Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


TULedHead

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

Howdy ScottyZ! :wave:

Pb is not "on to" something.. he's "on" something.

I suspect it's crack. :P

:lol:

[Of note: Global warming/climate change does not merely refer to "warming", bud. The warming caused by excessive atmospheric carbons (thanks to the burning of fossil fuels and other man-made factors) is wreaking havoc on climate patterns. Thus,.. perhaps,.. the unusually late Seattle snow the other day, eh? ;) ]

Anyhooo,.. :whistling:

Nonsense. You'd better do some research. I've posted some studies, earlier in this thread, that you must have missed. Post some facts and quit watching the Al Gore propaganda film. :lol:

If you go to the super secret site,you can find answers about Dani. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. You'd better do some research. I've posted some studies, earlier in this thread, that you must have missed. Post some facts and quit watching the Al Gore propaganda film. :lol:

If you go to the super secret site,you can find answers about Dani. :D

Not only does global warming cause raising of temps, it also cause the lowering of temps. Sometimes global warming makes it rain, sometimes it doesn't make it rain. global warming causes the sun to go up and to go down. Day and night. another word for global warming is Cycles.

Still it doesn't hurt to turn to alternative resources, but keep drilling, build more nukes. Eventually things that are green won't cost to much green.

Now i know there is a scientific explanation, but in high school, they found a hole in the ozone, the next day, they said we had to much ozone even though there was a hole the size of Texas.

The inconvenient truth is Al gore made alot of money from his cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overbaring truth is the human race is an overpopulas neusance to the natural cycles of the Earth..with life-altering effects. Global warming or just a warm winter's day, mankind is drastically hurting the Earth in monumentous ways whether it be from over-erigation or over population or simply our own waste and shit polluting our water and breathing air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ain't no way the Clinton machine will ever get behind an Obama nomination. Maybe ceremonialy they will, but they want Obama to fail. Don't for one minute assume that the Clintons are not looking to 2012 now as their target date or reconquest. Even if McCain wins he will be in his late 70's and probably not likely to win a 2nd term for many other reasons.

Hillary has already said "the democratic party will be united against McCain in the general election". Yes, I am aware that for political reasons she had to say that [as a means of reassuring party leaders at a time when it was first starting to appear that the primary was becoming increasingly rancorous]. But the fact remains that she's on the record as having said it, and I think she'll follow through on supporting him. If she doesn't support his candidacy against McCain, she'll lose whatever remaining good will she might otherwise still enjoy from those in the party who aren't supporting her for the nomination. She'd be alienating herself.. beyond the point of no return.. from the democratic party. Conversely, her stature in the party will increase if she is gracious in defeat and goes on to serve the greater good of the party by supporting Obama against McCain.

[unfortunately though, the negative things she's already said about Obama are

surely going be used by McCain-supporting 527s against Obama. Thanks, Hillary. <_< ]

I'm actually ejoying all of the chaos (as Rush Limbaugh terms his 'Operation Chaos') going on in the Democratic pary.

Of course you are! How could you not be? ^_^

I'm equally enjoying the fact that repubs are having

to stomach having John McCain as their candidate. ;)

I'll make you a bet. If Obama wins the general election, I will put an Obama banner on my sig here at L.Z. com for the period from election day through inaguration day in 2009. And the sig can have other liberal fun stuff and sayings too. But if Obama gets the nomination and then loses to McCain, you have to put one on your sig for the same amount of time. But I want my winning banner to have some great Republicans included on it, like Reagan and Nixon (as I'm not actually a McCain fan).

Is it a deal?

:lol:

I love it! :thumbsup:

I accept your wager. :beer:

PS. I suppose of Hillary gets the nomination by some fluke, then we will have to make some other kind of bet, okay?

Ok. If Hillary should somehow get the dem nomination, (after you're done celebrating

Hillary having won the dem nomination) we'll have to make some other kind of bet.

I'm not sure what stakes we should wager,.. but whatever stakes we agree on, I suggest that we not necessarily bet on 'who will win the election'. I think we should bet instead on something more in the spirit of what would surely be a grotesque.. and Fellini-esque.. presidential campaign. We should bet on something like..

