good leaders though! Personally I've never been a fan of Obama. Hes your typical charismatic "leader" who does well at speaches and public appearances, but as soon as it comes to a political crisis they just become a useless bag of jelly... relying on their "advisors" to make the decisions for them, or push them in one direction so much instead of forming his own decision he just goes with the flow. Which in my books isn't exaclty the hallmark of a good leader!

[August]

Would national Senators not have considerable leadership experience in the state they represent?
Well, maybe not considerable, but at least some.
Not really Tchocky. They have no authority in their home state. They have some influence to be sure but no ability to give orders to anyone in state government.

[NEON DEON]

Whats this I hear about Obama wanting to reduce the US military to levels pre-wwII? Is this true? If so, gg obama... disarm when every state who chats "death to America and Israel" are scrambling for nukes. He may have political experience, but so does GWB... doesn't mean they have common sence or would make good leaders though! Personally I've never been a fan of Obama. Hes your typical charismatic "leader" who does well at speaches and public appearances, but as soon as it comes to a political crisis they just become a useless bag of jelly... relying on their "advisors" to make the decisions for them, or push them in one direction so much instead of forming his own decision he just goes with the flow. Which in my books isn't exaclty the hallmark of a good leader!

He is going to Neville Chamberlain them to death:D

"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war."

[Steel_Tomb]

So its true about the planned reductions in the USA's armed forces? Chirst, I hope to god that guy doesn't get into the whitehouse... at a time when all the radical governments are arming themselves with more modern destructive weaponary the US can't afford to disarm, the EU won't do anything we're too busy arguing amongst ourselves and chicken out of any conflict. Which would leave the likes of Iran and China with an advantage over the USA both economically and militarilly. :damn:

[Tchocky]

Lets go to the source.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military


Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
Got a source, Steel-Tomb? Have to say I haven't heard the type of thing you're talking about.

EDIT - On the "Obama-no-experience" thing, here's hilzoy with a post from 2006 on his Senate legislative career. Article is non-partisan and thorough.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[Tchocky]

Bob Barr will probably announce his candidacy today at the Press Club, unless he hasn't already.

I wonder if, given Ron Paul's level of support but reluctance to run as a 3rd-party, Bob Barr will do to John McCain what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore?

[Tchocky]

So Bob Barr is running, as long as he gets the Libertarian party's nomination, which he should.


I see today McCain launched his climate plan. It sounds like half-measures, which is about two full measures more than GWB.
It's a shame that his Senate record doesn't really show anything like this, so one has to question if he really believes this.
Funny how principles swirl and mix once the GOP nomination is secure.

Ah, I'm too cynical. Maybe he really regrets the Hamas comment, too.

[Tchocky]

*giggle*

http://www.youtube.com/v/OSAOQuLxSdY

Laughing at this as well
Moreover, McCain isn't running against just any Democrat but against a black liberal named Barack Hussein Obama. Obama's name (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/28/hussein/) may be the most potent weapon in the GOP's armory. If you want to believe that America is a governable country of informed citizens and not a nation of ignorant, Fox News-watching sheep, the single most depressing fact to come out of the Bush years is that vast numbers of Americans continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. According to a 2003 Washington Post poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans believed that. And in a poll taken last September, 33 percent of Americans still believed it -- presumably the same 30-odd percent of Americans who will vote for a Republican even if he is running on a platform of sacrificing all the nation's firstborn children to Beelzebub.

Call it the Dumb**** Factor, the Nobody Home Problem, the Absentee Ballots from Mars Issue. Whatever you call it, it's the Republicans' built-in advantage this fall. If you're not in the "reality-based community" infamously derided by a senior Bush official, then you won't care if Iraq is a quagmire and the Middle East is a powder keg and the country is falling apart and the economy is on the verge of a depression and gas is $4.30 a gallon. You won't care because you won't know, or if you know you'll blame it all on liberals, feminazis, evil bureaucrats and gays. As you watch Fox News from your Barcalounger orbiting somewhere beyond the confines of space, time and logic, you will vote for the old white guy with the Anglo-Saxon name, not a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who helped his cousin attack America.



http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/05/13/obama_mccain/index.html

[Jacky Fisher]

like I said the election could get very ugly, but running hard-right is going to backfire on McCain because it will scare all of his old centerist supporters to Obama.

The scuttlebutt says that Paul's supporters are planning a pitchfork uprising in Minny at the GOP convention.

[Tchocky]

Matthew Yglesias is always good for a laugh :)

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/clinton_wins_wv.php

[Tchocky]

BAM!

Edwards endorses Obama. he didn't tell any of Clinton's staff about this, should make for a fun statement from geoff Garin or Howard Wolfson.

[Jacky Fisher]

West Viginina is officially irrellavant.

I think Hillary will be forced by Rahm Emmunal and co. to concede, especially if the superdels jump ship to Obama after Edwards' endorsement

[Tchocky]

A tantalising reminder (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html) of what we won't have to deal with when the next President takes office

[Jacky Fisher]

1/20/2009 can't come fast enough...

[nikimcbee]

political leadership experience

Erm, a senator, especially a state senator, is hardly a leadership position. Governor, speaker, minority whip, even i suppose a committee chairman yeah, but not a rank and file representative seat.

I totally agree, senators aren't leaders, they're debaters. I would prefer someone with governor experience any day. So I say we loose with all three candidates.:roll:

[August]

A tantalising reminder (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html) of what we won't have to deal with when the next President takes office

Do you mean there is little chance the Palestinians are going to accuse President McCain of saying similar things, or that Europeans such as yourself are not going to so gleefully repeat unproven accusations like that?

[August]

political leadership experience
Erm, a senator, especially a state senator, is hardly a leadership position. Governor, speaker, minority whip, even i suppose a committee chairman yeah, but not a rank and file representative seat.
I totally agree, senators aren't leaders, they're debaters. I would prefer someone with governor experience any day. So I say we loose with all three candidates.:roll:


:yep: At least McCain was once a Navy officer so he has some leadership experience.

[Tchocky]

Oh lol

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cartoon-corner/McCainMutiny-big.jpg

[NEON DEON]

http://images.politico.com/global/080430_edtoon5-1_600.jpg



Oops!

My bad!:D

[Von Tonner]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/obama.jpg

[Tchocky]

Awright, in a totally non-partisan question, can anyone see McCain getting 75 thousand people to a rally?


Today's McCain Disaster - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10428.html

[August]

Awright, in a totally non-partisan question, can anyone see McCain getting 75 thousand people to a rally?


Today's McCain Disaster - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10428.html

There's nothing non-partisan about you Tchocky. :lol:

So what is bad about McCain cleaning house ahead of the election?

[Tchocky]

There's nothing non-partisan about you Tchocky. :lol: Oh lordy i know it. I'm just wondering if mcCain can attract the same kind of enthusiasm that Obama can, and if it will matter in the end.

