Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[GrantDawg]

So, we have our challengers now for the Presidency. How will this election play out? It is going to be an interesting and historic one for sure. I believe this matchup is going to break down some of the patterns of the past presidential elections, but it still going to be a close one with maybe some states that haven't been "swing states" in the past becoming in play. What's your prediction on how this election will play out?

Gallup (RV)
Rasmussen (LV)
CBS News (Both)
Quinnipiac (LV)
Battleground (LV)
Hotline/FD (RV)
Reuters/Zogby (LV)
Newsweek (RV)
Associated Press (LV)
NBC News (RV)
ABC News (RV)
FOX News (RV)
CNN/OpinionResearch (RV)

[SFL Cat]

If Hillary's PO'd supporters don't come home...and Florida and Michigan voters fly the middle finger at the Democrat party for being snubbed, McCain wins big. If the Republican's conservative base decides to stay home, it could be a close race, but I still think McCain wins since Obama pretty much got blown out by Hillary in all the big / battleground state primaries.

[Jim G.]

I would have put the Republican odds at about 1,000-to-1 a year ago.

Now that they've nominated someone who appeals to independents, and the Democrats have had a very divisive and whimsical primary, I'd say it's more like 3-to-1 against McCain right now. Still a tough road, but not the miracle long shot it once was.

[Drake]

Were Florida and Michigan really "snubbed"? Can you call it "snubbed" when you know the consequences *before* you decide to break ranks with party policy and do it anyway?

[SFL Cat]

THE political tee for this year's election...

http://www.werescrewed08.com/images/ws08b.jpg

[Honolulu_Blue]

THE political tee for this year's election...

http://www.werescrewed08.com/images/ws08b.jpg

We'll we should be well used to it by now, eh? We've been gettinger screwed much, much harder over the last 8 years than we'll be in the forseeable future.

Whatever comes after Bush will feel like sweet, sweet gentle lovin'.

*cue Barry White music*

[Honolulu_Blue]

Were Florida and Michigan really "snubbed"? Can you call it "snubbed" when you know the consequences *before* you decide to break ranks with party policy and do it anyway?

I live in Michigan. I don't feel snubbed.

[SFL Cat]

I live in Florida...lot of mad Democrats down here. And since Hillary won the state pretty comfortably...they ain't happy, and if local talk radio is any indicator...a lot of them are either staying home or voting for McCain.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I live in Florida...lot of mad Democrats down here. And since Hillary won the state pretty comfortably...they ain't happy.

Well, if they want to keep this country from going further into the crapper, they better cowboy up and get with it.

Like Spock said, it's logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[SFL Cat]

Well, if they want to keep this country from going further into the crapper, they better cowboy up and get with it.

Like Spock said, it's logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Yeah...I remember everyone saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter back in '75...and that turned out well... :rolleyes:

[lordscarlet]

Um. Obama got the necessary delegates regardless of Florida and Michigan, didn't he? Suck it up.

[Flasch186]

I live in Florida...lot of mad Democrats down here. And since Hillary won the state pretty comfortably...they ain't happy, and if local talk radio is any indicator...a lot of them are either staying home or voting for McCain.

me too, and I completely disagree so, considering I lean further left than SFL cat does, take that FWIW. I dont feel snubbed and will vote for the candidate that I think will steer as as far away from what has been evidenced by the last 8 years and the numerous tell alls from people who have left the administration....However each and every one has just been disgruntled and a liar, apparently, except Ari Fleischer, everyone else though....total and complete liars. All of 'em. While they were with the administration they were truth tellers....now theyre liars.

[Subby]

I have to cancel out cam's vote, so I'll be voting Obama. ;)

[Butter]

I would have put the Republican odds at about 1,000-to-1 a year ago.

Now that they've nominated someone who appeals to independents, and the Democrats have had a very divisive and whimsical primary, I'd say it's more like 3-to-1 against McCain right now. Still a tough road, but not the miracle long shot it once was.

Why type out my answer when it's already been given?

[Greyroofoo]

I vote in Michigan and I feel screwed by both parties. Nader or Libertarian for me.

[st.cronin]

THE political tee for this year's election...

http://www.werescrewed08.com/images/ws08b.jpg

I'd hit it.

[spleen1015]

I don't think there is a Republican past, present or future who could win this election after the way the public views what Bush has done to this country.

I see Obama winning in Reagan fashion.

[Axxon]

Yeah...I remember everyone saying the same thing about Jimmy Carter back in '75...and that turned out well... :rolleyes:

The difference is, W couldn't even sniff Gerald Ford's jockstrap much less hold it. That's so insulting to Ford ( who lost primarily as backlash as well because he wasn't a bad president at all ) it's laughable.

[st.cronin]

I think this will be a close election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The difference is, W couldn't even sniff Gerald Ford's jockstrap much less hold it.

Get a grip Axxon.

The first term was pretty good at worst. The second term stumbles have made virtually no one happy, although there's still quite a gap about which stumbles were the most troublesome. Specifically, I don't even think Iraq makes my top three gripes (at least not in terms of presence). Low approval ratings are virtually assured when you've got one contingent unhappy about the things he's done and a whole different contingent upset with the things he didn't do, the latter being the group I fall solidly into.

There's one school of thought that suggests that if you're upsetting two highly divergent groups, you're probably doing a decent job of splitting the middle (not a theory I'm prone to subscribing to, but it still exists).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think this will be a close election.

Popular vote I'd agree. Too hard for me to call at this point what the electoral margin might be, since a consistent set of narrow wins can turn into a big electoral gap. At the moment I could believe an electoral landslide for either to one that comes down to counting absentee & provisional ballots. All depends upon how effectively McCain can campaign.

[Axxon]

I think this will be a close election.

I't be as naive to not think this as it would be to consider public opinion 2 years before the election to be meaningful. ;)

Still, I'm pretty sure the 100 years in Iraq thing is going to be the dealbreaker for the republicans.


FWIW, here's a thread I read on a conservative message board that makes sense and if it happened would be a great thing for the republicans. I didn't really realize though, how bad the divide was on that side. It isn't going to happen this cycle but if it did, I'd have to reconsider my position against voting for the party ever again.

Here's the first post.

The GOP was taken over in 1980 by far-right conservatives and evangelicals. This was after a proud history of moderate politics, and a love affair with the American people.

People like Nixon, Eisenhower, Lincoln, and even Bush 1 shared in this proud history. Now, the GOP is suffering under the effects of voter fatigue with the far right ideological politics of the GOP.

I feel its time social and ecoonmic moderates took back their rightful place in the party, and reinstituted policies of realpolitik and moderation.

There's not one president on that list I wouldn't vote for if he was running FWIW which is what interested me in the thread and the entire post pretty much sums up my opinion of the current state of the party.


Hmm, who came into power in 1980 and who is the one president I've said I absolutely hated? Oh yeah... ;)

hxxp://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=176966&forum_id=5

[Flasch186]

even if you supported the invasion of Iraq on a military basis, the waters become so muddled when you add in the shortfalls deficit wise, the excised military budgeting in re: to I&A, coupled with the slow down of the economy that it's tough to stand up and say that it was handled even with a hint of intelligence or planning.

On the second note about splitting the middle I would be willing to bet you find anyone on the left saying he did a good job of splitting anything except splitting all good support he had following 9/11 from his administration.

...however you knew I'd say that before I said it.

[st.cronin]

My amateur analysis: The Republicans came out of the primary with their strongest GE candidate, while the Democrats did not. I think Clinton would have demolished McCain (electoral college, at least). Obama will not win Florida, so he'll have to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania - which will be difficult, although not impossible.

[Axxon]

Get a grip Axxon.

The first term was pretty good at worst. The second term stumbles have made virtually no one happy, although there's still quite a gap about which stumbles were the most troublesome. Specifically, I don't even think Iraq makes my top three gripes (at least not in terms of presence). Low approval ratings are virtually assured when you've got one contingent unhappy about the things he's done and a whole different contingent upset with the things he didn't do, the latter being the group I fall solidly into.

There's one school of thought that suggests that if you're upsetting two highly divergent groups, you're probably doing a decent job of splitting the middle (not a theory I'm prone to subscribing to, but it still exists).

No offense Jon but your opinion is so far from any middle ground that anything you consider "pretty good" has to be taken with a pillar of salt. :)

The problem in this country right now is that the political parties are so polarized, completely petrified that the other guy will win, that they're going to hold their nose and vote for someone simply on that label. That's why 2004 was so close IMHO and why you can't say really predict how this election will go.

I've talked to way to many people who vote republican who hated W even in 2k4 but voted for him anyway. It's why I was intrigued with the thread I just posted which would be another step in backing both sides from the ideological extremes which is hurting this country very badly because most people really don't fall under either extremes.

It's quite possible to hold a set of beliefs, protect them, without going batshit insane in doing so. It's called compromise and the country really needs it but the rhetoric is so high right now, no one wants to take the first step.

[Flasch186]

Obama, will win Florida. IMO

[chesapeake]

I would have put the Republican odds at about 1,000-to-1 a year ago.

Now that they've nominated someone who appeals to independents, and the Democrats have had a very divisive and whimsical primary, I'd say it's more like 3-to-1 against McCain right now. Still a tough road, but not the miracle long shot it once was.

I disagree with this assessment only in that it is never 1,000-to-1 in a presidential campaign -- when the most critical factor you will be dealing with -- the candidates -- are a complete unknown.

I do agree with your point that it is easier to see how Obama wins this race than McCain, although I'd take McCain with the odds you are giving. A lot has to go right in the next couple of months for Obama to win.

Most importantly in the near term, HRC has to fully commit to supporting Obama. Obama needs her supporters on board now to start filling out the state-by-state organizations he is going to need be effective in key states. Her organizational supporters in OH and FL, for example, will be critical.

[Axxon]

My amateur analysis: The Republicans came out of the primary with their strongest GE candidate, while the Democrats did not. I think Clinton would have demolished McCain (electoral college, at least). Obama will not win Florida, so he'll have to win both Ohio and Pennsylvania - which will be difficult, although not impossible.

The debates are going to be huge this election cycle because there's no way McCain is going to look good here. He's no where near as charismatic and he comes off as a cantankerous old man. If he starts snapping at Obama then he's done IMHO because no way Obama rises to the bait and he's smooth enough to look like silk when he turns that tactic aside.

This is very reminiscent of Nixon/Kennedy in that regard.

[Axxon]

Obama, will win Florida. IMO

Dude, that's not a given. Sure, more Floridians will think they voted for Obama but what they really chose, who can say?? ;)

[SFL Cat]

The difference is, W couldn't even sniff Gerald Ford's jockstrap much less hold it. That's so insulting to Ford ( who lost primarily as backlash as well because he wasn't a bad president at all ) it's laughable.

:eek: Not how I remember it all. The Dems painted Ford as a Nixon tool, especially after Nixon's Watergate pardon; an idiot, he was heavily blamed for the economic doldrums caused by a lot of Nixon's fiscal policies; and on top of everything else, a klutz -- what the hell is that clown going to trip over today?

Poor Gerald didn't even get a sympathy bump when Squeaky Fromme tried to put a bullet in him. Glad to know that down deep inside Democrats actually held the guy in such high esteem, despite what was said.

[lordscarlet]

I will be very surprised at a landslide victory. I even think McCain has a decent chance. There are the people that truly support McCain and/or the Republican party, there are the people upset about Clinton, there are the people that feel Obama is dirty because he's in Illinois politics and there are the morons like my coworker that says, "I will move if America elects someone with the middle name 'Hussein.'" (He is a Witness and does not vote)

[JonInMiddleGA]

The problem in this country right now is that the political parties are so polarized

It isn't the parties Ax, it's the members of the parties, i.e. the citizens, the voters, the people. And those sitting on the fence aren't particularly liked or respected by either.

It's called compromise

No Ax, it's called surrender, to the greatest enemy the nation faces.

[Axxon]

:eek: Not how I remember it all. The Dems painted Ford as a Nixon tool, especially after Nixon's Watergate pardon; an idiot, he was heavily blamed for the economic doldrums caused by a lot of Nixon's fiscal policies; and on top of everything else, a klutz -- what the hell is that clown going to trip over today?

Poor Gerald didn't even get a sympathy bump when Squeaky Fromme tried to put a bullet in him. Glad to know Democrats REALLY had such high esteem for the guy.

Like I said, they voted Carter as a backlash against Nixon and watergate. Simpe stuff. Remember, they'd never voted for Ford either so there was no attachment. He was screwed either way.

Say what you will about Democrats there but Nixon had taken 72 in a landslide so it certainly isn't clear that there was this huge political divide like there is now. There was huge disillusionment which is hard to understand now sometimes since now disillusionment is the norm.