* who can most closely guess how many

repubs will turnout to vote against Hillary.

* who can most closely predict when the first swift

boat ad will air featuring images of Monica Lewinsky.

* who can most closely predict when the first swift-boat ad will appear that depicts

images of an angry McCain, a red button being repeatedly pushed, and a series of

mushroom clouds rising into the sky in every region of the globe.. including Canada.

[soundtrack: loop of McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb.. Bomb, bomb, bomb.."]

* who can most closely predict when the first swift boat ad will appear in which

Hillary is depicted before the United Nations asking if she can "pretty please with

sugar on top launch a missile in the general direction of, but not actually at, Iran".

* who can most closely predict when the first swift boat will appear in which a

picture of McCain is depicted with a scrolling text message underneath reading

"John McCain's plan is to wage war in Iraq for at least 100 years".

*..or the like.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more of an Einstein guy, Newtonian motion breaks down at the quantum level. What does that have to do with this btw?

just wondering because I think the idea connects directly to karma. I'm not a church goer myself but I am spiritual person... just wondering if you believed in karma. Then that leads me to Rev. Wright... all he was saying is that American Govt. has done some of the same things to other people that happened to us on 9-11. It doesn't mean it's ok, it is part of owning up to the fact that we have to look at and change what has been wrong with what govt is doing globally. Not everything our govt. has done is ok. Would you be willing to at least say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything our govt. has done is ok. Would you be willing to at least say that?

I agree completely with this statement. In fact there is very little the govt does either here or abroad that I agree with. This had always been so, no matter what "party" is in charge.

I respect "spiritual" non religious people more than church goers in general.

Karma? I don't know, I probably have to say no to that one. I wish it were so though. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely with this statement. In fact there is very little the govt does either here or abroad that I agree with. This had always been so, no matter what "party" is in charge.

I respect "spiritual" non religious people more than church goers in general.

Karma? I don't know, I probably have to say no to that one. I wish it were so though. B)

Well somewhere in there we agree on something I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N.C. governor to endorse Clinton

RALEIGH, N.C.RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley has decided to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, lending the support of the state's top elected Democrat to her underdog effort to beat Barack Obama in the state's May 6 primary.

"I think it's a tremendous boost to the campaign and its a reaffirmation of the momentum that we have in the state and a reaffirmation of Sen. Clinton's message and its importance ... to the people of North Carolina," Tom Hendrickson, an adviser to Clinton in North Carolina, told the Associated Press.

Hendrickson said a formal endorsement event was tentatively scheduled for Tuesday in Raleigh.

Easley is a Democratic superdelegate who has served as the state's governor for two terms. His decision comes despite several polls showing the New York senator trailing Obama in North Carolina as they compete for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Elon University Poll Director Hunter Bacot said the endorsement may help move Clinton's numbers a few percentage points, but will only serve to solidify support among conservative Democrats such as Easley.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: New York | White House | Illinois | Barack Obama | Hillary Rodham Clinton | John Edwards | Democratic Party | Raleigh | Sen. Clinton | Easley | North Carolina Democrats

"I think it will help her attract the type of voters she's been attracting throughout her campaign — usually the moderate to lower-income white vote, particularly in more rural areas," Bacot said. "She's been strong in that demographic throughout."

Like almost all the state's superdelegates, Easley had initially supported former North Carolina senator John Edwards during his second bid for the White House. He becomes just the second superdelegate from North Carolina to endorse Clinton, while six of the state's 17 superdelegates have pledged to support Obama.

While he is not a superdelegate, Edwards remains the biggest prize among North Carolina Democrats, Bacot said. Since leaving the race in January, Edwards has remained silent on which of his two formal rivals he plans to support.

A former state attorney general, Easley has focused largely on education programs during his eight-year tenure. He's called on both of the presidential candidates to talk more about he issue.

"Gov. Easley understands that education and a good economy are intertwined, and he understands that more than anyone else in the country," Hendrickson said.