So what is bad about McCain cleaning house ahead of the election? He portrays himself as anti-special-interest and earmarks and all the rest of it, these are people you wouldn't expect him to pick for his campaign team in the first place. There's nothing illegal about lobbyist, the function is in teh Constuttion afaik, so I guess there's nothing wrong per se.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html

[Von Tonner]

Awright, in a totally non-partisan question, can anyone see McCain getting 75 thousand people to a rally?
To be honest - no. There is a sea change building in the US which Obama is tapping into. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man". I think in large part that is how he kicked Hillary into touch and McCain is going to find the going tough against this swell of ground support building behind Obama and his message of "Change".

In 1960 the then Prime Minister of Britain Harold MacMillan gave his famous "Wind of Change" speech in the parliament of South Africa in Cape Town. The rest, as they say, is history. AVG in another post, made an interesting point, what SA has gone through, the US is now embarking upon with regard to confronting its own racial makeup and all that that intails.

[AVGWarhawk]

Awright, in a totally non-partisan question, can anyone see McCain getting 75 thousand people to a rally?
To be honest - no. There is a sea change building in the US which Obama is tapping into. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man". I think in large part that is how he kicked Hillary into touch and McCain is going to find the going tough against this swell of ground support building behind Obama and his message of "Change".

In 1960 the then Prime Minister of Britain Harold MacMillan gave his famous "Wind of Change" speech in the parliament of South Africa in Cape Town. The rest, as they say, is history. AVG in another post, made an interesting point, what SA has gone through, the US is now embarking upon with regard to confronting its own racial makeup and all that that intails.

Of course it is time to come to grips with Americas racial makeup. It always, for the most part, has been hush hush. It is there and more often then not, never talked about or addressed. If there was ever one black American that has a shot at it, it is Obama. He is saying things that we as American are denying or not paying attention to because we do not want to acknowledge it. That being, driving around in SUV, credited to the hilt and eating as much as we want when we want. In short, it is catching up to us.

[dean_acheson]

Awright, in a totally non-partisan question, can anyone see McCain getting 75 thousand people to a rally?


Congrats on the big crowd, in the only place in the country that might be a liberal as Madison or Berkley. On that note:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_aqG2pumFnXg/SCThchYrzFI/AAAAAAAAAFg/AyBMey5lOJw/s1600/mcbama5.jpg

Or maybe:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_aqG2pumFnXg/SCThbxYrzCI/AAAAAAAAAFI/T-tbZ47qpFI/s1600/mcbama2.jpg

[dean_acheson]

Sorry that last one was below the belt, wasn't it?

[Tchocky]

Don't know what you mean, if there were images in the post they haven't shown up.

I know what you mean about Oregon, it's a quick move north for anyone who finds California too right-wing..

[DeepIron]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1952406820080519


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama) said on Monday that Republican critics should stop picking on his wife Michelle.
"These folks should lay off my wife," Obama said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."Why? If he gets elected she's going under the microscope just as much as him...

"We are trusting that the American voters are ready to talk about the issues and not talking about things that have nothing to do with making people's lives better," she said.Then she deflects it...

Well Michelle... maybe you should just stay home and cook... :lol:

[Platapus]

As much as I dislike the sniping at a candidate's families, once a family member starts campaigning, they are fair game in the dirty world of politics.

Now if a family member such a child is not campaigning, I feel they should be strictly off limits.

You are either in the game or not in the game.

[dean_acheson]

Don't know what you mean, if there were images in the post they haven't shown up.

I know what you mean about Oregon, it's a quick move north for anyone who finds California too right-wing..

they work on my computer, you would have gotten a laugh out of them.

10-4 on Michelle, if she wants to campaign, that's fine, but don't cry foul when she gets criticized....as my hero Harry would say, if you can't stand the heat.....

[Von Tonner]

The interest in US elections in Cape Town.

Superdelagate and Harvard Professor Elaine Kamarck in a speech in Cape Town, South Africa had this to say:

"Kamarck pointed out that Obama had won support from a whole new generation of voters: "the millennials", as she called them - the most racially diverse and racially integrated generation in American history. "This is a generation that is turned off by a politics that tears people down and insults them," said Kamarck, referring to the politics of the previous 'baby boomer' generation. "They're a generation of solutions and a generation to whom Barack Obama's message of hope is quite extraordinary and quite appealing."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2325017,00.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Another vast right wing conspiracy for Hillary.....she now states she is losing because of sexism...


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014&page=1

[dean_acheson]

The interest in US elections in Cape Town.

Superdelagate and Harvard Professor Elaine Kamarck in a speech in Cape Town, South Africa had this to say:

"Kamarck pointed out that Obama had won support from a whole new generation of voters: "the millennials", as she called them - the most racially diverse and racially integrated generation in American history. "This is a generation that is turned off by a politics that tears people down and insults them," said Kamarck, referring to the politics of the previous 'baby boomer' generation. "They're a generation of solutions and a generation to whom Barack Obama's message of hope is quite extraordinary and quite appealing."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2325017,00.html

Von, not to be an arse, but is there a point here? I guess I'm on the tailend of the 'millennials' and I don't see why we are that freaking special.

Turned off by politics that tears people down and insults them? (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/) That's left wing professor code speak for "rascist republican." The woman saying this worked for Bill Clinton, and she was an early supporter of Hillary. If that's not 'nuff said in the hipocracy department, nothing is.

A "generation of solutions" is code for "get my parents money through taxation and spend it on me going to college forever."

I've got news for Ms. Karmarck (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/01/superdelegates_could_prove_kingmakers/), the kids are going to be as about important in this election as they were in '72.

What was it Buckley used to say about being more willing to have the country run by any page out of the Boston phone book over a set of Harvard professors?

[Jacky Fisher]

[QUOTE][ I've got news for Ms. Karmarck (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/01/superdelegates_could_prove_kingmakers/), the kids are going to be as about important in this election as they were in '72./QUOTE]

Youth turn-out will be higher than the evangelical turnout this year.

McCain can't win. The era of Reagan is over thanks to Dubya and his merry band of foulups and crooks

When political party states in its philosophy that government doesn't work, and then becomes the government, it won't actually govern.

[August]

Youth turn-out will be higher than the evangelical turnout this year.

We'll see. I don't recall that youth has ever had a high turnout in elections.

[Tchocky]

It's looking a bit different this year, August. There have been primaries with higher turnout than the 2004 general election, and a lot of that, at least in the Democratic primaries, has been down to young voters.
It won't beat the record of 1972, but it will be close.

[Von Tonner]

It's looking a bit different this year, August. There have been primaries with higher turnout than the 2004 general election, and a lot of that, at least in the Democratic primaries, has been down to young voters.
It won't beat the record of 1972, but it will be close.
I don't know Tchocky, I think we could see it higher than in 1972. In that year it was estimated that 55% of the "youth vote" (i.e. 18-30) came out. Then it was Vietnam, today it is Iraq and more.