As for what he can trip over now, who knows? Dole took the last really good one. :D

[st.cronin]

The debates are going to be huge this election cycle because there's no way McCain is going to look good here. He's no where near as charismatic and he comes off as a cantankerous old man. If he starts snapping at Obama then he's done IMHO because no way Obama rises to the bait and he's smooth enough to look like silk when he turns that tactic aside.

This is very reminiscent of Nixon/Kennedy in that regard.

Maybe its just because I've been a McCain fan for a long time, going back to before 2000, but I just don't see this at all. He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate. Cantankerous old man, that sounds like Dole, Perot, maybe Bush 41, but it doesn't seem to describe McCain at all.

[Flasch186]

Dude, that's not a given. Sure, more Floridians will think they voted for Obama but what they really chose, who can say?? ;)

LOL, that's true. If the ballots end up in a locked safe never to be counted anyone could win. Is Katherine Harris still in charge?

[Axxon]

It isn't the parties Ax, it's the members of the parties, i.e. the citizens, the voters, the people. And those sitting on the fence aren't particularly liked or respected by either.



No Ax, it's called surrender, to the greatest enemy the nation faces.

That's right Jon, half the country is the greatest enemy the nation faces. You've said it before. Extremely few people buy it and it lessens every day. People tire of this crap and that's why the middle is so popular. It's where most of the people are.

I'm confused though about the first paragraph. So, you're saying that either you have to be an extremist to the left or an extremist to the right or you aren't respected. I have to disagree with that.

[SFL Cat]

I will be very surprised at a landslide victory. I even think McCain has a decent chance. There are the people that truly support McCain and/or the Republican party, there are the people upset about Clinton, there are the people that feel Obama is dirty because he's in Illinois politics and there are the morons like my coworker that says, "I will move if America elects someone with the middle name 'Hussein.'" (He is a Witness and does not vote)

I honestly thought Hillary would give McCain a tougher race than Obama.

I saw today that Obama's people were spinning that he was all about getting the delegates and not worried about underperforming in key battleground states...wonder how they'll spin it if McCain blows him out in those states during the general?

[Axxon]

Maybe its just because I've been a McCain fan for a long time, going back to before 2000, but I just don't see this at all. He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate. Cantankerous old man, that sounds like Dole, Perot, maybe Bush 41, but it doesn't seem to describe McCain at all.

I don't know. That's the feeling I got in the republican debates. I think he fared badly in those.

[Flasch186]

I think McCain would have to Swift Vote to win and Im hopeful that he wont resort to that tactic since Bush used such underhanded tactics on McCain himself.

[Axxon]

I honestly thought Hillary would give McCain a tougher race than Obama.

I saw today that Obama's people were spinning that he was all about getting the delegates and not worried about underperforming in key battleground states...wonder how they'll spin it if McCain blows him out in those states during the general?

I don't think Hillary would have given a better race. There's way too many republicans who still have a hate on for the Clintons, especially the far right who really doesn't like McCain all that much either. They'd certainly have been motivated to vote against a Clinton but now, maybe not so motivated to vote for McCain.

I think the proof is in the pudding considering how many republicans worked hard to vote for Clinton trying to get her in the general election. You can say that this shows they support her but I'm not that naive; they preferred facing her.

[cartman]

I find the Carter-Obama comparison amusing. They are polar opposites. The knock on Obama is that he doesn't give specifics and speaks about vision, where Carter was a consumate micromanager and got too wrapped up in the minutiae of day to day operations.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think Hillary would have given a better race. There's way too many republicans who still have a hate on for the Clintons, especially the far right who really doesn't like McCain all that much either. They'd certainly have been motivated to vote against a Clinton but now, maybe not so motivated to vote for McCain.

I agree. The idea of Clinton as president would be enough to get people out to vote against her. She's a polarizing figure. While McCain may not cater to all, a lot of moderates like him and I think he'd get their vote over Clinton's.

I still think McCain was the Republican's best bet for the White House regardless of the Democrat's nomination.

Hopefully Obama can pull this out.

See you fellas in November.

[Axxon]

I don't know. That's the feeling I got in the republican debates. I think he fared badly in those.

Plus, I've already seen this photo making the rounds and used in this kind of discussion.

http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/mccain.jpg?w=199&h=300

This one too.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RKUpDwgBkzX3nM:http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/mccain-angryu.jpg

Unfair, but image is everything nowadays.

[Barkeep49]

Have people looked at the electoral map? I'm just amazed that Obama is running away with it here. Must be post nomination bump effect in full swing.

[SFL Cat]

I don't think Hillary would have given a better race. There's way too many republicans who still have a hate on for the Clintons, especially the far right who really doesn't like McCain all that much either. They'd certainly have been motivated to vote against a Clinton but now, maybe not so motivated to vote for McCain.

I think the proof is in the pudding considering how many republicans worked hard to vote for Clinton trying to get her in the general election. You can say that this shows they support her but I'm not that naive; they preferred facing her.

To me, except for a few issues, McCain and Clinton are pretty much the same politicians ...so in a race between them people vote for their parties ... and with a lot of Dems fired up about getting rid of Bush and a lot of Republicans lukewarm about McCain - I can see a very good chance of a Dem victory.

Now Obama is far to the left of Clinton (especially after she tried to edge toward the middle for broader appeal), I think he's ranked as one of the most left-leaning members of the Senate. Other than his brief time in the Senate, he has NO resume or accomplishments to speak of (unless he wants to tout being the first black man nominated by a political party for president)....at least Jimmy Carter could say he had been in the military and was the governor of a state. In addition, I think we now start to hear a lot more about his associations with Rezko, Giannoulias, Ayers, not to mention his kook ex-pastor. Admit it or not, there is a split in the Democrat party that rivals anything among Republicans at the moment, and depending on how Clinton is handled by Obama and the party heading into the Convention, will determine whether her supporters hop on the bandwagon, vote for McCain or stay home. Also, I think an Obama candidacy causes a lot of Republicans to vote who otherwise might have stayed home, because as lukewarm as they might be toward McCain...Clinton is the devil they know...Obama is the great unknown.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate.

Right up until he hits an audience that actually understands a subject & then he's exposed as a borderline idiot.

Hearing him speak on issues concerning the broadcast industry is downright painful, He's utterly clueless on the subject and yet doesn't let it stop him for a second.

Sorry Cronin, but his best (and only real) hope is to be "not Obama". If it depends on being McCain, he's a dead duck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... that's why the middle is so popular. It's where most of the people are.

Yep, that's where I'd want to stake my claim -- the middle, right there with the folks who make American Idol so popular. Ever heard me make many arguments in favor of the intelligence or character of the average American?
I didn't think so.

So, you're saying that either you have to be an extremist to the left or an extremist to the right or you aren't respected.

Be committed to something. Hell, be committed to anything other than mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies. Honestly Axxon, those that aren't are pretty easily dismissed & not worthy of a great deal of respect. They've already shown either a lack of principles or a willingness to bend whatever weak principles they have. They're easy enough to go around or through when the need arises.

[JonInMiddleGA]

they preferred facing her.

Agreed ... but not necessarily because they thought that race was more winnable (indeed, I believe enough GOP voters didn't see enough difference that she would have won that matchup).

It's just that losing it wasn't nearly as potentially devastating to the nation as the alternative prospect. Hillary's problem was going to be execution, no matter how horrendous some of her proposals were, at least some of them were doomed to failure because there's only so much money to throw around.

[Axxon]

To me, except for a few issues, McCain and Clinton are pretty much the same politicians ...so in a race between them people vote for their parties ... and with a lot of Dems fired up about getting rid of Bush and a lot of Republicans lukewarm about McCain - I can see a very good chance of a Dem victory.

Now Obama is far to the left of Clinton (especially after she tried to edge toward the middle for broader appeal), I think he's ranked as one of the most left-leaning members of the Senate. Other than his brief time in the Senate, he has NO resume or accomplishments to speak of (unless he wants to tout being the first black man nominated by a political party for president)....at least Jimmy Carter could say he had been in the military and was the governor of a state. In addition, I think we now start to hear a lot more about his associations with Rezko, Giannoulias, Ayers, not to mention his kook ex-pastor. Admit it or not, there is a split in the Democrat party that rivals anything among Republicans at the moment, and depending on how Clinton is handled by Obama and the party heading into the Convention, will determine whether her supporters hop on the bandwagon, vote for McCain or stay home. Also, I think an Obama candidacy causes a lot of Republicans to vote who otherwise might have stayed home, because as lukewarm as they might be toward McCain...Clinton is the devil they know...Obama is the great unknown.

I'd certainly disagree here. In a normal election cycle yeah, sure, but this is a vote on the war and the declining economy. The country as a whole is getting tired and democrats have been voting in record numbers. It's very naive to think that those numbers are going to just stay home now ( oh gee, only Hillary could solve this mess, might as well stay at home - that's insulting. Oh gee, Hillary lost, only McCain can solve this mess is equally as insulting. Plus I think more republicans would have voted against Hillary due to the Clinton name. Apparently I'm reading different conservative boards than you are here ) that Hillary lost. It's about being fed up with the status quo not pro any candidate at this point. I just don't see a huge fallout no matter which candidate would have won the nomination.

[lordscarlet]

Um. So if you are in the "middle", which merely means you believe in some of the Republican ideals and some of the Democrat ideals, makes you unintelligent? If my only choice to be a zealot for are the Democrats and the Republicans, there's far more wrong with the world than being a moderate.

[st.cronin]

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

[panerd]

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them. While I am of the opinion that the Democrats didn't do anything about Iraq I think most of the country still blames this on Bush 100% and think a Democratic president will get us out of Iraq. While I can't say that I want Obama (or McCain either) to win. I think on Iraq alone ('100 years' will be an ad that we see a whole lot) Obama wins in a landslide.

[Axxon]

Yep, that's where I'd want to stake my claim -- the middle, right there with the folks who make American Idol so popular. Ever heard me make many arguments in favor of the intelligence or character of the average American?
I didn't think so.



Be committed to something. Hell, be committed to anything other than mediocrity, surrender, appeasement of your enemies. Honestly Axxon, those that aren't are pretty easily dismissed & not worthy of a great deal of respect. They've already shown either a lack of principles or a willingness to bend whatever weak principles they have. They're easy enough to go around or through when the need arises.

Or maybe they have a vision that their parents were right. You know, Jon, play well with others and all that. Maybe they look at both extremes and honestly disagree with both of them. I know I do; I just am more afraid of the right's kooks than I am of the left's kooks honestly.

All those things you consider weakness are things I stand for. I believe that the answer is in the middle because more people will work towards accomplishing your goals instead of opposing them simply because you have an R or D behind your name. I believe you'll get more workable ideas that way and I don't believe that anyone's interests should be marginalized though the extreme ones shouldn't be acted on.

Compromise isn't appeasement no matter what you think.

I believe that more or less this country believed in this pre Reagan and while there were missteps that this country did alright and left or right you could feel proud of it. Now, not so much.

[st.cronin]

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them.

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If my only choice to be a zealot for are the Democrats and the Republicans, there's far more wrong with the world than being a moderate.

It's not about the labels, they're merely a convenient shorthand. It's about the principles that each are attached to. And there's too many instances where the two have distinct separations for me to find credible anyone who can't find enough to distinguish which camp they fall into more closely.

I'm not remotely suggesting that there's some need for a 100% match (remember, I'm adamantly pro-choice), but damned if I can understand how anyone can't find a reasonably consistent leaning toward which one is more compatible with their own priorities ... or at least damned if I can take very seriously anyone who can't.

[Axxon]

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I'm not disagreeing with this so I'm not sure which of my posts you disagreed with that made you post this. Sorry.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I believe that the answer is in the middle

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.

Compromise isn't appeasement no matter what you think.

We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

[panerd]

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

They lost an awful lot of seats. I think they lost every single close senate and house election. (Obviously some areas are GOP and Dem strongholds where the other side will never win) Missouri was solidly Bush and GOP territory in '00 and '04 and McKaskill won in '06. I didn't mean to say they won a huge majority of the senate, I mean they won every possible seat they should of won and most of the ones that they had a chance on.

[Axxon]

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.



We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

My goal isn't to make anyone happy or unhappy. My goal isn't appeasement. It's doing what's in the best interest of the country first and that generally falls in the middle ranges not either extreme.

Your way simply ensures that while you've got your knee on some guys chest and holding a knife to their throat that the next guy is sharpening his knife waiting for you to finish so he can stick it to you. That's not good politics it's madness.