Two week ago, Easley wrote a note to Obama imploring the Illinois senator to take part in a debate that would have taken place Sunday in Raleigh. Obama declined, saying he wasn't sure it would fit with his schedule, and the state Democratic Party later abandoned the debate plans.

I wonder if he know that Hillary has a mathematical chance.

Wait for it

Obama will have a Rev. Wirght press confernce in which he'll talk about evething except Rev. Wright. So will this be "Race Speech 2" or will this be "High Cost of Gas" speech in which he says all americians care more about, if that was so, Gore would be president. Yet he can't make time for a debate but he can make time to disown than reowned his pastor for the 4th time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Alright friends,.. here it comes,..

I've had a drastic change of position on an issue. I'm about to swallow

my pride (and some crow) and address the issue head-on,.. right now.

Here goes..

*clears throat*

For several weeks now I've been maintaining the position that the Rev Wright issue/controversy will not substantially harm Barack Obama in the general election (or in the primaries) and as such there has been, I've maintained, no reason for Obama to distance himself from Wright any further than he already has. That position held water, I believed, with regard to Rev Wright's past statements. I also maintained that many of Rev Wright's past statements while sounding offensive in soundbites, did in fact contain kernels of truths. For example, there was a kernel of truth to the "America's chickens have come home to roost" comment. Had that comment, that is, not been meant to suggest, as I believed it had not, that America "deserved" what happened on 9/11, but rather was regarding the fact that many of America's foreign policies have engendered anti-American sentiment abroad; and had it been intended to speak to the issue of "blowback", a CIA term for retaliation and/or violent action against America or American interests, in response to our policies, then the comment would have, in fact, contained kernels of truths.

However,..

Rev Wright has, within the past days, reiterated many of his most paranoid sounding opinions and beliefs; for example, that the US govt created AIDS as a means of committing genocide of racial minorities. He has also reiterated and expounded upon many of his most controversial, divisive, and offensive beliefs. For example, he's indicated that his "America's chickens have come home to roost" comment was an indication not only that he believes America may have in fact 'deserved' what happened on 9/11, but also that he feels such acts of terrorism are.. sanctioned by Jesus. [ :rolleyes: ] "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles", he had the audacity.. nay, the temerity.. nay, the gall to say. Furthermore, Wright's closeness with, and fondness/respect for, Louis Farrakhan has been evident in recent days not only by the fact that Nation Of Islam bodygards have been providing security detail for Wright during his recent speaking engagements, but also by the words Wright has spoken about Farrakhan: "He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color." **

Apparently Wright considers to be his enemy whoever it was

who 'made me [Wright] this color'. *cough*God*cough*. :unsure:

slapface.gif

So, friends, I come before you today with a heaping serving of crow

on the plate in front of me.. which I am now about to humbly consume.

hungry.gif

I have now come to the conclusion that if he hopes to become POTUS, Barack Obama must not only distance himself Rev Wright, but must make a clean break from him; he must reject and renounce Wright's hateful and divisive sentiments. I think he should do this quickly, cleanly and with as little fanfare and hoopla as possible, if possible. He should move on and not look back. As a political strategy he should, after making the break, refuse to revisit the issue; refuse to answer any more questions; let the media grow tired of getting the same "I've already addressed that issue" answer to the point where they stop asking the question and they too move on to other issues. Obama will surely take a hit in the short term, but by virtue of his having shown courage, flexibility in his thinking, and a willingness to confront and break from Wright, he will garner respect that will enable him to quickly bounce back from the short term hit he sustains. His challenge will be to reject and renounce Wright while alienating as few members of the Black community at large as possible. No small task indeed. It'll take some smooth talking, and it'll require Obama to assert himself as a higher moral authority than Wright.. in other words, he'll have to make the case that he, not Wright, is the one standing on higher moral ground. Obama began that task during his "More Perfect Union" speech when he framed Wright as an angry (dare I say "bitter") old man who is stuck in the divisiveness of the past. Now Obama must show that he was being gracious and "generous" toward Wright at that time, and he must make the case that now he has been given no alternative but to "disown" the man.