Look at the record number of new registered voters, independents, 75,000 crowds that Obama draws to his call for change, the amount of money raised by his campaign alone (158 million), and this is made up of small donations which would indicate a huge base out there, the thousands of campaign workers, - all these indicators would underline the argument made that the youth of America, for the first time since 1972, have been politically ignited like never before. Of course that does not mean they will turn up come November, but then why donate, why attend rallies, why give up your time to canvass, why man phones etc

I found Obama's speech last night at Des Moines interesting in that I found it to be directed at the youth to a large extent.

TAMPA, Florida, Feb 13 (IPS) - Voters under the age of 30 are becoming more influential in the American political process, according to recent statistics. When historians write about the 2008 Presidential election, they may very well dub it the "Year of the Youth Vote."
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41190

Obama is onto Florida for the next three days, but I found this very interesting re the "youth vote".

"The drive (in Florida) relies in part on a large corps of volunteers, such as the more than 500 Obama backers who showed up on a recent Saturday morning at six Florida locations to be trained in finding and tracking potential new supporters.

In the fall, the campaign will target high school seniors, many of whom will be 18 by election day, and will work to ensure that college students are properly registered so they can vote while at school."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-assess21-2008may21,0,1038387.story

[Tchocky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/politics/21consult.html?ref=us

Huh

[August]

It's looking a bit different this year, August. There have been primaries with higher turnout than the 2004 general election, and a lot of that, at least in the Democratic primaries, has been down to young voters.
It won't beat the record of 1972, but it will be close.

Hmmm, but who won the 1972 election and by what margin? Hey, anything is possible, all i'm saying is the "youth" haven't so far made a difference in a Presidential election.

Besides, what makes Obama the youth candidate? I personally know a lot of servicemen (the youth who do tend to actually vote in large numbers) who see McCain as someone they can identify with. The honorable and ancient club of "them what's been shot at".

[bradclark1]

Youth turn-out will be higher than the evangelical turnout this year.

They said youth turnout would effect the Bush-Gore elections. They didn't bother.

[dean_acheson]

Youth turn-out will be higher than the evangelical turnout this year.

They said youth turnout would effect the Bush-Gore elections. They didn't bother.

Brad, when people start talking abou thte 'youth' vote :roll: ....

It never really matters a whole lot, they don't vote, never will, and they ain't worried about Iraq. I'm around enough high schoolers to know that.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

What is funny, is that there are as many conservative kids as there there are tree huggers.

Whatever.

[Linton]

Who are the prospective vice-presidents?

[August]

Who are the prospective vice-presidents?

Kinda early to tell. Most of the ones you'll hear about before the conventions are red herrings designed to throw the opposition off the track.

That said, i've heard Romneys name mentioned, Edwards, Rice (who said she won't accept) and yes Clinton.

[Jacky Fisher]

A lots changed in the US since 1972, so to base any anyalsis of this election on results of previous elections is an exercise in futility. What the 2004 election should have taught everybody is that nothing is certain and a lot can change in a campaign this long.

The findamental nature of the country has changed since Nixon v. McGovern, and the GOP especially hasn't adapted at all. Looking at the crowds that McCain attracts versus the crowds that Obama attracts and McCain does not compare favorably. McCain has no money, generates little enthusiasm among conservatives, and is going to be 72 when his first term ends. He has had to let go most of his campaign staff for ties to lobbying firms, has had to actually offer a timetable(?!) for withdrawal from Iraq, has had to offer an actual plan for dealing with global warming(!?) etc. These means he can live up to his 'maverick' rep, but pisses off conservatives even more. Meanwhile, the libertarian/white supremesists led by Ron Paul and Huckabee's supporters are all but ready to cause a rumpus at the convention, which could be Chicago '68 redux, but with conservatives ripping each other's guts out instead of liberals.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, 'The era of conservative government is over'.

[Von Tonner]

Circle Your Calendars: The next big date on the calendar isn't June 1 (Puerto Rico) or June 3 (Montana, South Dakota). It's Saturday, May 31 -- the date of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing on Florida and Michigan. The DNC has just released the details on the meeting: It will take place in DC; it has a morning session (oral arguments) that begins at 9:30 am ET and an afternoon session (consideration and debate); and it's allowing members of the public to attend.

(http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/21/1049365.aspx)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/21/1049365.aspx

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/walkingwounded.jpg
(http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/21/1049365.aspx)

[AVGWarhawk]

Hillary will do her best to change or twist the rules in her favor. She and Bill are old pros at that.

[Von Tonner]

Hillary will do her best to change or twist the rules in her favor. She and Bill are old pros at that.
And AVG, what do you think the outcome will be? I see that Ickes (spelling?) now wants none of the Michigan 55 delegates that were uncomitted given to Obama. So much for Hillary's argument that ALL votes must count. Also, if one looks at the make up of the committee if I recall, she has more supporters on it than Obama - but those who who will not say who they support outnumber her lead in that. So here is hoping. Personally, my hope is ALL the delegates will be seated but on a 50/50 basis.

[Tchocky]

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.

[AVGWarhawk]

I do not know what the outcome will be. More then likely it will another hanging chad ordeal. No matter how you cut it, Obama will be the standing there in the lead when the smoke and mirrors are taken down. I think it is clearly obvious the American voting public have said all they need to say. Time to end it now with Hillary.

[Von Tonner]

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.

Agree with you Tchocky, hell I wish I was there and had a ring side seat.

[AVGWarhawk]

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.
Agree with you Tchocky, hell I wish I was there and had a ring side seat.

I'm betting it will be televised. This is history in the making. As Tchocky said, the rules will never be followed again. As I stated, Hillary is attempting to bend them....as both she and Bill have done in the past.

[NEON DEON]

If you seat the delegates in any way that changes the layout of the race, then there's no incentive for any state to follow the rules ever again.

This is why 50/50 works wonderfully. And also why Clinton won't allow 50/50.
Agree with you Tchocky, hell I wish I was there and had a ring side seat.

I'm betting it will be televised. This is history in the making. As Tchocky said, the rules will never be followed again. As I stated, Hillary is attempting to bend them....as both she and Bill have done in the past.

Ummmm there is no rule that says you move your primary you lose all your delagates.

You want to stop states from moving the primarys then make it random and stop with this Iowa and New Hampshire come first bs.

You want to hit someone over the head for not following the rules then do it. Fire them. That will get you what you want. They wont break the rules again will they?

NO RULES ARE BEING CHANGED ONLY THE PENALTY.

BOO HOO Hillary is going to steal the election.

What a load of BS.