[SFL Cat]

I'd certainly disagree here. In a normal election cycle yeah, sure, but this is a vote on the war and the declining economy. The country as a whole is getting tired and democrats have been voting in record numbers. It's very naive to think that those numbers are going to just stay home now ( oh gee, only Hillary could solve this mess, might as well stay at home - that's insulting. Oh gee, Hillary lost, only McCain can solve this mess is equally as insulting. Plus I think more republicans would have voted against Hillary due to the Clinton name. Apparently I'm reading different conservative boards than you are here ) that Hillary lost. It's about being fed up with the status quo not pro any candidate at this point. I just don't see a huge fallout no matter which candidate would have won the nomination.

If voters are disillusioned because they feel mistreated by their own party or they feel their candidate has been mistreated (whether legitimate or not), then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I easily could see her endorsing McCain out of spite.

[ISiddiqui]

If voters feel disillusioned or feel they've been treated badly or their candidate has been treated badly by their party (whether legitimate or not) then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I could actually see her endorsing McCain in spite.

Hillary WON'T endorse McCain. She's already seeing the grief Liebermann is getting. She just won't campaign for him.

[Axxon]

They lost an awful lot of seats. I think they lost every single close senate and house election. (Obviously some areas are GOP and Dem strongholds where the other side will never win) Missouri was solidly Bush and GOP territory in '00 and '04 and McKaskill won in '06. I didn't mean to say they won a huge majority of the senate, I mean they won every possible seat they should of won and most of the ones that they had a chance on.


I used to work with a guy who was far more extremely republican than anyone here, even Jon. He was a nice guy but out there.

We had a friendly ( I thought ) bet about that election. I said the democrats would win the house but not the senate and he said the democrats wouldn't win either.

Well, that night, after Fox called both chambers democrat I went up to him and wanted to be very conciliatory.

I said "man, hard night tonight. Looks like things went different than either of us thought."

"It's not over yet."

:confused:

"Come on, it's over. Fox just called it."

"You can't believe the liberal media."

:confused: I'd never heard Fox called liberal before.

"I'm reading (some conservative blogger I'd never heard of ) and he's saying that the exit polling is way closer than everyone else is posting. It looks like we're actually going to pick up some seats in the senate and could still keep the house."

"Dude, everyone is saying it's over. I've read republican leaders say it's over."

"Get out of here. You're only trying to agitate me."

We never spoke on politics or about the bet ever again. Nice guy but that was a HUGE wow moment.

[Axxon]

If voters are disillusioned because they feel mistreated by their own party or they feel their candidate has been mistreated (whether legitimate or not), then hell yeah, I can see them staying home. Nothing stings worse than a perceived slight/insult from a supposed ally. Like I said, a lot will depend on how Obama and the party deal with Hillary leading up to the convention. And as I have also said, if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, I easily could see her endorsing McCain out of spite.

NO, she'd never do that but I agree she aced herself into the picture with the preemptive strike on the vp situation. It's going to look bad if he doesn't give it to her now.

Then again, anyone who would vote against their beliefs simply for spite, well, that's when I agree with Jon, those people deserve whatever they get.

[Axxon]

Hillary WON'T endorse McCain. She's already seeing the grief Liebermann is getting. She just won't campaign for him.


I don't think she'd campaign for McCain unless she endorsed him. That'd be odd.

[Klinglerware]

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I have to admit that I am not caught up with the minutiae of the demographics of this election yet, so it could be the case that independents will matter this year.

However, election strategy (especially on the Republican side) in the last 15 years had very little to do with convincing independent voters to vote for you. Simply put, the keystone strategy was turnout management: target the voters that were already ideologically inclined to vote for you and convince them to turn out to vote. The idea here was that it was more efficient and that there was more to gain by engaging your pre-existing base rather than to take the extra (and often wasted) step of having to convince undecideds and those already inclined to vote for the opponent.

[Flasch186]

there is no way in heck she'll campaign for anyone except Obama....Period.

[SackAttack]

Sorry Cronin, but his best (and only real) hope is to be "not Obama". If it depends on being McCain, he's a dead duck.

I dunno. I keep looking at the two of them and thinking "I wonder if this is what it was like when Nixon ran against Kennedy." I just wonder if the stark contrast in appearance and speaking styles might not end up being more powerful than McCain thinks it will be.

[SFL Cat]

NO, she'd never do that but I agree she aced herself into the picture with the preemptive strike on the vp situation. It's going to look bad if he doesn't give it to her now.

Then again, anyone who would vote against their beliefs simply for spite, well, that's when I agree with Jon, those people deserve whatever they get.

I'm not saying it's likely to happen...but I could see her doing it. :)

As for McCain, except for his position on the war (which bascially mirrors Hillary's campaign position), he's pretty much a Democrat in what he supports...so if any moderate Democrats vote for him, I don't really see it as a vote against their beliefs.

[Axxon]

I dunno. I keep looking at the two of them and thinking "I wonder if this is what it was like when Nixon ran against Kennedy." I just wonder if the stark contrast in appearance and speaking styles might not end up being more powerful than McCain thinks it will be.

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet?? ;)

[Kodos]

After the torture of the past 8 years, any Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama deserves what they get.

[SFL Cat]

I remember people debating that the '06 elections were actually going to be close (no way they lose the senate) and the GOP got their asses handed to them. While I am of the opinion that the Democrats didn't do anything about Iraq I think most of the country still blames this on Bush 100% and think a Democratic president will get us out of Iraq. While I can't say that I want Obama (or McCain either) to win. I think on Iraq alone ('100 years' will be an ad that we see a whole lot) Obama wins in a landslide.

Well, some bright Republican campaign aid could mention to his candidate that gasoline prices are up nearly $2.00 per gallon on average since the Democrats took control of Congress. :)

and as far as my first presidential campaign ad....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4FD-j_Dqq8

[Axxon]

Maybe its just because I've been a McCain fan for a long time, going back to before 2000, but I just don't see this at all. He's not a particularly polished speaker when reading, but he has terrific presence when he's unscripted - I would expect him to do well in a debate. Cantankerous old man, that sounds like Dole, Perot, maybe Bush 41, but it doesn't seem to describe McCain at all.

I had read this last night on the conservative board I posted from earlier.

Well, awhile back I made a post saying Mccain has it in the bag..I could not have been more wrong. Now I am starting to think it will take a miracle for him to win. Listening to his speech today was painful. He seemed really blah focusing more on distancing himself from Bush then he did trying to make himself an appealing candidate. I hate to say it but his speech which was kicking off the general election, you would think he would be pumped up, was borrrring and that is not going to appeal to voters when they see Obama making this MLK style speeches in front of thousands of loud fans. This general election is going to label Mccain as old and boring, and Obama as the new young popular guy with loads of energy and charisma.

I remember Mccain in the primary debates, he was so quick to attack the other republicans, yet now, he seems to be focusing on making friends with Obama rather than running against him, and it is going to backfire big time. I watched Obama's speech after and he spent a lot of time just ripping into Mccain, does old John think that its not going to hurt his chances to be talked about like that? I dont get it.

After todays speeches I thought back to when I went to a Romney rally in Long Beach. I couldn't help but think how much different Romney's speech would have been to kick off the GENERAL election. He would have showed energy, confidence, and excitement for being there ready to take on Obama in debate as soon as possible, wheras with Mccain I get the feeling he dreads going up against Obama.

It is what it is though, guess we will see what happens soon enough.

but today I also read this there.

Today I went and saw John McCain here in Reno. He spoke for about an hour and a half, and I have come to like him a lot more. He's still not my favorite, but I feel better about supporting him. Immigration, he could be better but I think a good VP can help wim with that. ANWR, I don't agree with him but he's leaning more towards alternate energy so that kind of makes up for that problem. He's dedicated to taking out spending and I am convinced that pork barrel spending will be gone i he's elected. He has some other good ideas, like making it harder to raise taxes, taking out the AMT (alternate minimum tax) and reducing another one. It ends up being like a $2,700 tax break. I am also convinced we would win the war on terror and our military would become stronger quiickly if he wins, something I really want to see happen quickly.
He also has conservative values, like overturning Roe v. Wade and appoining conservative justices who will protect traditional marriage and not let the constitution be ripped up into shreds. I feel better about supporting him an am not as hesitant to support him as I was.

So it looks like there's some debate on this issue but it can't be good to have this kind of divide on a board that literally only allows conservatives/republicans to post since these are the people who are supposed to like their candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... the next guy is sharpening his knife waiting for you to finish so he can stick it to you.

That's why you don't ever let him get near a knife in the first place (not to mention why you make sure several guys with firearms are covering you while you're "negotiating").

that generally falls in the middle ranges

Clearly we disagree most strongly on that point.

[chesapeake]

Axxon - this election, like all general elections, will not be determined by Democrats or Republicans. It will be determined by independents. If the independents turn against Obama, he will lose. Likewise, if the independents turn against McCain, he will lose.

I respectfully disagree. The 2004 election came down more to Bush turning out GOP voters from previously untapped sources than any dominance among independents.

This election would appear to rely even more on each candidate's ability to consolidate and turn out his party's base. Traditional Democrats are fractured by a difficult primary; traditional Republicans are demoralized by defeat and the failed Bush presidency and concerned about a candidate that many believe doesn't sufficiently embrace social conservatism. If independents split fairly evenly, which seems very possible, whoever turns out their base best wins.

That favors Dems, because 1) our base is angrier about the status quo; and 2) our base is bigger.

[SFL Cat]

That's actually civil compared to some of the stuff I've seen going on between Obama and Clinton supporters on other boards.

[Axxon]

That's why you don't ever let him get near a knife in the first place (not to mention why you make sure several guys with firearms are covering you while you're "negotiating").



Clearly we disagree most strongly on that point.

Then they get guys with tanks to cover them while they're killing the guys with firearms. Yes, this is going to end well.

[chesapeake]

The GOP in fact lost the Senate by a tiny margin.

But the election was a butt-whoopin. In the Senate, 18 Dems were up (including Lieberman) and 15 GOP senators. Dems (and affiliated independents) won 24, GOP won 9. The national vote in all races went 56% to 42%. That is not a close election.

[lordscarlet]

It's not about the labels, they're merely a convenient shorthand. It's about the principles that each are attached to. And there's too many instances where the two have distinct separations for me to find credible anyone who can't find enough to distinguish which camp they fall into more closely.

I'm not remotely suggesting that there's some need for a 100% match (remember, I'm adamantly pro-choice), but damned if I can understand how anyone can't find a reasonably consistent leaning toward which one is more compatible with their own priorities ... or at least damned if I can take very seriously anyone who can't.

I think its because candidates do, surprisingly, distinguish themselves within a party at times. Clinton (Bill) may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than does Dole, however Bush may have more ideas that a voter agrees with than Gore. I don't have specific examples or personal opinions that necessarily match up with this, I just imagine it is possible. Personally, I would vote on one issue over any other this election cycle (gaining voting rights), but I don't see many major issues changing based on the candidate that is elected. We're in Iraq no matter who gets in -- we may pull out earlier with a Democrat, but I don't think the difference will be that large. They'll both spend a lot. Republicans may try to give us more money back even though they keep raising their budget. [shrug]

I won't be happy with politics until we're out of the two party system.

[Axxon]

That's actually civil compared to some of the stuff I've seen going on between Obama and Clinton supporters on other boards.

Are you talking about what I posted?

That site has a republican only and democrat only board and the democrat board is very not civil about Obama vs Clinton but in fairness, McCain isn't vs anybody yet so there's no reason for that heated a discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet?? ;)

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

[chesapeake]

We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.

That's why we love you, JimGA. How you manage to stay married with this philosophy is one of life's delightful mysteries. :)

[Axxon]

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

Yes, and get mayor Daley's aupport wouldn't hurt either. ;)

[SFL Cat]

Are you talking about what I posted?

That site has a republican only and democrat only board and the democrat board is very not civil about Obama vs Clinton but in fairness, McCain isn't vs anybody yet so there's no reason for that heated a discussion.

Yes it was.

As for McCain, he still has a lot of ground to cover to win over the party's conservatives. Touting his willingness to sell out his party to side with Democrats time after time doesn't win him many brownie points .... :)

Personally, I don't think its a very smart strategy..."I think I'll flip off people who are more than likely to vote for me to score points with people who wouldn't vote for me if I was the last guy on earth"...but, what do I know? :D

[SFL Cat]

With all this Nixon/Kennedy talk, I keep thinking that Obama has to pick Clinton to keep it going. Kennedy took LBJ and they hated each other from the primary battle.

True...and a lot of the conspiracy theories have LBJ involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. One more thing to consider before asking Hillary to be his VP. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

How you manage to stay married with this philosophy is one of life's delightful mysteries. :)

My wife would definitely agree ;)

[Axxon]

Yes it was.