Rev Wright is making this a bit easier for Obama to do because in addition to reiterating his offensive and divisive comments/beliefs in the past few days and affirming his closeness with Louis Farrakhan, Wright has also been personally attacking Obama. Obama now has both the opportunity and a socially and politically palatable justification for throwing Rev Wright under the O-train. At this juncture, failure to do so may.. nay, will.. (like many of you have been saying).. significantly harm Obama in the general election.

*gags down last bite of crow*

Yuck.

:burp:

This issue won't necessarily totally derail the O-train. But given that Rev Wright is out there actively repeating his controversial comments and bashing Obama on a personal level while doing so, it's an issue that Obama does need to address with some aggression. Obama has to deal with this decisively; he must show that he the necessary political fortitude and killer instinct. He must throw Wright under the train.

We'll see if he's got what it takes to do so.

I think he can do it.

Yes he can! :cheer:

Obama.gif

summers.jpg

Unfortunately, unlike my Obama campaign banner above,..Rev

Wright's "G*** D***" is not a reference to the Grateful Dead. <_<

:P

:beer:

:hippy:

[edited to add]

If this issue re-escalates into a full-blown mega-distraction, it may become that deciding issue that drives the superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton. How sadly ironic would it be if an African American reverend who has considered himself a lifelong champion of the civil rights movement and a champion of African American causes is the one who ends up creating the controversy that ultimately denies an African American man the opportunity of becoming the first ever African American POTUS?

Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF YOU'RE ELECTED PRESIDENT, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!!!!!

Yikes, sounds like a personal threat to Obama by the "Christian" minister.

It's like he is jealous of Obama, and if Obama is elected President, the right rev. wright race hustling days are over and would look laughable. How else would he make all his money? He's buying a ten million dollar mansion in a white neighborhood. Where dis a minister get that kind of money??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Alright friends,.. here it comes,..

I've had a drastic change of position on an issue. I'm about to swallow

my pride (and some crow) and address the issue head-on,.. right now.

Here goes..

*clears throat*

For several weeks now I've been maintaining the position that the Rev Wright issue/controversy will not substantially harm Barack Obama in the general election (or in the primaries) and as such there has been, I've maintained, no reason for Obama to distance himself from Wright any further than he already has. That position held water, I believed, with regard to Rev Wright's past statements. I also maintained that many of Rev Wright's past statements while sounding offensive in soundbites, did in fact contain kernels of truths. For example, there was a kernel of truth to the "America's chickens have come home to roost" comment. Had that comment, that is, not been meant to suggest, as I believed it had not, that America "deserved" what happened on 9/11, but rather was regarding the fact that many of America's foreign policies have engendered anti-American sentiment abroad; and had it been intended to speak to the issue of "blowback", a CIA term for retaliation and/or violent action against America or American interests, in response to our policies, then the comment would have, in fact, contained kernels of truths.

However,..

Rev Wright has, within the past days, reiterated many of his most paranoid sounding opinions and beliefs; for example, that the US govt created AIDS as a means of committing genocide of racial minorities. He has also reiterated and expounded upon many of his most controversial, divisive, and offensive beliefs. For example, he's indicated that his "America's chickens have come home to roost" comment was an indication not only that he believes America may have in fact 'deserved' what happened on 9/11, but also that he feels such acts of terrorism are.. sanctioned by Jesus. [ :rolleyes: ] "Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles", he had the audacity.. nay, the temerity.. nay, the gall to say. Furthermore, Wright's closeness with, and fondness/respect for, Louis Farrakhan has been evident in recent days not only by the fact that Nation Of Islam bodygards have been providing security detail for Wright during his recent speaking engagements, but also by the words Wright has spoken about Farrakhan: "He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color." **

Apparently Wright considers to be his enemy whoever it was

who 'made me [Wright] this color'. *cough*God*cough*. :unsure:

slapface.gif

So, friends, I come before you today with a heaping serving of crow

on the plate in front of me.. which I am now about to humbly consume.