I cant wait for the Obama camps explanation of why he is the nominee of the DEMOCRATIC party without winning the popular vote.:D

As for 50/50, thats a joke. Clinton wont accept that. There is no reason to. She won in both states.

[NEON DEON]

Very elegant from her :
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/news/nationalnews/why_hill_wont_drop_out__bobby_kennedy_wa_112232.ht m
Can you really get any lower than that ?

So you are offended but RFK jr. The son of RFK is not.

Ok.

[NEON DEON]

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".

If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.

[Von Tonner]

Very elegant from her :
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008/news/nationalnews/why_hill_wont_drop_out__bobby_kennedy_wa_112232.ht m
Can you really get any lower than that ?
So you are offended but RFK jr. The son of RFK is not.

Ok.
There you go with your logic again Neon. If RFK jr is not offended then neither should anyone else be.:hmm:

Wonder why Hillary found it necessary to apologise then - could it be that many many, even her own supporters, of Americans found those remarks offensive too?

I posted in these forums back in March when she first made reference to JFK that it was a reckless and sinister remark.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=803529&postcount=9

I was surprised that at that time the MSM did not call her on it. Now that she says it again they have questioned her. And what does this habitual liar say in defence of her remark? She comes out with "well the Kennedys have been on my mind" in reference to Ted. Oh, I see. And when you first came out with this remark in March - what was on your mind then?

[NEON DEON]

There you go with your logic again Neon. If RFK jr is not offended then neither should anyone else be.:hmm:

I understand that you are offended VT. You have taken the words and processed them into some sinister plot against Obama. I would be too if I thought that way.

But I dont, and neither does RFK jr.

[Von Tonner]

There you go with your logic again Neon. If RFK jr is not offended then neither should anyone else be.:hmm:
I understand that you are offended VT. You have taken the words and processed them into some sinister plot against Obama. I would be too if I thought that way.

But I dont, and neither does RFK jr.
If I were to open my morning newspaper and the front page headlined: Clinton is the Democratic Nominee. I do not need to read the story to know that only one of two things could have happened.


Scenario One: superdelagates have come out overwhelmingly in her favour by endorsing her – giving her the required target.
Scenario Two: Obama has been assassinated. I can’t think of a likely third scenario without moving into fantasy land. Personally, I think scenario one already moves into fantasy land – but that is my opinion. Scenario two, unfortunately, is not, hence the high and early security attachment to Obama.


Now, when Hillary was specifically asked why she was continuing on in the race her reasoning for not dropping out was this:


“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? “


If she just wanted to give an example of other campaign races that dragged on to illustrate scenario one she could have just stopped there with her husband as an example of her reasoning - or to bolster this argument, referenced it with other campaign examples such as Kerry, Carter or Mondale.


But no, here is the Freudian slip, she continues with her reasoning of why she is continuing by referencing Bobby Kennedy’s campaign as another example.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”


This further example she gives for staying on in the race covers scenario number two.
Now, you could argue that there is nothing sinister or offensive in her reply by simply accepting the explanation she gives for bringing up Bobby’s campaign in that the Kennedy’s have been on her mind of late. But you would then have to ignore the fact that she said the same thing in March in a “Time” interview. And, more importantly, you would have to erase from memory the ‘Bosnia’ story that conclusively proved this woman cannot be taken at her word.


For me, I’ll put my faith in reason over her word any day of the week.

[Fish]

McCain versus McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related

[NEON DEON]

Scenario One: superdelagates have come out overwhelmingly in her favour by endorsing her – giving her the required target.
Scenario Two: Obama has been assassinated. I can’t think of a likely third scenario without moving into fantasy land.
Sure you can come up with a third scenario without moving into fantasy land but your circular reasoning has prevented you from doing so by turning your fantasy land opinion into fact there fore discounting every other scenario

But no, here is the Freudian slip, she continues with her reasoning of why she is continuing by referencing Bobby Kennedy’s campaign as another example


“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

And there is that circular reasoning again. You have determined that the phrase is a fruedian slip.

This is a freudian slip:

"We all remember Barry Kennedy was assassinated in June in California"

Then you go further by saying she used it in the past. Oh come on. The same freudian slip twice about the same subject?

And, more importantly, you would have to erase from memory the ‘Bosnia’ story that conclusively proved this woman cannot be taken at her word.

So based on Clintons 12 year old recall of a story that happened in Bosnia means she cant be taken at her word?

If Obama wins the nomination, and Clinton goes independent or does not support the democratic party then I will not take her at her word.

On the other hand, if Clinton does win the nomination then the same has to be said for Obama.

For me, I’ll put my faith in reason over her word any day of the week.

Faith and circular reasoning. Good luck with that.

[Tchocky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

:-?

[Von Tonner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

:-?
Above clip is but one of many examples of how utterly brainless it was for Hillary to throw out that line. Here is another example of the discourse it has created. Obama speaks at Weseleyan commencement to a crowd of 25,000 and this is how the Los Angeles Times starts it report:

MIDDLETOWN, CONN. -- Snipers crouched on roofs and Secret Service agents patrolled the field as Wesleyan University's class of 2008 participated Sunday in a commencement ceremony few attendees are likely to forget.

I think it was the New York Post that headlined: Hillary said WHAT!?

I'm sure Obama's secret service agents are just loving her for it.

[Von Tonner]

Sure you can come up with a third scenario without moving into fantasy land but your circular reasoning has prevented you from doing so by turning your fantasy land opinion into fact there fore discounting every other scenario

So help me out here - give me one.

So based on Clintons 12 year old recall of a story that happened in Bosnia means she cant be taken at her word?
You jest here surely Neon. It has been more than just "Bosnia" that accounts for by far the majority of Americans who find her untrustworthy. So putting my faith in reason over her word I'm obviously in very, very good company.

[Tchocky]

Actually VT, it's not Hillary's comment that made me post that, it's the Fox commentator who thought it proper to place the same value on the life of Barack Obama as that of Osama Bin Laden, and expressed a desire to see them both dead.

[CCIP]

Not to dig up old things, but I'm not a fan of people getting away with this thing...

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".
If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.

How very low of you. Disgusting.

This is not only what he got out of it, but what many of the media commentators have been repeating - whether or not they were right. I'm quite sure that's not what Clinton meant, myself, but that's not something you defend by means of low personal insults.

[Tchocky]

In response to this (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Equal_time_for_the_willfully_ignorant.html), this (http://isbarackobamamuslim.com/).

[Von Tonner]

Actually VT, it's not Hillary's comment that made me post that, it's the Fox commentator who thought it proper to place the same value on the life of Barack Obama as that of Osama Bin Laden, and expressed a desire to see them both dead.

I realize that Tchocky, I have seen the whole clip on that interview and it was on Hillary's remark - that is why that woman was interviewed on Fox. That is precisely my point - Hillary says what she said, and as a member of a blog on Fox said, all the worms come out of the woodwork and ad to it - as did that woman.