As for McCain, he still has a lot of ground to cover to win over the party's conservatives. Touting his willingness to sell out his party to side with Democrats time after time doesn't win him many brownie points .... :)

Personally, I don't think its a very smart strategy..."I think I'll flip off people who are more than likely to vote for me to score points with people who wouldn't vote for me if I was the last guy on earth"...but, what do I know? :D

It's rough. There aren't enough members of his base to win without more moderate votes ( the ones without knees on their chests and knives to their throats that is ) and there's no way he gets those in this climate by appealing to his base.

Since he's polling higher than many thought he would kinda shows he's not making a horrible choice.

[Axxon]

True...and a lot of the conspiracy theories have LBJ involved in the plot to assassinate JFK. One more thing to consider before asking Hillary to be his VP. :)


Not seriously but last night that thought crossed my mind. :)

[SFL Cat]

Not seriously but last night that thought crossed my mind. :)

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy. ;)

[Axxon]

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy. ;)

Remember Eddie Murphy's bit on the first black president? :D

[Axxon]

Seriously...what's to keep some crazed backwoods bigot who decides no *unkind word for a person of color* is going to be my president? I'm sure Hillary's first action as president would be to appoint Bill to the head of some commission to get to the bottom of this horrible tragedy. ;)

Actually, that's a great reason to pick Hillary. NO way a crazed backwoods bigot is going to want Hillary as prez.

[SFL Cat]

You've got a point... :)

[SFL Cat]

It's rough. There aren't enough members of his base to win without more moderate votes ( the ones without knees on their chests and knives to their throats that is ) and there's no way he gets those in this climate by appealing to his base.

Since he's polling higher than many thought he would kinda shows he's not making a horrible choice.

Obviously, he doesn't have to worry about these voters going to Clinton or Obama, but he does have to worry about them throwing up their hands, staying home, and letting things fall where they may.

[Axxon]

Obviously, he doesn't have to worry about these voters going to Clinton or Obama, but he does have to worry about them throwing up their hands, staying home, and letting things fall where they may.

Yes, but those people hate Clinton and would be far more motivated to get to the polls to vote against her than they will to get out to vote against Obama IMHO.

[Sgran]

I voted for Obama in the poll, but the truth is I have no idea where this election is going. Obama has the "anybody else" vote, but I think there is still a lot of racism in America. And don't forget how historic Obama's run is: he wouldn't just be the first elected black American president, he would be the first elected black head of state in any white country anywhere. Ever.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he would be the first elected minority head of state in a white country.
If i were one of his campaign strategists, I would suggest starting to invite the Dwayne Johnsons, Vin Diesels and other high profile mullatos on the campaign just to give those middle class white voters the hint that "hey, actually Obama isn't really black, he's just half black, like Jason Kidd. or tiger woods. That's not so bad."

[SackAttack]

Wow, Nixon/Kennedy. Wonder why no one has brought that up yet?? ;)

I'm sure someone has. I'm sure lots of someones have.

That's just what came to mind for me when I read Jon's comment is all.

[Noop]

After the torture of the past 8 years, any Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama deserves what they get.

+1

[Axxon]

I'm sure someone has. I'm sure lots of someones have.

That's just what came to mind for me when I read Jon's comment is all.

I was just teasing because I'd just mentioned it shortly upthread. That's all.

[Axxon]

I voted for Obama in the poll, but the truth is I have no idea where this election is going. Obama has the "anybody else" vote, but I think there is still a lot of racism in America. And don't forget how historic Obama's run is: he wouldn't just be the first elected black American president, he would be the first elected black head of state in any white country anywhere. Ever.
In fact, I'm pretty sure he would be the first elected minority head of state in a white country.
If i were one of his campaign strategists, I would suggest starting to invite the Dwayne Johnsons, Vin Diesels and other high profile mullatos on the campaign just to give those middle class white voters the hint that "hey, actually Obama isn't really black, he's just half black, like Jason Kidd. or tiger woods. That's not so bad."


Or half black like, I don't know, Barack Obama.

You do realize his mother is white right?

Ann Dunham and her son Barack -

http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/copy-of-barak-and-mother-small.jpg

EDIT - ok, I see what you were saying but I'm leaving the picture up because it's a good one.

[chesapeake]

Yes, but those people hate Clinton and would be far more motivated to get to the polls to vote against her than they will to get out to vote against Obama IMHO.

That is the real conundrum that Obama faces. Do you take HRC as your VP to ensure her supporters turn out for you, but then acquire all the baggage the Clintons bring along; or do you pick someone else, making a clean break from the Clinton/Bush era but risking losing a significant portion of her supporters.

[DaddyTorgo]

FWIW on McCain - my father met with Mitt Romney a couple weeks back on business, and while they were preparing to shoot the video (for Bain Consulting's big birthday bash), they were talking politics.

Romney (who is universally acknowledged as a masterful speaker and persuasive person) said of Obama: "He's got it. No doubt about it. Unless he blows himself up, he's got it."

And when talking about McCain he said something to the effect of: "Poor John. Nice guy, but he can't read a teleprompter to save his life. Did you see his speech the other day? I read that speech in advance...he missed at least 75% of his great lines that were written into it because he can't follow the teleprompter."

I surmise that something like this may be why McCain would like to push the town-hall style debates - to play to his strength and get soundbites out of them instead of out of stilted, prepared speeches that he fumbles around in.

[DaddyTorgo]

So your goal is to make everyone unhappy? That's what Bush gets blasted for.



We disagree. The best scenario for compromise is with your knee in your opponent's chest and your knife at his throat. That's an acceptable compromise, anything less is nothing more than putting a shine on failure.


were you suckled on Thomas Hobbes or something? "State of Nature" and all?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Do you take HRC as your VP to ensure her supporters turn out for you, but then acquire all the baggage the Clintons bring along; or do you pick someone else, making a clean break from the Clinton/Bush era but risking losing a significant portion of her supporters.

Seems like a math problem from that point.

How many of hers do you lose that simply won't vote at all?
How many do hers you lose that vote for McCain?
How many unlikely voters do you gain by her presence on the ticket somewhere? And how many (if any) McCain voters come over to the combined ticket?

Get reasonable answers to those & the choice becomes pretty simple one way or the other.

[Young Drachma]

Taking Clinton as VP isn't worth the baggage and contrary to what the media says, she doesn't want the job. She's been there and done that.

Obama will get half of her supporters and that's enough to win, so long as the kiddies vote. And yes, I know, that's a bet many have lost before..but in case people didn't realize it yet, Obama hasn't happened before either.

[SFL Cat]

If Obama loses half of Clinton's supporters, he'll lose...and as far as Electoral votes, it'll be a landslide for McCain.

[Young Drachma]

We shall see. Not gonna be a landslide.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If Obama loses half of Clinton's supporters, he'll lose...and as far as Electoral votes, it'll be a landslide for McCain.

Yeah, just some spot checking says half wouldn't leave Obama a pretty picture.

[Young Drachma]

ABC news says Clinton will drop out Friday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/comments?type=story&id=4705151

[Buccaneer]

It will be a close election.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

For me, personally, the past 8 years have been the best years of my life. I didn't like much of what happened in Washington DC (and the world) but then again, I rarely do.

[Axxon]

It will be a close election.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

For me, personally, the past 8 years have been the best years of my life. I didn't like much of what happened in Washington DC (and the world) but then again, I rarely do.

That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard in my life. Your life has been the best so everyone elses life has to be the best or they're just partisan liars.

No disrespect but fuck you. I know several people who are worse off than 8 years ago. My best friend was laid off 8 months ago and had to take a job at half the paycheck. He's drowning in debt. The woman I'm seeing lost her little brother in the war. Again, fuck you.

[ace1914]

Not as flamboyant as Axxon, but I agree. I had the hardest time after 9-11 and things are finally looking better for me going into 2009. I was a Clinton supporter until she decided to continuously take the low road against Obama. He hardly ever responded with the level rebuttals despite everything the Clintons did. That sits very well with me so its Obama for me in Nov.

[Buccaneer]

That's the most arrogant thing I've ever heard in my life. Your life has been the best so everyone elses life has to be the best or they're just partisan liars.

No disrespect but fuck you. I know several people who are worse off than 8 years ago. My best friend was laid off 8 months ago and had to take a job at half the paycheck. He's drowning in debt. The woman I'm seeing lost her little brother in the war. Again, fuck you.

Back in the late 60s and early 70s, I heard of several families of schoolmates that lost members to the Vietnam war (though no one in my family, that I can recall). Then the recession hit, the global markets changed and my dad lost his job of 20 years ago. In the next several years, there were constant bad news in the semiconductor field and we moved around a lot. For a lot of people, those were the best years. During the 1990s, it got so bad for my parents that they ended up foreclosing and declaring bankruptcy. A lot of people wished the prosperity of the 1990s were here again. My parents do not.

I really didn't mean to sound like it did since I was making two separate points. It is true that, for me personally (I did say that), these have been the best years - BUT it had nothing to do with who's president, no more than my parents can blame Clinton (or Nixon) for their troubles.

One of the reasons it had been the best is because I was able to give more than I have ever been able to before. I have come to learn to separate myself from the politics of the federal govt and do what I can locally and within my sphere of influence. I contribute sizeable amounts to local services that help families that are hurting and are in need. I've talked to some of them, give what I can to help, esp. material and financial needs, so I can make a small difference in their lives. I am not delusional to know that it will never happen to me, as I seen with my parents and others in my family. There were people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years ago and there will people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years from now and it is our responsibility to do what we can and not expect some governmental powers do do it for you.

[Swaggs]

It will be a close election.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

For me, personally, the past 8 years have been the best years of my life. I didn't like much of what happened in Washington DC (and the world) but then again, I rarely do.

You obviously have not had anyone close to you have to spend time in, become disabled, or die in Iraq. You probably do not have to spend much time or gas in your vehicle on your way to or from work. You probably have not tried to sell your house in the past year. And, I would guess that you have little to no interest in public education (and/or you make enough money to send your child to public school or live in a wealthy area that has a well-funded public school system).

[Buccaneer]

You obviously have not had anyone close to you have to spend time in, become disabled, or die in Iraq. You probably do not have to spend much time or gas in your vehicle on your way to or from work. You probably have not tried to sell your house in the past year. And, I would guess that you have little to no interest in public education (and/or you make enough money to send your child to public school or live in a wealthy area that has a well-funded public school system).

I live 1/2 mile from one of the gates to Fort Carson. Many of the families of the 3rd Brigade live in my neighborhood. I believe this brigade has suffered more casualties than any other single brigade. I have seen and know of dozens of families that left the neighborhood because the father or mother was killed or mia.

No, I don't spend much time or gas in my vehicle. It was a conscious lifestyle choice to not do so, partly in eliminating many non-critical trips. I am also an advocate for public transportation and despite my libertarianism, support a 1% sales tax increase to fund a regional public transportation system.

I am not selling our house this year and fortunately, we did not have the real estate run-up that some other places have.

I have had a great interest in public education since my son started going to our neighborhood public school 6 years ago. We live in the poorest school district in the city (District 2) but I am very thankful for the wonderful teachers he had 4 of the 6 years. Plus I am also grateful for the Special Ed help that they had been giving him.

Yes, I am trying to talk my way out of this and while I regret what I implied, I still try to make the point that personal circumstances rarely have anything to do who is or is not president. The Iraq war may be an exception (but I still would argue that other presidents, of either party, may have made the same choice) but I also lived during the Vietnam War and that was bad too.

[ISiddiqui]

I still would argue that other presidents, of either party, may have made the same choice

Not with Iraq.

[Buccaneer]

Not with Iraq.

I disagree, as we have discussed several times in the past 5 years. Going to war (whether in 2003 or later) would have been the easy choice, it's what happened after the brief 1-month war that makes the difference. Anyone administration would have done better and gotten out much, much sooner instead of enduring needless casualties since the fall of Baghdad.

[ISiddiqui]

I seriously doubt that Gore or McCain would have gone after Iraq.

[Buccaneer]

I seriously doubt that Gore or McCain would have gone after Iraq.

Depending how much pressure UN, Congress and the media had put on WMD and the Resolutions. Hindsight does not count. But what about the next four years with either McCain or Obama where we will not see any significant reductions until 2012-2013? Will we still tolerate casualties in the meantime?

[Raiders Army]

I've had a great 8 years. In fact, this year I'll earn 40% more than I did last year. Next year, I'll earn about 10% more than this year. I've gone to Iraq (note, I said IRAQ, not Kuwait, Qatar, etc.).

I can't complain.