hungry.gif

I have now come to the conclusion that if he hopes to become POTUS, Barack Obama must not only distance himself Rev Wright, but must make a clean break from him; he must reject and renounce Wright's hateful and divisive sentiments. I think he should do this quickly, cleanly and with as little fanfare and hoopla as possible, if possible. He should move on and not look back. As a political strategy he should, after making the break, refuse to revisit the issue; refuse to answer any more questions; let the media grow tired of getting the same "I've already addressed that issue" answer to the point where they stop asking the question and they too move on to other issues. Obama will surely take a hit in the short term, but by virtue of his having shown courage, flexibility in his thinking, and a willingness to confront and break from Wright, he will garner respect that will enable him to quickly bounce back from the short term hit he sustains. His challenge will be to reject and renounce Wright while alienating as few members of the Black community at large as possible. No small task indeed. It'll take some smooth talking, and it'll require Obama to assert himself as a higher moral authority than Wright.. in other words, he'll have to make the case that he, not Wright, is the one standing on higher moral ground. Obama began that task during his "More Perfect Union" speech when he framed Wright as an angry (dare I say "bitter") old man who is stuck in the divisiveness of the past. Now Obama must show that he was being gracious and "generous" toward Wright at that time, and he must make the case that now he has been given no alternative but to "disown" the man.

Rev Wright is making this a bit easier for Obama to do because in addition to reiterating his offensive and divisive comments/beliefs in the past few days and affirming his closeness with Louis Farrakhan, Wright has also been personally attacking Obama. Obama now has both the opportunity and a socially and politically palatable justification for throwing Rev Wright under the O-train. At this juncture, failure to do so may.. nay, will.. (like many of you have been saying).. significantly harm Obama in the general election.

*gags down last bite of crow*

Yuck.

:burp:

This issue won't necessarily totally derail the O-train. But given that Rev Wright is out there actively repeating his controversial comments and bashing Obama on a personal level while doing so, it's an issue that Obama does need to address with some aggression. Obama has to deal with this decisively; he must show that he the necessary political fortitude and killer instinct. He must throw Wright under the train.

We'll see if he's got what it takes to do so.

I think he can do it.

Yes he can! :cheer:

Obama.gif

summers.jpg

Unfortunately, unlike my Obama campaign banner above,..Rev

Wright's "G*** D***" is not a reference to the Grateful Dead. <_<

:P

:beer:

:hippy:

[edited to add]

If this issue re-escalates into a full-blown mega-distraction, it may become that deciding issue that drives the superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton. How sadly ironic would it be if an African American reverend who has considered himself a lifelong champion of the civil rights movement and a champion of African American causes is the one who ends up creating the controversy that ultimately denies an African American man the opportunity of becoming the first ever African American POTUS?

Unbelievable.

Not to add more bad news, but the Govenor of North Carolina, Mike Easley, has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not good news for Obama is it??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to add more bad news, but the Govenor of North Carolina, Mike Easley, has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not good news for Obama is it??

Truth be told,.. the remaining primaries don't matter. Nothing can happen in the 10 remaining primaries that will significantly alter the primary math. Obama will still end up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes than Hillary.

It's all up to the superdelegates at this point; they're gonna decide who the nominee is. They'll either support the primary results and give the nomination to Obama, or they'll buck the primary results and give the nomination to Clinton.

How Obama addresses the Rev Whackadoodle issue in the coming days will, undoubtedly, have a significant impact on who the superdelegates will think is the more electable between Hillary and Barack against McCain. Rev Wright clearly has no intention of ShuttingTFU, so it's gonna be up to Obama to neutralize the reverend as an issue.

I need Obama to show me (and the supers) sumthin here.

If he deals with this effectively and decisively, there'll be no stopping him from here on out.

If he can't deal with this effectively and decisively,.. he may be done.

:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that Obama has finally had enough of Reverend Wright.

From MSNBC (link):

"His comments were not only divisive ... but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama told reporters.

"Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this," Obama said.

A CNN blog makes it seem he's also pissed off personally with Wright (link):

Obama said he was outraged by Wright’s remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism. And he seemed to signal a complete break with his former minister.

“What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” said Obama, who added that Wright had shown “little regard for me” and seemed more concerned with “taking center stage.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth be told,.. the remaining primaries don't matter. Nothing can happen in the 10 remaining primaries that will significantly alter the primary math. Obama will still end up with more pledged delegates and more popular votes than Hillary.