[NEON DEON]

Not to dig up old things, but I'm not a fan of people getting away with this thing...

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".
If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.

How very low of you. Disgusting.

This is not only what he got out of it, but what many of the media commentators have been repeating - whether or not they were right. I'm quite sure that's not what Clinton meant, myself, but that's not something you defend by means of low personal insults.

Does everyone read between the lines.

It is about Obama. It is? If you want it to be about sensitive then get off this rediculous praddle and show me where Obama came up in that conversation. You have the gaul to say this and yet no one here has made it back to RFK. It is somehow all about Obama.

The media commentators are just that they are making a commentary out of the news. Forget what she said lets interpret what she said. Forget the fact of the conversation and what it was about lets get paranoid and work Obama into it. Mindless dribble.

I was 13 when RFK was shot and I lived thru that dark spot in history. The first thought that went thru my mind was of RFK and his family not some sick twisted Tabloid jounalism lets make it about Obama crap.

:yep: Wake up!:yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

Not to dig up old things, but I'm not a fan of people getting away with this thing...

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".
If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.

How very low of you. Disgusting.

This is not only what he got out of it, but what many of the media commentators have been repeating - whether or not they were right. I'm quite sure that's not what Clinton meant, myself, but that's not something you defend by means of low personal insults.

Does everyone read between the lines.

It is about Obama. It is? If you want it to be about sensitive then get off this rediculous praddle and show me where Obama came up in that conversation. You have the gaul to say this and yet no one here has made it back to RFK. It is somehow all about Obama.

The media commentators are just that they are making a commentary out of the news. Forget what she said lets interpret what she said. Forget the fact of the conversation and what it was about lets get paranoid and work Obama into it. Mindless dribble.

I was 13 when RFK was shot and I lived thru that dark spot in history. The first thought that went thru my mind was of RFK and his family not some sick twisted Tabloid jounalism lets make it about Obama crap.

:yep: Wake up!:yep:

Refrain from personal insults and no one will have to read between the lines.

The Management

[Von Tonner]

Not to dig up old things, but I'm not a fan of people getting away with this thing...

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".
If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.
How very low of you. Disgusting.

This is not only what he got out of it, but what many of the media commentators have been repeating - whether or not they were right. I'm quite sure that's not what Clinton meant, myself, but that's not something you defend by means of low personal insults.
Does everyone read between the lines.

It is about Obama. It is? If you want it to be about sensitive then get off this rediculous praddle and show me where Obama came up in that conversation. You have the gaul to say this and yet no one here has made it back to RFK. It is somehow all about Obama.

The media commentators are just that they are making a commentary out of the news. Forget what she said lets interpret what she said. Forget the fact of the conversation and what it was about lets get paranoid and work Obama into it. Mindless dribble.

I was 13 when RFK was shot and I lived thru that dark spot in history. The first thought that went thru my mind was of RFK and his family not some sick twisted Tabloid jounalism lets make it about Obama crap.

:yep: Wake up!:yep:

And WHO is Hillary running against? It is OBAMA. I didn't want to mention your reply to my Freudian comment in my previous post Neon, but let me put it this way. If there were more than two players left in this race then one could not assume much what Hillary said regarding her staying in the race and bringing in the assasination remark - and you would be correct in the noncorrelation of a Freudian slip. BUT, there is only ONE person standing between her and the White House. He happens to be black, and it is nothing less than a FOOL who would argue that this guy, Obama, needs to be protected like no other candidate in Americas history. To argue otherwise is to deny America's history and its present.

And given that, it is nothing less than shocking and alarming that someone like Hillary would invoke the memory of RFK at a moment such as this, when a black man is on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. I understand your support for Hillary, but this is beyond the pale.

[NEON DEON]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

:-?
Above clip is but one of many examples of how utterly brainless it was for Hillary to throw out that line. Here is another example of the discourse it has created. Obama speaks at Weseleyan commencement to a crowd of 25,000 and this is how the Los Angeles Times starts it report:

MIDDLETOWN, CONN. -- Snipers crouched on roofs and Secret Service agents patrolled the field as Wesleyan University's class of 2008 participated Sunday in a commencement ceremony few attendees are likely to forget.

I think it was the New York Post that headlined: Hillary said WHAT!?

I'm sure Obama's secret service agents are just loving her for it.


1996 Clinton Bosnia Trip (CBS News):

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/224531/594

The video pretty much sums it up.

"Officers say this is one of the most dangerous places where U. S. forces are operating. The President himself never made it this far inside Bosnia."


And if you missed the Helicopter bit:

http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1996/03/26/world_nation/wn326a/

"MARKOVICI, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) -- Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops."

[NEON DEON]

Not to dig up old things, but I'm not a fan of people getting away with this thing...

Personnally I'm far from offended, I read this as "ok I lost the regular race but I keep running in case Obama gets shot before the end line".
If thats what you got out of Clinton's words, then stick to French.
How very low of you. Disgusting.

This is not only what he got out of it, but what many of the media commentators have been repeating - whether or not they were right. I'm quite sure that's not what Clinton meant, myself, but that's not something you defend by means of low personal insults.
Does everyone read between the lines.

It is about Obama. It is? If you want it to be about sensitive then get off this rediculous praddle and show me where Obama came up in that conversation. You have the gaul to say this and yet no one here has made it back to RFK. It is somehow all about Obama.

The media commentators are just that they are making a commentary out of the news. Forget what she said lets interpret what she said. Forget the fact of the conversation and what it was about lets get paranoid and work Obama into it. Mindless dribble.

I was 13 when RFK was shot and I lived thru that dark spot in history. The first thought that went thru my mind was of RFK and his family not some sick twisted Tabloid jounalism lets make it about Obama crap.

:yep: Wake up!:yep:

And WHO is Hillary running against? It is OBAMA. I didn't want to mention your reply to my Freudian comment in my previous post Neon, but let me put it this way. If there were more than two players left in this race then one could not assume much what Hillary said regarding her staying in the race and bringing in the assasination remark - and you would be correct in the noncorrelation of a Freudian slip. BUT, there is only ONE person standing between her and the White House. He happens to be black, and it is nothing less than a FOOL who would argue that this guy, Obama, needs to be protected like no other candidate in Americas history. To argue otherwise is to deny America's history and its present.

And given that, it is nothing less than shocking and alarming that someone like Hillary would invoke the memory of RFK at a moment such as this, when a black man is on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. I understand your support for Hillary, but this is beyond the pale.

Tell that to John McCain:D

But you are not. You are going to make it solely about Obama.

It is just more BOO HOO politics. If I cry enough, everyone will back off.

[Tchocky]

Remember New Hampshire?

[Von Tonner]

Boy oh Boy, Olbermann literally goes balistic over Hillary's assassination remark. He makes some telling points. One I found interesting was that he points out that after her first mention of it in March, she again, early in May on two occaisons, used her husband and Kennedy as examples but refrained from using the word assassination.