[Axxon]

Back in the late 60s and early 70s, I heard of several families of schoolmates that lost members to the Vietnam war (though no one in my family, that I can recall). Then the recession hit, the global markets changed and my dad lost his job of 20 years ago. In the next several years, there were constant bad news in the semiconductor field and we moved around a lot. For a lot of people, those were the best years. During the 1990s, it got so bad for my parents that they ended up foreclosing and declaring bankruptcy. A lot of people wished the prosperity of the 1990s were here again. My parents do not.

I really didn't mean to sound like it did since I was making two separate points. It is true that, for me personally (I did say that), these have been the best years - BUT it had nothing to do with who's president, no more than my parents can blame Clinton (or Nixon) for their troubles.

One of the reasons it had been the best is because I was able to give more than I have ever been able to before. I have come to learn to separate myself from the politics of the federal govt and do what I can locally and within my sphere of influence. I contribute sizeable amounts to local services that help families that are hurting and are in need. I've talked to some of them, give what I can to help, esp. material and financial needs, so I can make a small difference in their lives. I am not delusional to know that it will never happen to me, as I seen with my parents and others in my family. There were people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years ago and there will people hurting 1, 5, 10, 15 years from now and it is our responsibility to do what we can and not expect some governmental powers do do it for you.

During Vietnam, my little town lost a few guys and since it was a town of roughly 1000 that was felt. My sister lost a very good friend she'd dated once or twice and who'd hung out with me too a couple of times when somebody had to. Really great guy. She was pretty shook up by it and started protesting the war but not really enthusiastically.

I was too young for all that but I can remember sitting in my room, clutching my IG Joe and crying because I simply knew that this war wasn't ever going to end and one day, it'd be me that was going to die and my family would be mourning me. Didn't really stop me from playing war with Joe though ( this was pre kung foo grip in my house ).

I hear a lot of people blaming Nixon for Vietnam but even then I knew it was Kennedy and then Johnson. Nixon got us out of Vietnam and frankly, for that he has always had my utmost gratitude and his foreign policy successes have earned my utmost respect. I don't get how anyone can really doubt either of those two things even though of course, it wasn't as black and white as a paragraph here can convey, thems the facts.

[Barkeep49]

Buc, how, if at all, do you reconcile libertarian views with government support for public transport?

[Rizon]

McCain in a landslide. You heard it here first.

[Axxon]

McCain in a landslide. You heard it here first.

So, he's planning to go mountain climbing in the future?? Rough way to go out though. ;)

[Rizon]

So, he's planning to go mountain climbing in the future?? Rough way to go out though. ;)

Hmmmm ... what worse, die in landslide or lose to obama

[Axxon]

Hmmmm ... what worse, die in landslide or lose to obama

Well, Hillary can answer the second part and no one can answer the first one. I guess we could ask her if she'd rather have died in landslide but that's be anectdotal at best.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I seriously doubt that Gore or McCain would have gone after Iraq.

Just one of many reasons I'm thankful neither of them was in the White House during the past several years.

[Rizon]

This is how it will go down

Popular Vote

McCain 56%
Obama 40%
Other 4%

[Rizon]

This is how it will go down

Popular Vote

McCain 56%
Obama 40%
Other 4%

And I'm neither Republican or Democrat. This is what my magic 8 ball has told me.

[Rizon]

And I'm neither Republican or Democrat. This is what my magic 8 ball has told me.

Amd I'm drunk. But still.

[Axxon]

One question for those who identify as Republicans. How important is McCain's choice of VP to you? McCain if he wins is going to be the oldest person ever to start a presidential term. Does this worry you at all and will you consider his VP as important or is any VP better than the alternative?

[JonInMiddleGA]

... or lose to obama

Easy question: Lose to Obama is far worse.

You can have an extraordinary circumstance of bad luck & die in a landslide.
It takes a concerted string of fuck ups to lose to Obama.

[Axxon]

Just one of many reasons I'm thankful neither of them was in the White House during the past several years.

Yep, Jon's not happy without a heaping helping of dead Americans.

Wonder who else likes heaping helpings of dead American's... oh yeah. ;)

[Rizon]

img gonna need link to drunk thred thx

[Rizon]

Yep, Jon's not happy without a heaping helping of dead Americans.

Wonder who else likes heaping helpings of dead American's... oh yeah. ;)

THEYREEE PEEEEEOPLEEEEEE

[Axxon]

And I'm neither Republican or Democrat. This is what my magic 8 ball has told me.


Be careful cooking up that 8 ball dude. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

One question for those who identify as Republicans. How important is McCain's choice of VP to you? McCain if he wins is going to be the oldest person ever to start a presidential term. Does this worry you at all and will you consider his VP as important or is any VP better than the alternative?

Given the current matchup he could pick virtually anyone - living, dead, fictional - and still be guaranteed my vote this November.

[Rizon]

Be careful cooking up that 8 ball dude. :)

man i could ruse one right now. gonna snort one for hilarry since i have no liquor to poor on the curb

[Axxon]

Easy question: Lose to Obama is far worse.

You can have an extraordinary circumstance of bad luck & die in a landslide.
It takes a concerted string of fuck ups to lose to Obama.

Which is why he's running against republicans. That factor is already built in for him.

[Axxon]

Given the current matchup he could pick virtually anyone - living, dead, fictional - and still be guaranteed my vote this November.


I'd laugh my ass off if he picked Hillary then. :)

[Axxon]

man i could ruse one right now. gonna snort one for hilarry since i have no liquor to poor on the curb

Have fun man. I kinda am envious right now. Might just have to tip a few myself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yep, Jon's not happy without a heaping helping of dead Americans.

Actually, in stony seriousness, I'd be one hell of a lot happier with a lot fewer of them than we've ended up with. But the fault I find there, which I do put at the President's feet to a significant extent, is the failure to properly prosecute the war. The only fault I find with the decision to go to war in the first place might rest with whether I'm ever convinced one way or the other that he knew beforehand that he would not attend to things there in a militarily efficient fashion. In other words, I might someday reach a point of deciding "better not at all than half-assed" but I'm not yet convinced that the eventual strategy was what was originally intended.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd laugh my ass off if he picked Hillary then. :)

They're actually a reasonably well matched set. Neither one of them belong in the White House, but both would be better than the current alternative.

[Axxon]

Actually, in stony seriousness, I'd be one hell of a lot happier with a lot fewer of them than we've ended up with. But the fault I find there, which I do put at the President's feet to a significant extent, is the failure to properly prosecute the war. The only fault I find with the decision to go to war in the first place might rest with whether I'm ever convinced one way or the other that he knew beforehand that he would not attend to things there in a militarily efficient fashion. In other words, I might someday reach a point of deciding "better not at all than half-assed" but I'm not yet convinced that the eventual strategy was what was originally intended.

See, it's the aftermath that to me was inevitable which was why I was very against the war in the first place. Otherwise I'd have been apathetic to it. Can't get worked up with Greneda even though we didn't need to do it.

The aftermath was inevitable. Either that or simply leave then and all we'd have accomplished is create a huge power vacuum in a resource rich country with those not particularly aligned with us surrounding it.

The only way to remove the dictator properly is coup with the power structure already in place to fill the void. Had we done that I wouldn't have had such a negative view of the affair and I think how that turned out would have judged it's success or failure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The aftermath was inevitable

No surprise, but just for the record, we disagree.

And not remotely because I have even the slightest bit of confidence the Iraqis will be capable of governing themselves peacefully in the next hundred years.

[SFL Cat]

Heh...interesting timing on this...day after Obama claims victory...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/06/04/ex-obama_friend_convicted_in_chicago/8389/


Ex-Obama friend convicted in Chicago


Published: June 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM
CHICAGO, June 4 (UPI) -- Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a former friend of Barack Obama and former top adviser to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday on corruption charges.

Rezko was charged with trading on his clout as a Blagojevich adviser and fundraiser. The Chicago Tribune reported the conviction could spell trouble for the governor, who made Rezko an important member of his kitchen Cabinet.

A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezko on 16 of 24 corruption counts after deliberating for parts of 13 days. Rezko was convicted of conspiring with Stuart Levine, a longtime GOP activist, to extort millions from firms seeking state contracts or regulator approval, the Tribune said.

Levine pleaded guilty in 2006 and became a government witness

Trial testimony revealed further allegations, the Tribune said. A former state official told jurors he bought his job with bribes to Rezko and campaign contributions to Blagojevich, and was one of several witnesses who said Rezko talked about derailing the federal investigation by using influence in the Bush White House to get U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald fired.

Witnesses said Rezko's alleged schemes involved political insiders from both parties, the Tribune said.

Rezko was close to many Illinois politicians and had been a major fundraiser for Obama and Blagojevich.

Neither Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, nor the governor has been charged with wrongdoing.

[Axxon]

No surprise, but just for the record, we disagree.

And not remotely because I have even the slightest bit of confidence the Iraqis will be capable of governing themselves peacefully in the next hundred years.

Ok, give me one example in history that would show that you can simply dethrone a population the size of Iraq and then leave and things turn out great without them already having someone inside who is prepared to immediately step up to the plate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and then leave

{scratches head}

Did I say anything about leaving?

[Axxon]

{scratches head}

Did I say anything about leaving?

Ok, what was your plan. Maybe follow Russia's example in Afghanistan...oh wait.

Then what would be the plan? Nation build?

[Kodos]

As usual, I completely disagree with JimG, which means I'm on the right track. :)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Some interesting statements in here of late.

People actually believe die hard democrats who were for Hillary are going to jump ship in any significant number? Some (the vocal minority) are angry right now, but in 5 months there is no chance that they are staying home or voting for McCain. No chance.

People actually believe or thought for a second that Clinton was going to endorse McCain or submarine Obama after the delegates were in? What planet are you living on, man?

People think that because Obama lost to Clinton in some of the important swing states there is no way he can win those in the general election? These people voted for democrats. Around 40 million in total. Clinton was one heckuva candidate and the front runner. She's tough to beat. I can't believe anyone thought he would just walk all over her in some of those states. But she's been beaten now. Obama's now the nominee. People now think that the 18 million who voted for Clinton are just not going to vote anymore in the general election or vote for McCain instead in any significant number? For most of those 18 million, Obama is their second choice.

This election is going to be a turnout election. The turnout for the democratic primaries was enormous. The democratic party is energized. McCain is boring and couldn't energize that pink bunny. For these reasons alone, Obama is going to win easy. Based on the electoral college, I am not saying it will be a landslide, but he will cruise to victory.

[ISiddiqui]

Wasn't Kerry supposed to cruise to victory? ;)

Based on the electoral college, I'm saying this is going to be a very close election. Obama will probably make it closer in a lot of traditional Republican states, but he won't be able to win them, and it'll come down, once again, to the swing states.

[JPhillips]

This is good news for Obama. Here's the email Hillary sent to supporters.

Dear XXX,

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

[BrianD]

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?

[Barkeep49]

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?
5%

[Rizon]

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?

3% (0% in Berkeley)

[st.cronin]

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?

I think it is possible, but not likely. I think it is more likely than Texas going blue.

[chesapeake]

Seems like a math problem from that point.

How many of hers do you lose that simply won't vote at all?
How many do hers you lose that vote for McCain?
How many unlikely voters do you gain by her presence on the ticket somewhere? And how many (if any) McCain voters come over to the combined ticket?

Get reasonable answers to those & the choice becomes pretty simple one way or the other.

I agree that these are the right questions; but there is no way to come up with "reasonable answers." No poll taken today, tomorrow, or even a week before the convention will give you reliable numbers on what voters will feel in the first week of November. Or the middle of October if you live in Oregon or any other jurisdiction that votes by mail.

Obama & Co. will have to take a guess at these variables, and I'm sure some polling will be involved. But, ultimately, it'll all be guesstimates and intuition.

[Buccaneer]

One of the right wing radio guys I was listening to on the drive home last night claimed that California was now in play since Obama has been polling so badly with Hispanics. What do people think are the chances of California going red or nearly going red this time around?

I've been saying this for months now and I really do believe California is in play. There's a huge block of conservative/moderate voters in SD/Orange Counties. Add that Latinos will not be energized as before (more will stay home), plus the Asians will not vote for Obama. Both groups will not necessarily vote for McCain but will likely not vote at all. That's the difference than before.

[Axxon]

Ok, what was your plan. Maybe follow Russia's example in Afghanistan...oh wait.

Then what would be the plan? Nation build?

Hmm, looks like Jon is filled with as many solutions as the current POTUS. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hmm, looks like Jon is filled with as many solutions as the current POTUS. ;)

Nah, just couldn't decide whether to go into a detailed answer or stay in the one liner mode. And the indecision was followed by sleep, then work.