It's all up to the superdelegates at this point; they're gonna decide who the nominee is. They'll either support the primary results and give the nomination to Obama, or they'll buck the primary results and give the nomination to Clinton.

How Obama addresses the Rev Whackadoodle issue in the coming days will, undoubtedly, have a significant impact on who the superdelegates will think is the more electable between Hillary and Barack against McCain. Rev Wright clearly has no intention of ShuttingTFU, so it's gonna be up to Obama to neutralize the reverend as an issue.

I need Obama to show me (and the supers) sumthin here.

If he deals with this effectively and decisively, there'll be no stopping him from here on out.

If he can't deal with this effectively and decisively,.. he may be done.

:unsure:

What makes you think the popular vote or the issues in Florida and Michigan cant also come into play in this?? It will be more signifigant than you may presume!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama and Clinton: two cynical losers

Despite having all the trumps, the Democrats have squandered the chance of a lifetime

Gerard Baker

How do they do it? How do the Democrats manage to squander repeatedly and with such ease the chance of a lifetime? What inverse alchemy have they created that turns the gold bullion of electoral opportunity into the base metal of political oblivion?

Eight years of George Bush, an unpopular war and a recession have handed the Democrats their best chance, not merely of winning their first presidential election in 12 years, but of achieving a rare, once-in-a- generation transformational shift in American politics.

Four fifths of the American public think the country is on the wrong track. The President wallows in the highest disapproval ratings since polling began. The Republican Party has spent most of a decade bungling almost everything it touches, abandoning its principles and sinking into a mire of corruption, hypocrisy and incompetence.

And here we are, six months from a presidential election, and it is the Democrats once again who seem to be staring defeat in the face. It's like a soccer match in which one team keeps conceding a penalty in the final minutes only to watch as the opponents repeatedly boot the penalty kick high into the stands.

Hillary Clinton's solid victory in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday has condemned the party to many more weeks of strife and sinking public esteem. There's a popular view among Democrats and the media establishment that the reason for the party's current disarray is that it just happens to have two most extraordinary candidates: talented, attractive, and in their gender and race, excitingly new. But there's an alternative explanation, which I suspect the voters have grasped rather better than their necromancers in the media. Both are losers.

The longer the Democratic race goes on, the more obvious it appears that each is deeply, perhaps ineradicably flawed.

Until about a month ago Barack Obama had done a brilliant job of presenting himself as a transcendent figure, the mixed-race candidate with bipartisan appeal who promised to heal the historic and modern rifts in American life.

But the mask has slipped. Under pressure in a Democratic primary, Mr Obama has sounded just like any other tax-raising, government-loving Democratic politician. Worse, he has revealed himself to be a member of that special subset of the party's liberal elite - a well-educated man with a serious superiority complex.

His worst moment of the campaign was when he was caught telling liberal sophisticates about his anthropological observations on the campaign trail. In the misery of their daily lives, he said, the hicks out there in the sticks cling to religion and guns and the other irrational necessities of the unenlightened life. His wife had earlier told voters that they should be grateful that someone of his protean talents had deigned to come among them and be their president.

The events of the last month have also revealed another side of Mr Obama that threatens to undermine his whole message. He is a cynic. He tells the mavens of San Francisco one thing and the great unwashed of Pennsylvania another. In defending his long relationship with the Rev Jeremiah Wright, he shopped his own grandmother, comparing the reverend's views (God Damn America! The US deliberately spread Aids among the black population) to his grandmother's occasionally expressed fears about the potential of being the victim of crime at the hands of an African-American.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has been busy shedding the final vestiges of shame and honesty in her desperate attempt to save her candidacy. She has abandoned any pretence of a message, and simply seized on every opening presented to her by her opponent.

Mr Obama's missteps with the working class of Pennsylvania have thus transformed Mrs Clinton from the bluestocking Wellesley graduate into the good old girl, hanging out there with the straw-chewing rednecks, embracing their values, their worldview and even their lifestyle.