"You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign?"

"This is unforgivable, because this nation's deepest shame, its most enduring horror, its most terrifying legacy, is political assassination.

Lincoln.
Garfield.
McKinley.
Kennedy.
Martin Luther King.
Robert Kennedy.


And, but for the grace of the universe or the luck of the draw, Reagan, Ford, Truman, Nixon, Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, even George Wallace.


The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!"


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24797758/

[Platapus]

While I believe that her comments were in appropriate, I do not suspect that she is secretly wishing that someone assassinates Obama.

It was a stupid thing to say. It was a very poor example to make a good point.

All the candidates are human and humans are imperfect and will make mistakes.

Name me one president who never made a verbal faux pas.

What annoys me is this environment of everyone sitting like vultures waiting... just waiting for someone to make a mistake and then pounce to make a big thing out of it.

Sitting and sniping does not take any skill or effort. Researching and debating the issues does take skill and effort.

Let's really be honest here. Hillary F-ed up. Ok now what? Do we really think anyone will be changing their vote because of a stupid, inconsiderate choice of words? A few I guess.... maybe... not many. Certainly nothing becoming statistically significant in a national election.

All the candidates have F-ed up. I predict that all the candidates will continue to make stupid comments. They are under a lot of pressure that many of us can't even comprehend. They have cameras and microphones thrust in their faces and questions pounded at them... They are tired and probably a bit grumpy at this point.

Mistakes happen.

We should be concentrating on the real issues (economy, domestic programs, international relations, etc). Not whether someone made a stupid inconsiderate comment.

I honestly wonder who would be so masochist to run for President in this environment. :nope:

No wonder we continually have such lousy choices of candidates. Anyone worthy of the position of President would never run for the office these days.

[NEON DEON]

Remember New Hampshire?

Remember George McGovern?

[Von Tonner]

Let's really be honest here. Hillary F-ed up. Ok now what? Do we really think anyone will be changing their vote because of a stupid, inconsiderate choice of words? A few I guess.... maybe... not many. Certainly nothing becoming statistically significant in a national election.
While I agree with most of what you say Platapus, the critical issue after her remark is not so much the impact on the voters in the remaining primaries but more of what it does to her VP chances (if she had or has any) and, more importantly, the fall out it might have with the remaining uncommitted superdelagates. And even those that have already committed to her.

[Tchocky]

Remember New Hampshire?
Remember George McGovern?
Nope, wasn't alive.
I mentioned New nHampshire after your "boo hoo politics" remark :p

[August]

I remember George McGovern. What a wuss...

[Jacky Fisher]

latest scuttlebutt from the internets is that most of the supers have gone over to Obama, but that a split of the Florida and Michigan delegates will benefit Hillary.

[Platapus]

What I truly don't understand is why are the Democrats all getting their diapers twisted because there is not one clear overwhelming candidate before the convention?

The party's candidate is supposed to be chosen at the convention. That's why there is a convention in the first place.

The Democrats have two candidates that are very close. This is a good thing! At the convention the two candidates will get a chance to duke it out and all the delegates (super and non-super) will cast their vote. Two candidates walk in; one nominee walks out. Aint this the way it is supposed to work????

Look at the Republican side. Precisely what will happen at the GOP convention? Why would they even spend the money for a convention?

McCain to debate with himself and the delegates will give a good think and vote for.....McCain?

Having a close nomination race for either party is nothing to be scared or nor ashamed about. It means that the democratic system is working and the people have a choice.

Last time I looked giving the people a choice was a good thing.

Now with our current short attention span environment, perhaps many of the people can't stand the suspense but selecting the nominee for a major political party to represent a cross section of America takes time.

I kinda wish that all the primaries could be held on the same day but that would make campaigning more difficult. Since that will not happen, we really all need to be patient and wait for the respective conventions to occur.

The party's nominee will not be selected until the convention. That's how the system works. Why is everyone in such a hurry?

The national election aint until November anyway :up:

[NEON DEON]

Name me one president who never made a verbal faux pas.

Dewey;)

[Iceman]

The Democrats have two candidates that are very close. This is a good thing! At the convention the two candidates will get a chance to duke it out and all the delegates (super and non-super) will cast their vote. Two candidates walk in; one nominee walks out. Aint this the way it is supposed to work????
Reminds me of Thunderdome....2 men enter,one man leaves,,,two men enter,one man leaves...Welcome to Thunderdome. :up:
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p240957-Black_Rock_City_NV-Thunderdome.jpg

[NEON DEON]

The Democrats have two candidates that are very close. This is a good thing! At the convention the two candidates will get a chance to duke it out and all the delegates (super and non-super) will cast their vote. Two candidates walk in; one nominee walks out. Aint this the way it is supposed to work????
Reminds me of Thunderdome....2 men enter,one man leaves,,,two men enter,one man leaves...Welcome to Thunderdome. :up:
http://photos.igougo.com/images/p240957-Black_Rock_City_NV-Thunderdome.jpg

:rotfl: :rotfl:

So on saturday the DNC will be shouting.

BREAK THE DEAL SPIN THE WHEEL:D

[Jacky Fisher]

wait a minute....does that mean that Barack Obama is Mad Max.......?:D

[STEED]

Hillary Clinton is barking mad and needs to be section.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Ding dong the witch is dead.

PD

[bookworm_020]

Time to get another poll running, who will be Prez? John Mccain - the age shall not weary me republican, Barack Obama - Yes I Can!, Yes I Can! Toot ! Toot! Democrat and Hillary Clinton - I was the sniper on the grassy knoll outsider???:hmm:

BTW I love the thunderdome reference, maybe the next presidential debate can be turned into a gladiators type contest???

[Jacky Fisher]

may come to that if the plans to have a series of unscripted townhall meetings between Obama and McCain comes to pass:rock:

[Biggles]

All I know here in Sweden is hoping for Obama. (Me included).

[STEED]

HRC said "I am suspending my campaign for now." :o

WHAT!!! :huh:

Man she is a power mad bitch, put her down like you would with a rabid dog I say. :stare:

[Tchocky]

She's not shutting down her campaign, "suspending" it allows her to continue to raise money to pay off debts.

[STEED]

She's not shutting down her campaign, "suspending" it allows her to continue to raise money to pay off debts.

Or gear up for the next time. :damn:

[Tchocky]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/06/america/06mccain.php

:damn::damn::damn:

[Platapus]

This is hardly surprising.

[Tchocky]

I'm not really surprised, just depressed.

Aside - this looks interesting - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/09/mccain/print.html

[bradclark1]

I was for McCain but now there just aren't any plus's for him anymore. He sounds more like a GBIII which is disappointing. As far as the wiretaps I would be more for tripwire tapping than active tapping. The problem with blanket active wiretapping is that it will and does get abused and it'll too simple to plead anything is terrorism and use information they shouldn't.