The answer is the same as it has always been (and it isn't like I haven't mentioned it before) -- Our mistake has been trying to turn combat troops into policemen, mediators, referees, social workers, and every other damned thing except what they're most trained to do. Want to try all that? Then send people who have that as their primary mission and let them do what they do. But untie the hands of the combat troops & let them do exactly what's necessary - kill every f'n thing in country that poses a threat until there isn't a viable threat remaining.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, in answer to the seemingly inevitable question: I don't have the slightest concern about the eventual enemy body count.

[SFL Cat]

So...Michele Obama "Whitey" Rant Video...October Surprise or Hoax?

[Young Drachma]

I've been saying this for months now and I really do believe California is in play. There's a huge block of conservative/moderate voters in SD/Orange Counties. Add that Latinos will not be energized as before (more will stay home), plus the Asians will not vote for Obama. Both groups will not necessarily vote for McCain but will likely not vote at all. That's the difference than before.

There aren't THAT many Hispanic or Asian voters. People talk these crowds up way too much. Obama steals a majority of whites under 40. The oldsters will vote for McCain, sure. But the only way McCain has a shot there to win it, is if somehow he can magically depress voter turnout.

I don't know why people are trying to apply old school rules to an election cycle that's simply not like the others. McCain is a good candidate for the GOP to be sure, but he's got a cash flow problem, an age problem and is running against a rock star.

I don't see how you flip a solid blue state with a guy who shares only one thing in common with Reagan. His age.

McCain may win, but if he flips California, it's because Obama is taped saying a slur of some kind against a huge swath of people. And best believe, the Clintons team were looking that tape and if it were out there, they would've found it. The GOP wanted Hillary and Hillary wanted Hillary.

[Young Drachma]

So...Michele Obama "Whitey" Rant Video...October Surprise or Hoax?

Hoax (http://reason.com/blog/show/126883.html)

Michelle Obama is a Harvard trained lawyer who works for 'whitey' at the University of Chicago. I know you authoritarian statists who fashion yourselves as conservatives get off at the notion of an 'implosion' of this silliness level waiting this long to get out. No one would let it get to this point, only to out him now when it'd possible hurt lots of people down the line on the ticket.

I think it's downright hilarious that those drug-addicted wingnut talk show hosts have their heads exploding at the notion that a half-black guy with an African name could manage to lead an operation that turned the political game upside down, so they target his wife in the hopes that she has the weak genes, when really, she's clearly the stronger of the two.

If McCain gets duped into listening to the wackjob patrol going into the fall, he's going to be the one getting rolled on. It would be far more effective for those who don't want to vote for him, to find the multitude of policy reasons why he's a bad idea and convince the American public in a fair debate, rather than resorting to this false notion that he and his wife are going to somehow enter the White House and sign an executive order that makes 'reverse discrimination' the soup de jour in America.

[SFL Cat]

Guess we'll find out. If there is video...and it's released during the campaign...Obama in BIG trouble.

[Young Drachma]

Guess we'll find out. If there is video...and it's released during the campaign...Obama in BIG trouble.

In other news, water is still wet.

[Vegas Vic]

The GOP wanted Hillary and Hillary wanted Hillary.

That was the GOP dogma early in the primary season. Recently, almost of the republican strategists have recognized that Clinton would have been a tougher obstacle in trying to put together an electoral college to get above 270.

[ISiddiqui]

That was the GOP dogma early in the primary season. Recently, almost of the republican strategists have recognized that Clinton would have been a tougher obstacle in trying to put together an electoral college to get above 270.

Yep... in some respects, Hillary was the safer pick for the Dems to get 271. She just had to keep Kerry's states and turn Ohio. Obama is more of a high risk/high reward pick.

[Vegas Vic]

Yep... in some respects, Hillary was the safer pick for the Dems to get 271. She just had to keep Kerry's states and turn Ohio. Obama is more of a high risk/high reward pick.

I don't think there's ever been a primary where the winner basically limped across the finish line while losing the majority of the later primaries (and getting obliterated in a few of them). Once Obama's nomination was a mathematical certainty, you would think that he would have gained some traction and increased his lead.

[cartman]

I don't think there's ever been a primary where the winner basically limped across the finish line while losing the majority of the later primaries (and getting obliterated in a few of them). Once Obama's nomination was a mathematical certainty, you would think that he would have gained some traction and increased his lead.

Yeah, who would have thought Romney would have won the final primary in Montana?

[SFL Cat]

In other news, water is still wet.

Well, with these videos already on YouTube...I can't say I'd be super surprised if this other tape surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogJvgdH6eo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkvvFJtLJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0&feature=related

[SackAttack]

Yeah, who would have thought Romney would have won the final primary in Montana?

Other than the fact that the GOP held a caucus and not a primary in Montana, and the fact that it happened on February 5, not June 3, that's an absolutely valid point. ;)

To answer the other question, I don't think California's going to swing red. The rural parts of the state are pretty solidly red, but the Bay Area and the city of Los Angeles are a) major population centers for the state b) pretty big college areas (which has been a stalwart of Obama's support thus far) and c) Democratic strongholds. McCain would have to either hit a home run on policy or have Obama get caught with a dead girl or a live boy to flip those areas red.

Having turnout be low enough that the rural areas might have enough impact to move the state to the Republican column is another matter, but that's where the issue of gay marriage could really be a wild card this time around. Traditionally, the issue has been a Republican carrot of sorts to inspire voter turnout, and I think that's probable again this year given the uproar over the recent California Supreme Court decision. On the other hand, that same decision could spur liberal turnout in its own support.

You have a court that has mandated that civil unions be performed, which kind of turns the issue from one of affirmative negation (if that makes sense) to an issue where the negation is attempting to remove a recently-established right.

All of which is to say, if civil union supporters turn out en masse to defeat that ballot measure, I can't see how that level of turnout would be anything but harmful to John McCain's hopes of taking the state.

[Axxon]

Nah, just couldn't decide whether to go into a detailed answer or stay in the one liner mode. And the indecision was followed by sleep, then work.

Heh, I knew something like that was the case but I waited a whole day because I thought it'd be mildly amusing to say.


The answer is the same as it has always been (and it isn't like I haven't mentioned it before) -- Our mistake has been trying to turn combat troops into policemen, mediators, referees, social workers, and every other damned thing except what they're most trained to do. Want to try all that? Then send people who have that as their primary mission and let them do what they do. But untie the hands of the combat troops & let them do exactly what's necessary - kill every f'n thing in country that poses a threat until there isn't a viable threat remaining.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, in answer to the seemingly inevitable question: I don't have the slightest concern about the eventual enemy body count.

My point is you have to try all that or you'd get chaos. No one but you is willing to destroy entire countries ( if even possible in any country without prompting ww3 which again, no one but you would want ) to get minimal gain.

You have to either abandon the country which is crappy or end the world which is equally crappy. No offense Jon, honestly, but you have presented a less workable plan than W did.

You said, which sounds possibly doable, that you bring in cops ( from where who the fuck knows ) to do cop jobs and you kill anyone who opposes them. Again, point out one scenario in history where this has ultimately worked and I'll consider it but you're talking fantasy here not anything realistic IMHO.

I believe your position simply encourages fence sitters and eventually ex allies to try and kill you. I don't see where it could possibly work. I really don't. Again, show a precident and I'd have to consider it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Again, show a precident

To do what? Counter all of the overwhelmingly successful alternatives that have worked so beautifully in the region?

[miked]

Well, with these videos already on YouTube...I can't say I'd be super surprised if this other tape surfaces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogJvgdH6eo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkvvFJtLJE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHzYl8Rg8C0&feature=related

LOL. You must have been 3/4 of the way to China with that digging. Not that I really like Obama, but nothing she says in the 1st and 3rd videos is groundbreaking, earth-shattering, and would get anyone in trouble. She is basically saying some fairly normal view points that I would think a majority of people would agree with. I can't tell anything about the 2nd video because it was stupid and annoying, I couldn't get more than a minute in to it.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/426/2004a.jpg

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/080605Election8_yuhberf.gif

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/080605Election2_bnytrdf.gif

[albionmoonlight]

some websites to use going forward.

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

www.fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com)

www.270towin.com (http://www.270towin.com)

[chesapeake]

McCain will never get close enough in CA to make it worth the price to play. He'll make some trips there; but only to raise money, not to spend it.

[flere-imsaho]

I surmise that something like this may be why McCain would like to push the town-hall style debates - to play to his strength and get soundbites out of them instead of out of stilted, prepared speeches that he fumbles around in.

Absolutely. McCain's going to be best vs. Obama when they're both "unscripted". Assuming he keeps a lid on his temper, of course.

It's still amusing to hear those that were "tortured" over the past 8 years as if they were personally affected or something. Why don't you just come out and say 'my world is red vs blue and that's all I know'.

I woke up every day for twelve months and checked to see if any soldier had been killed in Ramadi overnight, and I blame all of that specifically on Bush.

So...Michele Obama "Whitey" Rant Video...October Surprise or Hoax?

OK, so I've read 4 pages of this thread so far, and most of your posts have been the hand grenades of right-wing talk radio tossed into the thread at random. It's going to be a long, long election season if you keep this up.

There is no one else on this board who does this on as regular a basis. Even Cam, who arguably is a right-wing radio host ( ;) @ Cam ) doesn't do this.

It would be the equivalent of me randomly posting vitriolic conspiracy theories from dailykos.com.

So please, either exercise some constraint, or add some more content.

[Axxon]

To do what? Counter all of the overwhelmingly successful alternatives that have worked so beautifully in the region?

You actually proved my point. I said that the effort was doomed from the start remember? You can't use the fact that one effort failed to push another failure. You'd have to show that the effort you suggest could work or my point still holds.

[albionmoonlight]

Another random prediction: Bob Barr will have no effect on this election. After Nader, voters know that third parties can be spoilers. In any state where it is close enough to matter, libertarian leaning Republicans will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and will pull the level for McCain.

[Deattribution]

I woke up every day for twelve months and checked to see if any soldier had been killed in Ramadi overnight, and I blame all of that specifically on Bush.


Did Bush hold a military draft that I don't know about? There are inherited risk with being in the military, and one of them is that you have a very realistic possibility of seeing combat (especially more than anyone else). It sucks, it's crappy for the families involved but it's a choice for the person directly involved.

This, on top of the fact that Bush wasn't the only one supporting the war. He gets alot of the blame, deservedly so but it wasn't done solely on his decision alone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's going to be a long, long election season if you keep this up.

Umm flere ... it's going to be a long election season around here even if he never posts another thing.

[Axxon]

.

This, on top of the fact that Bush wasn't the only one supporting the war.

He pretty much is now. ;)

[edit to add]

Well, him and Jon anyway.

[flere-imsaho]

Did Bush hold a military draft that I don't know about? There are inherited risk with being in the military, and one of them is that you have a very realistic possibility of seeing combat (especially more than anyone else). It sucks, it's crappy for the families involved but it's a choice for the person directly involved.

I'm not sure that is an argument that I wasn't affected personally by a decision made by George Bush.

This, on top of the fact that Bush wasn't the only one supporting the war. He gets alot of the blame, deservedly so but it wasn't done solely on his decision alone.

It was manifestly the decision of him and his Administration. For one, it's now very clear that they cherry-picked evidence and in some cases lied to make the case for war. For two, the President occupies a bully pulpit that gives him exceptional leverage in getting his aims fulfilled (especially following an event such as 9/11).

Maybe you want a percentage. Fine, 85% of my blame for having to wake up every morning worrying about my brother lies with George Bush.

[chesapeake]

This, on top of the fact that Bush wasn't the only one supporting the war. He gets alot of the blame, deservedly so but it wasn't done solely on his decision alone.

Maybe I am not fully understanding what you are referring to, but invading Iraq actually was the sole decision of our Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush. Congress may have authorized the use of force, but the decision to use it was his and his alone.

To Bush's credit (I guess) he certainly does not deny that the decision was his. Nor does he deny that he has made the grander strategic decisions that have been made since the invasion. That is his job.

[-apoc-]

Another random prediction: Bob Barr will have no effect on this election. After Nader, voters know that third parties can be spoilers. In any state where it is close enough to matter, libertarian leaning Republicans will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and will pull the level for McCain.

Except that there are quite a few Libertarians that are adamently against the war (RP crowd). They may see Obama as an accaptable alternative for at least 4 years if he will withdraw the troops for them and reinstates Habeus Corpeus and dismantles the domestic spying and then they can go back to pulling for the republicans next time when the party maybe starts finding it way again.

[SFL Cat]

There is no one else on this board who does this on as regular a basis. Even Cam, who arguably is a right-wing radio host ( ;) @ Cam ) doesn't do this.