Obliterate Iran! Here comes Osama bin Laden! I love duck hunting! I can do shots and beer at the same time! It's hard to know what's worse - expressing condescending views about the working class or pretending to be one of them. The Democratic campaign is simply disappearing in the enveloping vapidity of the candidates' making.

The economy's a mess; the US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of seizing the opportunity to present a convincing vision of an alternative way forward the Democrats are fumbling. When they are not scrapping about each other's street cred they are falling back on the old verities of left-wing dogma: class warfare on taxes; irresponsible (and unredeemable) promises to pull out of Iraq in an instant; a protectionism that makes a mockery of their claims to want to restore America's standing in the world.

Amid this sorry spectacle of cynical opportunism and atavistic dogmatism, the Republicans have contrived somehow to select in John McCain the one candidate in their party who might actually have a shot at winning the election.

American presidential elections turn as much on the characters of the candidates as they do on the saliency of policies. Democrats, of course, think this is all rather crass. They think voters should confine themselves to the “issues”. But Americans understand their government a little better. They know the limits of presidential office and they understand the president's role as head of state is as much about leadership of the nation as it is about implementation of policy.

What they want is a man - or a woman - of character and record to inspire and lead them. That may be why the Democrats are in trouble.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle3811396.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think the popular vote or the issues in Florida and Michigan cant also come into play in this?? It will be more signifigant than you may presume!

I've answered that question a number of times already,..

but hey.. what the heck,.. what's one more time, eh? ;)

MI and FL wont count because the party rules were broken in those states and the conequences of breaking the rules ws made clear before the primaries took place.

[edited to add]

take note:

----------------

McAuliffe Has Flip-Flopped On Counting Florida, Michigan

April 27, 2008

If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her candidacy: namely, that she was winning in the popular vote. That case is not without a certain amount of speciousness (at the moment, it requires one to count Florida and Michigan, and accept the premise that NOBODY in Michigan would vote for Obama), but it's her best case to make, so she might as well give it a try.

That said, she might be well-served if some of her supporters refrained from doing the same. Perhaps you remember this moment from that evening, where former DNC Chair and Fox News Cheerleader Terry McAuliffe told Chris Matthews that he "always" counts the votes from Florida, and that Michigan counts among her big wins.

As it turns out, McAuliffe's definition of the word "always" is pretty unconventional, for it was not too long ago, he thought something entirely different. In fact, the entirely different thought he thought was something he thought so hard that he even put in a book of his other thoughts, entitled What A Party! And what a party it was! When Michigan Senator Carl Levin wanted to move up the Michigan primary in 2004, McAuliffe shot him down with swagger, belittlement, and the sorts of words he's not using these days, now that he finds himself on the other side of the fence. Via Mark Nickolas' well-chosen excerpt:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he [Levin] said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

*source*

------------------

:whistling:

[/edit]

Having said that,.. of course the pledged delegate count and popular vote counts (excluding MI and FL) WILL come into play. And since Obama will end the primaries leading in both categories, they will come into play in his favor. My point was that nothing is going to happen in the remaining 10 primaries to significantly change that from a mathematical standpoint.

Like I said in my previous post,.. its unlikely that the supers will buck the primary results (pledged deledgeates and pop vote totals) and give the nomination to Clinton.. barring any significant other factors/events that may sway the minds of the supers with regard to who they think is more electable, that is. *cough*ie, Rev Wrong*cough*.

:whistling:

[aside]

I'm glad to see that Barack has "denounced" Rev Wrong. I've only just now caught a quick glimpse of a headline indicating that he's done so. I havent yet read what he said so I'm not gonna weigh in yet on whether I think his response was "effective and decisive" enough. I'm gonna read up on it and then I'll comment later..

[/aside]

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've answered that question a number of times already,..

but hey.. what the heck,.. what's one more time, eh? ;)

MI and FL wont count because the party rules were broken in those states and the conequences of breaking the rules ws made clear before the primaries took place.