[NEON DEON]

She's not shutting down her campaign, "suspending" it allows her to continue to raise money to pay off debts.

She also retains control of her pledged delegates. John Edwards did the same thing. Suspended his campaign.

[dean_acheson]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/09/intv.steinem.clinton.obama.cnn

This is why Clinton lost. :doh:

10 points for actually listening to the whole interview.

[August]

10 points for actually listening to the whole interview.

I tried. I really did!

[Platapus]

I think her viewpoints are rather dated.

I have never felt bad when ever a woman "wins" something she is competing for.

Ms. Steinem has built her career out of pointing out the inequalities between men and women. It is in her best professional interest to maintain such inequalities.

At one time, she was bang on. These days, I see way too many successful women in governments, businesses, academia, and sciences all around the world not to recognize that the world has changed and changed for the better when it comes to equality.

Is the world perfect? Not by a long shot. Should we continue to strive for more equality (both benefits and responsibility) between the sexes? Absolutely!

But the picture that Ms. Steinem paints is about 30 years old. She needs to get a new canvas and some new paints.

[OneToughHerring]

I guess it might be Obama, originally wasn't so sure about his changes but he seems to be doing well. McCain isn't an easy opponent but if Hillary can get women to vote for Obama he has a good chance. Me not being an American doesn't really matter who wins. Every little twist of the election is on the news here too, almost like it's the 'president of the world' or something being chosen. Not sure if I like that idea too much.

[FIREWALL]

If Obama picks Clinton as a running mate for a run at the Whitehouse.

He'll have assassinated himself of any chance of being the first black President.

[dean_acheson]

10 points for actually listening to the whole interview.

I tried. I really did!

Yeah, I couldn't either.

[NEON DEON]

10 points for actually listening to the whole interview.

I tried. I really did!

Yeah, I couldn't either.

I did!

Can I have my 10 points now? :D

[Tchocky]

Wes Clark on John McCain

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/13/clark/index.html

Then, referring to his leadership of NATO forces in Kosovo, Clark said, "John McCain was a senator, he supported my actions. But his support was rhetorical. He wasn't responsible, he's not been responsible, he hasn't felt the brunt of the responsibility, he hasn't felt the anguish of uncertainty, and that makes a big difference."

[August]

Wes Clark on John McCain

A Democrat who is critical of the Republican candidate? Hold the phone! Who could have guessed? :roll:

[nikimcbee]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/crunchyfrog/Images/deering.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/crunchyfrog/Images/PythonHillaryBoltNA050808_img_assis.jpg

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7328/obamaleaverw3.jpg

[Von Tonner]

Could this be another ominous sign for McCain?


"MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" beat Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in the key Adults 25-54 demographic for the first time ever last week.
"Countdown" averaged 477,000 viewers (A25-54) vs. O'Reilly's 472,000 (excluding Tuesday's primary coverage). This marks the first time that MSNBC has beaten Fox News in O'Reilly's 8pm time slot since June 2001."




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/countdown-beats-oreilly-f_n_106298.html

[Platapus]

I don't believe this

I am shocked

No way this could happen


There are 472,000 people who actually watch O'Reilly's spin zone?


Why?

[PeriscopeDepth]

That first cartoon is hilarious McBee!

PD

[Onkel Neal]

How about; once the VP running mates are announced, I will close this thread, open a new one polling the choice for President?

[August]

How about; once the VP running mates are announced, I will close this thread, open a new one polling the choice for President?

Sounds good!

[Tchocky]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/mccain_versus_mccain.php

[rifleman13]

Found this on DeviantArt, if you're a supporter of Obama and a Pokemon fan, take a look at this!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2406316612_cd85e825f3.jpg?v=0

[NEON DEON]

I don't believe this

I am shocked

No way this could happen


There are 472,000 people who actually watch O'Reilly's spin zone?


Why?

I guess because of the 477,000 who watch Bipolar Keith:D

[August]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/mg00se/Repube.jpg

[NEON DEON]

LOL :rotfl: :rotfl:

That just might be their publicity photos too!:D

[Iceman]

How about; once the VP running mates are announced, I will close this thread, open a new one polling the choice for President?
:up: ...yep this thread needs to die.

Any bonus for the 5 who picked McCain as pres if he wins, from Subsim...? :)jk...I can just act smug like Subsims resident fortuneteller lol...

[PeriscopeDepth]

McCain's campaign really has impressed me the past week or two. He's jumping on the energy issue and is getting his face on the front page of my home page (Reuters.com) pretty often.

PD

[bookworm_020]

How about; once the VP running mates are announced, I will close this thread, open a new one polling the choice for President?

Why not open a poll on the VP's so we can see how wrong we get it!;)

[JSF]

Alfred E Newman for President...Campaign slogan "What-Me Worry" he's my choice...

[Tchocky]

Like experience, but different.


How often has John McCain been away from the Senate? Well, let's put it this way: At this point, he has missed more votes than even South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson, who couldn't work for almost a year after suffering a brain hemorrhage in late 2006.
I see today, from Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/), that McCain took over the dubious distinction of being the Senate's most absent member in April of this year, and that CQ Politics says (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002904602&cpage=1) he hasn't voted since April 8.

[Fish]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/mg00se/Repube.jpg

Beauty at the top, brains below. ;)

[Platapus]

Well anyone who garners Bo Derek's support is good for me. She has such an impressive intellectual and political resume.

snicker

[Sailor Steve]

I would vote for Pat Paulsen again, but he's dead.

Or does that make a difference?

[Beauty at the top, brains below. ;)
Barbra Striesand, brains?

Theresa Kerry, brains?

A brain-eating zombie would starve on those two. On the other hand, I get your point; some of the 'aboves' aren't raving intellectuals. But some are. And Marilyn vos Savant is a conservative, too.

[August]

I would vote for Pat Paulsen again, but he's dead.

Or does that make a difference?

[Beauty at the top, brains below. ;) Barbra Striesand, brains?

Theresa Kerry, brains?

A brain-eating zombie would starve on those two. On the other hand, I get your point; some of the 'aboves' aren't raving intellectuals. But some are. And Marilyn vos Savant is a conservative, too.

LOL! How could anyone think that picture has anything to do with intellect. I certainly doubt Bo Derek has the answer to many of life's problems but i'd bet she'd be a sight more comfortable to be around than any of the bottom half of that list... :D

[nikimcbee]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/mg00se/Repube.jpg

Beauty at the top, brains below. ;)

Crap, they have Janet el'Reno! How can we stop them now? :rotfl:

[Skybird]

I am probably not the only one who saw this "switch" coming:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/28/obama-undercuts-his-brand_n_109758.html

Politicians. Opportunistic liars by nature and essence.