It would be the equivalent of me randomly posting vitriolic conspiracy theories from dailykos.com.

So please, either exercise some constraint, or add some more content.

Are you the pot or the kettle? F*ck off.

Frankly, I don't really have a horse in this race. If I vote, it will be for McCain...but it would definitely be a lesser of two evils vote...

[Buccaneer]

Except that there are quite a few Libertarians that are adamently against the war (RP crowd). They may see Obama as an accaptable alternative for at least 4 years if he will withdraw the troops for them and reinstates Habeus Corpeus and dismantles the domestic spying and then they can go back to pulling for the republicans next time when the party maybe starts finding it way again.

Maybe not so much against the war but against the stupid way it was conceived and prosecuted - leading to the exhorbant wasteful costs in nation-building.

[Axxon]

Maybe not so much against the war but against the stupid way it was conceived and prosecuted - leading to the exhorbant wasteful costs in nation-building.

Everyone glibly throws this out but no one has any suggestions on how to create a huge power void behind a dictatorship and not nation build without simply creating chaos. I kinda think that's important and I'm glad that even though W was stupid enough to start the war, I'm glad he wasn't stupid enough to abandon the Iraqi's after that.

[Buccaneer]

Everyone glibly throws this out but no one has any suggestions on how to create a huge power void behind a dictatorship and not nation build without simply creating chaos. I kinda think that's important and I'm glad that even though W was stupid enough to start the war, I'm glad he wasn't stupid enough to abandon the Iraqi's after that.

I know what you are saying but history has generally shown otherwise. The difference between Iraq and other occupied territories was perhaps due to the culture? I mean, the Confederacy, Western Europe (throughout the centuries), Japan? took a lot of the initiative to rebuild and to relatively quickly acheive self-governing. I have not done any comparison to the Marshal Plan vs Post-Iraq funding, nor looked at captital outlay in early times but it does seem that the nearly $1t spent have not gained us that much benefits. I don't think the coalition destroyed the country that much but probably they did not have that great of an infrastructure and political strength to re-build from.

[Vegas Vic]

I kinda think that's important and I'm glad that even though W was stupid enough to start the war, I'm glad he wasn't stupid enough to abandon the Iraqi's after that.

W was stupid enough be manipulated by Rummy and this guy, who sounded eerily prophetic with his use of the words "U.S. occupation of Iraq" and "quagmire" in this 1994 interview:

"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Unbelievable.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Axxon]

I know what you are saying but history has generally shown otherwise. The difference between Iraq and other occupied territories was perhaps due to the culture? I mean, the Confederacy, Western Europe (throughout the centuries), Japan? took a lot of the initiative to rebuild and to relatively quickly acheive self-governing. I have not done any comparison to the Marshal Plan vs Post-Iraq funding, nor looked at captital outlay in early times but it does seem that the nearly $1t spent have not gained us that much benefits. I don't think the coalition destroyed the country that much but probably they did not have that great of an infrastructure and political strength to re-build from.

It seems that the civil war is obviously different since we were essentially the same country. Europe is the same as Iraq now. I"m not sure what you mean about Western Europe. They were our allies already and had governments ready to take over. Japan maybe but it took 7 years of us being there and rebuilding and Japan did have political infrastructure intact that began strengthening really quickly after the war. They'd also already had experienced with a form of democracy so there was nowhere near the chaos that deposing a dictator would cause. Totally different scenario IMHO.

I'm specifically talking about a situation where a long standing dictatorship in a country the size of Iraq accomplished with minimal occupation. I'm not even asking for a situation where the surrounding countries and the culture was rabidly against the occupier but of course, we had that too.

I may be wrong but I really don't recall anything close to this scenario working before. Vietnam is the most recent example of us trying to force our will on an unreceptive country and we all saw how well that worked.

[Axxon]

W was stupid enough be manipulated by Rummy and this guy, who sounded eerily prophetic with his use of the words "U.S. occupation of Iraq" and "quagmire" in this 1994 interview:

"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Unbelievable.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I agree with you and with the quote.

[flere-imsaho]

Are you the pot or the kettle? F*ck off.


You stay classy, SFL Cat.

I know what you are saying but history has generally shown otherwise.

An analog that's often batted around is Yugoslavia, which disintegrated in the power vacuum left behind after 1992. It took quite a while and a lot of effort to bring that back to relative piece (and this was achieved through sectarian segregation). There are probably some similarities there.

Of course, we should all remember that the Bush Admin believed Ahmed Chalabi when he told them there was a structure of Iraqi "dissidents" ready to step into the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. Later analysis has shown that no one should have believed Chalabi, who's basically a crook, but there you go.

And to bring this back on topic, McCain's top advisor, Charlie Black, has a lobbying firm that did a lot of lobbying on behalf of Ahmed Chalabi.

Small world, eh?

[Axxon]

You stay classy, SFL Cat.



An analog that's often batted around is Yugoslavia, which disintegrated in the power vacuum left behind after 1992. It took quite a while and a lot of effort to bring that back to relative piece (and this was achieved through sectarian segregation). There are probably some similarities there.

Of course, we should all remember that the Bush Admin believed Ahmed Chalabi when he told them there was a structure of Iraqi "dissidents" ready to step into the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal. Later analysis has shown that no one should have believed Chalabi, who's basically a crook, but there you go.

And to bring this back on topic, McCain's top advisor, Charlie Black, has a lobbying firm that did a lot of lobbying on behalf of Ahmed Chalabi.

Small world, eh?

Yes, but I wouldn't want to paint it.

[JPhillips]

SFL: Don't know if you've seen the Whitey video just posted on YouTube. Honestly, it isn't nearly as bad as it's been portrayed.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aZi6U811hxE&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aZi6U811hxE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Noop]

Michelle Obama is someone I would make relations with.

[GrantDawg]

SFL: Don't know if you've seen the Whitey video just posted on YouTube. Honestly, it isn't nearly as bad as it's been portrayed.


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aZi6U811hxE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></P>

You shall be shot.

[SFL Cat]

Yeah...I saw that one.

I've got my Bible open and am still decoding it. :)

[Karlifornia]

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Nevermind, though....Obama will still take California easily.

[Axxon]

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Nevermind, though....Obama will still take California easily.

WTF?? This latino just loves to be stereotyped. Shame I voted for Obama. Maybe I should haven consulted with you first.

[GrantDawg]

WTF?? This latino just loves to be stereotyped. Shame I voted for Obama. Maybe I should haven consulted with you first.


Oh, come on Axxon, be fair. There are African-Americans that will vote for McCain, but 90% would have voted for any Democrat and it's quite possible we'll see 94% or more vote Obama (with most likely record turn-out as well). Anytime your talk elections, you talk in blocks, and any block that a canidate has a sure 50%+ in, we say "we know this group will go for x." It is not sterotyping. It is demographics. I definitely vote against my demographic, but I'm not offended if someone groups me in with a voting block.

[Young Drachma]

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Nevermind, though....Obama will still take California easily.

I think this is a pretty dimwitted view. People like people that they feel understand their experience and make them feel like they're not invisible.

[Young Drachma]

Oh, come on Axxon, be fair. There are African-Americans that will vote for McCain, but 90% would have voted for any Democrat and it's quite possible we'll see 94% or more vote Obama (with most likely record turn-out as well). Anytime your talk elections, you talk in blocks, and any block that a canidate has a sure 50%+ in, we say "we know this group will go for x." It is not sterotyping. It is demographics. I definitely vote against my demographic, but I'm not offended if someone groups me in with a voting block.

Right, same for Catholics, Jews, 'white working class voters', etc.

It's just the way things are these days.

[Axxon]

Oh, come on Axxon, be fair. There are African-Americans that will vote for McCain, but 90% would have voted for any Democrat and it's quite possible we'll see 94% or more vote Obama (with most likely record turn-out as well). Anytime your talk elections, you talk in blocks, and any block that a canidate has a sure 50%+ in, we say "we know this group will go for x." It is not sterotyping. It is demographics. I definitely vote against my demographic, but I'm not offended if someone groups me in with a voting block.

The quote I replied to specifically said that the latinos "generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Now, I'm no racial crusader but that quote is seriously fucked up.

It's one thing to talk about voting blocks; it's another thing all together to say racist things about them.

[Young Drachma]

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead". Nevermind, though....Obama will still take California easily.

This is a pretty dimwitted statement.

[molson]

It really isn't practical to analyze voting trends by considering each individual voter in the United States. Race, Gender, and Class are meaningful groupings that do tell us things.

Maybe it could have been put more diplomatically, but Hispanics may or may not for blacks on the whole, I really don't know the numbers. We don't seem to have a problem saying that poor southern whites won't vote for blacks.

[Axxon]

It really isn't practical to analyze voting trends by considering each individual voter in the United States. Race, Gender, and Class are meaningful groupings that do tell us things.

Maybe it could have been put more diplomatically, but Hispanics may or may not for blacks on the whole, I really don't know the numbers. We don't seem to have a problem saying that poor southern whites won't vote for blacks.

Well, if you want to get technical latino is far too diverse a term to have meaning anyway. I'm Cuban and Cubans tend to vote republican, mainly because republicans make sure that when we can't possibly enter the country illegally like other latinos; a disparity that I'm all for changing BTW but I'll leave the hows as an exercise for the reader.

[Axxon]

It really isn't practical to analyze voting trends by considering each individual voter in the United States. Race, Gender, and Class are meaningful groupings that do tell us things.

Maybe it could have been put more diplomatically, but Hispanics may or may not for blacks on the whole, I really don't know the numbers. We don't seem to have a problem saying that poor southern whites won't vote for blacks.

Dola, to add to my previous post saying poor southern whites is way different than saying whites won't vote for blacks the latter of which is equivalent to saying latinos won't vote for blacks.

[Young Drachma]

Well, if you want to get technical latino is far too diverse a term to have meaning anyway. I'm Cuban and Cubans tend to vote republican, mainly because republicans make sure that when we can't possibly enter the country illegally like other latinos; a disparity that I'm all for changing BTW but I'll leave the hows as an exercise for the reader.

Right. Hispanics/Latinos is an illegitimate moniker compared to the other groups, because California Latinos vote differently than ones in Texas than ones on the east coast.

Because we're talking about nationalities lumped into one overarching group that doesn't really account for anything other than the same language that they speak and even then...

[molson]

Dola, to add to my previous post saying poor southern whites is way different than saying whites won't vote for blacks the latter of which is equivalent to saying latinos won't vote for blacks.

Fair enough, I agree.

I think your response is far more productive than the "you're a racist!" stuff, which conditions people to hide from race as a factor in elections or everyday life.

[Axxon]

Right. Hispanics/Latinos is an illegitimate moniker compared to the other groups, because California Latinos vote differently than ones in Texas than ones on the east coast.

Because we're talking about nationalities lumped into one overarching group that doesn't really account for anything other than the same language that they speak and even then...

Hey, every body has different issues and people tend to vote their issues.

As for the language, tell me about it. :lol:

[Axxon]

Fair enough, I agree.

I think your response is far more productive than the "you're a racist!" stuff, which conditions people to hide from race as a factor in elections or everyday life.

Fair enough but I do consider the statement that latinos generally don't want to see other minorities get ahead incorrect, stupid and inflammatory.

Hey, we became the fastest growing minority through copious breeding and open borders, not by keeping other minorities down. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

It looks like Obama got roughly a 5-point bounce (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/todays-polls-611.html) after Clinton's concession.

Edit: And there's a whole crapload of new polling data from NBC/WSJ (including breakdowns) here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/

[flere-imsaho]

Latinos love the Clintons and generally aren't fans of other minority groups "getting ahead".

Post-concession, Obama's Latino support is strong (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/12/8316/76850), according to both Gallup & NBC/WSJ.

[st.cronin]

I'm looking forward to this, wish Obama was going to be there:

Please tune into The Fox News Channel tonight at 7PM EDT to watch the first 2008 Presidential Town Hall, broadcast from Federal Hall in New York City. This historic location is where President George Washington first took the oath of office. Tonight it will play host to John McCain while he answers questions from real voters about important issues including the economy, energy prices and the war.

Last week, John McCain invited Senator Obama to participate tonight, hoping to start what would be a series of ten town hall meetings where both candidates would travel the country to answer questions from real voters. Senator Obama has yet to agree to meet us in these town halls. These town halls would revolutionize our political process and start a real change in the tone of politics. John McCain believes in this effort and is putting it into action.

[JPhillips]

Obama wants a slightly different format, but in principle has agreed to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. There's no way the negotiations for the debates could be ready by now and even if Obama had agreed I'm sure the caveats from the McCain camp would have stalled the effort. There's also the whole problem with single network coverage that Obama and McCain both borught up with ABCs debate proposal. Debates take quite a while to put together when both sides want to gain maximum advantage.