To make that clear, I am not in defense of McCain, like I never was in defense of Obama. for me both of them as long as all the candidates there were are completely compromised and unacceptable; I wish them all to hell and the whole rotten system as well, for it will keep on breeding politicians like this, on and on.

McCain has shown several "switchings" in past months, too.

The thing is not to vote for one of the candidates now. the only real choice you have is to legitimize a rotten system by the mere act of participating in voting (no matter whom you vote for, it does not make much of a difference anyway), or actively refusing to legitimize it - by not voting at all. If you do not stay away from voting for reasons of laziness, but by your political decision, not voting is a way to take the responsibility of having the right to vote serious and responsible. It means that you express your determination not to accept the pervertion of the basic principles behind "democracy" and "free elections", and that you do not intend to buy bullsh!t. So, not voting by political decision - means that you vote, too. you just do not do it ba habit, and take the responsibility vers serious. the most stupid thing one can do is - to vote by habit.

And before any laserbrain comes with "Skybird turns out to be anti-american again", just this: I think and say the same about every single Western nation in europe as well. the US election is just a currently most prominent and actual example.

[August]

Haha Skybird lectures us using a Huffington Post article as his source? :lol::roll:

[Iceman]

Did I miss where either of these canidates picked a runingmate yet?..I have been working alot of ot latley....What the heck are they waiting for I am wondering...I think this may also play a big part of who actually wins in that who may take over if the one fails...I personally would like to see McCain pick mayor Rudy or even Rice...both I think would help him alot...as for Obama he is a blubbering Idiot if he does not pick Hillary...a total dork who deserves to lose...it is simply the smartest thing on his part strategically and my opinion of him personally would go up if he did for showing intelligence...we''ll see I guess....someday soon.http://www.assassinsalliance.com/aaphpBB3/images/smilies/happy1.gif

[Platapus]

Did I miss where either of these canidates picked a runingmate yet?..I have been working alot of ot latley....What the heck are they waiting for I am wondering...


The two candidates may be waiting to be officially nominated by their parties before selecting who their running mate will be.

As for Senator Obama selecting Senator Clinton? This is not a simple matter. One has to consider how Senator Clinton will react to being Vice President. Both are pretty strong willed people. Will Senator Clinton be satisfied with the limited powers of the office of Vice President?

[Skybird]

Obama would risk unvoluntary Harakiri if picking Clinton. A captain should not make somebody his 1st officer who has as big or even bigger an ego than the Captain himself. and he seems to have pissed many of Clinton's fans with his latest switchings in statements and policies anyway, so there even might not be that big a benefit in voters anymore then before, when picking clinton. I expect quite a few of clinton's fans not voting at all now. and how powerful and intriguous a vice president can be, you see with Cheney. Don't choose somebody with too great ambitions as your number two in that seat.

[SUBMAN1]

It would be interesting if Obama even has a chance at winning. He is losing his base as we speak. No longer the grass roots candidate huh? Even though people think its political suicide, his only hope would be to have Clinton at his side. They can push the work together motto they have been failing to push prior to this happening.

-S

[Platapus]

It would be interesting if Obama even has a chance at winning. He is losing his base as we speak. No longer the grass roots candidate huh? Even though people think its political suicide, his only hope would be to have Clinton at his side. They can push the work together motto they have been failing to push prior to this happening.

-S


Well I am not counting any chickens until I hear McCain cluck :)

[Tchocky]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/09/mccain_economists/print.html

Hehe

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/john_mccain_thinks_social_secu.php


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/08/mccains_latest_iran_joke.html


Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to the US, mainly from cigarettes, Ahmedinajad said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."


Thought experiment.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/09/poll-mccains-age-more-of-an-issue-than-obamas-race/

Meh, these don't mean much. Would be nice, but we're not going to be fortunate enough to have the S.S. McCain suddenly sink.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e210/mg00se/Repube.jpg


http://punchup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/john_mccain.jpg
http://notfound1999.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/popeye.jpg

[August]

Jeez Stealth Hunter are you saying you have to use an old man and a cartoon character to compare your democratic women with? :D

[Tchocky]

I guess we won;t hear much more of this

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/11/mccain_eligibility/print.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Jeez Stealth Hunter are you saying you have to use an old man and a cartoon character to compare your democratic women with? :D

McCain best stick to his spinach.;)

And just because the Republicans in the photo look better than the Democrats, wait 20-30 years and tell us what you think then.:rotfl: Finally, Brains > Beauty.

[August]

Jeez Stealth Hunter are you saying you have to use an old man and a cartoon character to compare your democratic women with? :D
McCain best stick to his spinach.;)

And just because the Republicans in the photo look better than the Democrats, wait 20-30 years and tell us what you think then.:rotfl: Finally, Brains > Beauty.

But in 20-30 years just imagine what those Demo women will look like! :o

[NEON DEON]

Jeez Stealth Hunter are you saying you have to use an old man and a cartoon character to compare your democratic women with? :D
McCain best stick to his spinach.;)

And just because the Republicans in the photo look better than the Democrats, wait 20-30 years and tell us what you think then.:rotfl: Finally, Brains > Beauty.

But in 20-30 years just imagine what those Demo women will look like! :o

Never read these posts while having breakfast.:D

[dean_acheson]

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/breaking_what_else_jesse_jackson_said_on_that_fnc_ tape_89392.asp

Ok, so I really really reaching on this one, but at least the subject matter being discussed was Obama.

The sweet sweet taste of schenfreude. Or should I say chutzpah, from the man of tolerance who brought you 'hymietown.'

[Tchocky]

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Malik isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.
So how will the McCain campaign respond?


(Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're ****ed." No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here's what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: "Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I'm confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we've had.")




Will Maliki retract his words?

Hmm

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/almalikis_announcement_a_big_d.php

[Tchocky]

A tour of candidate websites

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/campaign-websit.html

That's twenty five issues that Obama gives a page to and McCain does not. And some of them are pretty striking: Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, and Poverty are surprising absences in one way; Faith, Family, and Service in another.



Here's a list of issues McCain covers that have no counterpart on Obama's Issues page: The Sanctity of Life (question: why is "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers" part of McCain's Sanctity of Life policy?), Judicial Philosophy, Space Program. If you hunt around, you can find a link to a little page with two paragraphs on autism (http://www.johnmccain.com/content/?guid=24dc9c37-e739-4aa3-8a88-ebae650a2f11) which has, to my knowledge, no counterpart on Obama's site. [UPDATE: in comments, ulpian246 points out that Obama does have a page on autism (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSpectrumDisorders.pdf).]

[Tchocky]

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=NC0Y7zMcn_4&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//s3.ytimg.com/vi/NC0Y7zMcn_4/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKvj9fx4VJL5d-abRsO4pO5

Spot the problem.

Good God I hope the interviewer called him on this.