[Buccaneer]

I find this somewhat interesting. Guess it could be interpreted different ways.

A new Wall Street Journal-NBC poll puts Obama’s lead at 6, which is double his previous lead. However, it’s much smaller than the Democrats’ 16-point lead when voters are asked – without candidates’ names – which party they want to win the White House.

[JPhillips]

There's also this info from the 2004 election. The WSJ poll never showed a Kerry lead among registered voters.

March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

[Buccaneer]

I was reading Obama's speech today and he mentioned his two daughters. I actually did not know he had two daughters. They must have done a great job of keeping them out of the limelight.

[Young Drachma]

I was reading Obama's speech today and he mentioned his two daughters. I actually did not know he had two daughters. They must have done a great job of keeping them out of the limelight.

They are really young, not even teenagers yet. They've been on stage at big election day events a few times, but they seem clearly opposed to carting them around for political gain and the girls don't seem to be really inclined to enjoy it at all. Not that I blame them...

[Young Drachma]

Obama's campaign today hired Patty Solis Doyle, the former campaign manager for Clinton who got fired earlier in the year....they hired her to be the chief of staff for the VP nominee they pick.

One Clinton confidante said that the hire was a "big fuck you" to Hillary. So unless they want to fire her twice, Hillary isn't gonna be the VP for sure now.

Al Gore is endorsing Obama now, mostly to steal some cable news cycle time.

[Vegas Vic]

Al Gore is endorsing Obama now, mostly to steal some cable news cycle time.

This is huge.

I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

[Greyroofoo]

This is huge.

I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

Just about every cable news station I checked was carrying Gore's speech.

[Swaggs]

I actually think getting endorsements from more established politicians like Gore are fairly important for Obama, as there are a lot of people that are still unfamiliar and/or up-in-the-air with him.

Having "trusted" democrats like both Clintons (although I haven't seen a formal announcement from Bill yet, but I think it will come and be helpful), Gore, Carter, Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, Kerry and Edwards, will be important and give him a little more credibility.

McCain needs that less because he has been accounted for as a senator for 20+ years and well known as a national figure since he ran against Bush in 2000. Probably a good thing, as the Republicans don't really have much star power, at the national level, right now. I guess George H.W. Bush and maybe Schwartznegger (sp?) and Condi Rice would give McCain a little push.

Colin Powell would be huge, but from his latest quotes, he sounds like he may lean towards Obama as much as McCain.

[Young Drachma]

This is huge.

I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

CNN carried it, too.

[Axxon]

CNN carried it, too.

Ok, but aside from almost every cable news station and CNN, I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

[Vegas Vic]

Ok, but aside from almost every cable news station and CNN, I can't understand why MSNBC was the only network to carry Gore's endorsement of the Democratic party nominee after he had already clinched the nomination.

I saw CNN and Fox, and they had a split screen with Gore (no audio) while their talk show hosts continued to talk. MSNBC was the only network I saw that actually broadcast Gore's speech live.

[albionmoonlight]

Obama wants a slightly different format, but in principle has agreed to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. There's no way the negotiations for the debates could be ready by now and even if Obama had agreed I'm sure the caveats from the McCain camp would have stalled the effort. There's also the whole problem with single network coverage that Obama and McCain both borught up with ABCs debate proposal. Debates take quite a while to put together when both sides want to gain maximum advantage.

Each side wants a debate format to maximize their advantages and their opponents weaknesses. McCain would seem to do better in the Town Hall format, while Obama would seem to do better in the Lincoln-Douglas style. Also, even though both politicians seem at least open to the idea of bringing Democracy to the people, the campaigns are run by "take no chances" career political operatives. So I imagine that for all of the talk of dozens of town halls and Lincoln-Douglas style debates, we will end up with the typical 3 debates moderated by the news media. Maybe they will add a little twist such as having some questions come from YouTube or something. But any hope that we had of an actual break from the sound-bite mode of debates seems dead in the water.

[Dr. Sak]

Not really news but Jay Paterno is a huge Obama supporter, which is kind of funny because his father is such a big time republican supporter.

Jay is even blogging for Obama. He should spend more time breaking down film than doing this stuff.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jaypaterno

[Jas_lov]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187

The latest Quinnipac poll shows Obama up in the 3 big swing states. Obama is +12 in PA, +6 in Ohio, and +4 in Florida.

President Bush's approval ratings in these states are worse than the national average of 30%.

In the two biggest issues, the war and the economy, Obama has huge leads.

The Economy
Florida: Obama 55-36
Ohio: Obama 55-37
Pennsylvania: Obama 56-37

The War in Iraq
Florida: Obama 61-32
Ohio: Obama 48-40
Pennsylvania: Obama 59-30

Is Pennsylvania much of a swing state anymore or is it probably going blue? Is there anything McCain can do to sway the public in his favor on those two biggest issues?

[larrymcg421]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187

The latest Quinnipac poll shows Obama up in the 3 big swing states. Obama is +12 in PA, +6 in Ohio, and +4 in Florida.

President Bush's approval ratings in these states are worse than the national average of 30%.

In the two biggest issues, the war and the economy, Obama has huge leads.

The Economy
Florida: Obama 55-36
Ohio: Obama 55-37
Pennsylvania: Obama 56-37

The War in Iraq
Florida: Obama 61-32
Ohio: Obama 48-40
Pennsylvania: Obama 59-30

Is Pennsylvania much of a swing state anymore or is it probably going blue? Is there anything McCain can do to sway the public in his favor on those two biggest issues?

Pennsylvania is pretty much a blue state at this point. If Hilary was the candidate, then McCain probably wouldn't ever go there. With Obama, I think the GOP is keeping an eye on it, but will probably abandon it to try and take FL and OH.

[flere-imsaho]

As an Obama supporter, I am cautiously optimistic, but there are also 4+ months to go.

[Axxon]

As an Obama supporter, I am cautiously optimistic, but there are also 4+ months to go.

Me too. I'm really wondering though when McCain is going to really kick up his campaign. Surely he hasn't really started yet because if he has, that doesn't bode well for him. It's like he's stuck in neutral like he was at the beginning of the primaries.

[Vegas Vic]

Me too. I'm really wondering though when McCain is going to really kick up his campaign. Surely he hasn't really started yet because if he has, that doesn't bode well for him. It's like he's stuck in neutral like he was at the beginning of the primaries.

Are you kidding? McCain's campaign has to be delighted to only be down by 4 points right now, considering his party has an incumbent president with an approval rating of 20. Obama should be up by 15 or 20 points right now, and if he doesn't have at least a double digit lead at the Democratic convention, he's going to be in big trouble in the general election.

[Axxon]

Are you kidding? McCain's campaign has to be delighted to only be down by 4 points right now, considering his party has an incumbent president with an approval rating of 20. Obama should be up by 15 or 20 points right now, and if he doesn't have at least a double digit lead at the Democratic convention, he's going to be in big trouble in the general election.

No, I'm not kidding. If he's planning to wait for the convention, the way the polls are trending, he's going to be down by double digits. That's what I'm saying. He's letting people move to Obama and I just don't see how he's planning to get them back once he's lost them. He needs to start staunching the bleeding.

I also disagree about Obama needing double digits at that point. It's the exact same arguments the losing side always uses in cases like these. Exact same argument at the midterms. How did that one turn out?

[Vegas Vic]

No, I'm not kidding. If he's planning to wait for the convention, the way the polls are trending, he's going to be down by double digits.

I don't quite follow you. The head to head polling between Obama and McCain has been remarkably flat for over a year now. Obama's biggest lead was in June 2007, when he was up by 7 points. He should have gotten a 6 or 7 point bump when Clinton withdrew from the race and endorsed him, but the bump was almost non-existant.

Obama vs. McCain Poll Trend (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

[chesapeake]

It is w-a-y too early to count anyone in or out based on current polls. That said, I'd rather be Obama than McCain at this immediate point in time.

Be aware, though, that the GOP's 527 organizations -- political advocacy organizations that essentially can accept unlimited donations from individuals without disclosure -- have not yet kicked in. John Kerry was brutalized by some of those (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for one).

And based on some of the overtly racist ads that were sponsored by the TN Republican Party in the 06 Senate race (Corker v Ford), I suspect that you will see some incredibly offensive stuff out there before this election is done. That will be tough for Obama to get through

Certainly, the Dems have 527s and will aggressively go after McCain's record, participation in the Keating scandal, and I suspect that former staffers/Administration officials that he has thrown books at (literally) may bring up his crazy temper. But I think Obama will have a lot tougher time of it.

[Axxon]

The racist buttons have already started this season.

Stick a Pin in It
1:25 PM Sat, Jun 14, 2008 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Christy Hoppe E-mail News tips

While a number of speakers -- such as Railroad Commission chairman Michael Williams and Mike Huckabee -- have praised the advance of Barack Obama and what it means towards a colorblind society, at least one vendor hasn't gotten the message.

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House.

There were other pins that weren't necessarily conveying the positive, inclusive, united front that has been portrayed during the convention. One said, "Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation" and another, "I will hold my nose when I vote for McCain"

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/Obama%20Button0001.JPG


hxxp://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html

[Buccaneer]

I read that the Obama team has hired Stephanie whatshername to be the Chief of Staff for Michelle. If you recalled the post-election writeup from Kerry's embeded reporter, Stephanie was widely criticized as the assistant Communications Director, esp. after the Grand Canyon debacle. One would hope that she has grown up since then in order to serve Michelle.

[BrianD]

Is anybody else anxious to see the fireworks that will result from Michelle? She seems rather less polished than her husband and more willing to be racially controversial.

[albionmoonlight]

I read that the Obama team has hired Stephanie whatshername to be the Chief of Staff for Michelle. If you recalled the post-election writeup from Kerry's embeded reporter, Stephanie was widely criticized as the assistant Communications Director, esp. after the Grand Canyon debacle. One would hope that she has grown up since then in order to serve Michelle.

The weird thing about politics is that the same behind the scenes people keep working for the candidates, win or lose. It seems that once you get connected enough to rise to that level, you end up getting to do it every four years until you get tired of it, notwithstanding your results.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Is anybody else anxious to see the fireworks that will result from Michelle? She seems rather less polished than her husband and more willing to be racially controversial.

She really seems competitive. I get the impression from her that she's very strong-willed and could say something to ruin her husband's chances. They need to keep the focus on him.

[flere-imsaho]

Is anybody else anxious to see the fireworks that will result from Michelle? She seems rather less polished than her husband and more willing to be racially controversial.

Food for thought:

After Attacks, Michelle Obama Looks for a New Introduction (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=74bd190cd7154996&ei=5070)

I think she'll be attacked just as much as Theresa Heinz Kerry was attacked in 2004. However, this time I think Cindy McCain will get plenty of attacks on her as well, after all she has plenty of skeletons in her closet.

[Jon]

I heard she called caucasians "whitey". Apparently the tape will come out any time now, but until then it will be assumed to be true.

I don't know if this is snark, but this has been debunked.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Food for thought:

After Attacks, Michelle Obama Looks for a New Introduction (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/us/politics/18michelle.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=74bd190cd7154996&ei=5070)

I think she'll be attacked just as much as Theresa Heinz Kerry was attacked in 2004. However, this time I think Cindy McCain will get plenty of attacks on her as well, after all she has plenty of skeletons in her closet.

Some weak journalism in there...........

Fox News called her “Obama’s baby mama,” a derogatory term for an unwed mother. Christopher Hitchens, a Slate columnist, claimed — with scant evidence — that her college thesis proved she was once influenced by black separatism. National Review presented her as a scowling “Mrs. Grievance.”

It's fine if they want to include that in the article, but cite the actual person making the comment and the context of the comment in the article/report. Fox News and National Review didn't make those statements, but rather someone on their staff made an editorial comment using those terms. It doesn't make the comments right or wrong, but incompletely quoting the comments is nearly as bad and gives further fuel to the NY Times political leanings.

[JPhillips]

Some weak journalism in there...........



It's fine if they want to include that in the article, but cite the actual person making the comment and the context of the comment in the article/report. Fox News and National Review didn't make those statements, but rather someone on their staff made an editorial comment using those terms. It doesn't make the comments right or wrong, but incompletely quoting the comments is nearly as bad and gives further fuel to the NY Times political leanings.

Fantastic.

[JPhillips]

dola

When it comes out that Michelle stole drugs from her medical charity things will really hit the fan.

[Young Drachma]

This thread is unplayable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Fantastic.

So I assume you believe them to be unbias in their reporting overall?

[JPhillips]

Look again. The secret is in the post.