[edited to add]

take note:

----------------

McAuliffe Has Flip-Flopped On Counting Florida, Michigan

April 27, 2008

If you cast your mind back to the evening of the Pennsylvania primary, you'll remember that the Clinton campaign began to develop a pretext for the superdelegates to rubberstamp in support of her candidacy: namely, that she was winning in the popular vote. That case is not without a certain amount of speciousness (at the moment, it requires one to count Florida and Michigan, and accept the premise that NOBODY in Michigan would vote for Obama), but it's her best case to make, so she might as well give it a try.

That said, she might be well-served if some of her supporters refrained from doing the same. Perhaps you remember this moment from that evening, where former DNC Chair and Fox News Cheerleader Terry McAuliffe told Chris Matthews that he "always" counts the votes from Florida, and that Michigan counts among her big wins.

As it turns out, McAuliffe's definition of the word "always" is pretty unconventional, for it was not too long ago, he thought something entirely different. In fact, the entirely different thought he thought was something he thought so hard that he even put in a book of his other thoughts, entitled What A Party! And what a party it was! When Michigan Senator Carl Levin wanted to move up the Michigan primary in 2004, McAuliffe shot him down with swagger, belittlement, and the sorts of words he's not using these days, now that he finds himself on the other side of the fence. Via Mark Nickolas' well-chosen excerpt:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he [Levin] said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

*source*

------------------

:whistling:

[/edit]

Having said that,.. of course the pledged delegate count and popular vote counts (excluding MI and FL) WILL come into play. And since Obama will end the primaries leading in both categories, they will come into play in his favor. My point was that nothing is going to happen in the remaining 10 primaries to significantly change that from a mathematical standpoint.

Like I said in my previous post,.. its unlikely that the supers will buck the primary results (pledged deledgeates and pop vote totals) and give the nomination to Clinton.. barring any significant other factors/events that may sway the minds of the supers with regard to who they think is more electable, that is. *cough*ie, Rev Wrong*cough*.

:whistling:

[aside]

I'm glad to see that Barack has "denounced" Rev Wrong. I've only just now caught a quick glimpse of a headline indicating that he's done so. I havent yet read what he said so I'm not gonna weigh in yet on whether I think his response was "effective and decisive" enough. I'm gonna read up on it and then I'll comment later..

[/aside]

:hippy:

Seems to me that you are "counting your chickens before thery are hatched" so to speak in regards to the remaining states and the popular vote. How can you be so confident in the remaining states outcome given the negative press re the "ex" Pastor which we all know is propoganda and the endorsement of a very popular Governor in the only state that rates her as an underdog? Sounds like you have quite the agenda Mr political know it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Into the belly of the beast. Hillary is going into the "no spin zone" tomorrow night. First BO now HC realize they can't just ignore Fox News. I thought BO did fine on Chris Wallace's show. Good for both of them.

I think 'bama's attempt to throw rev wright under the bus today is going to be too little too late. He does appear to be genuinely pissed off at him for not keeping his mouth shut though.

Dodging debates doesn't look good no matter the reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama will be fine after some dust settles... he has kept his cool throughout this whole thing. At the moment Rev. Wright is getting more press than Obama it seems. He will be fully vetted come August when the Republicans try to hash it all up again, and hopefully we can talk about some issues that matter. Like how to bridge the racial divide instead of just talking about weather it exists or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama will be fine after some dust settles... he has kept his cool throughout this whole thing. At the moment Rev. Wright is getting more press than Obama it seems. He will be fully vetted come August when the Republicans try to hash it all up again, and hopefully we can talk about some issues that matter. Like how to bridge the racial divide instead of just talking about weather it exists or not.

Whats the name of that song by Aerosmith? Oh yeah. "DREAM ON"!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama and Hillary have debated 21 times. That's more than enough. It's getting to the point where they were debating about debating, not talking about the issues. He's right to want to to focus on bringing his message to the voters, rather than engaging in another pointless diatribe with Clinton.

If after 21 debates the public hasn't made up their mind about who they think the nominee should be, they're never going to make up their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama will be fine after some dust settles... he has kept his cool throughout this whole thing. At the moment Rev. Wright is getting more press than Obama it seems. He will be fully vetted come August when the Republicans try to hash it all up again, and hopefully we can talk about some issues that matter. Like how to bridge the racial divide instead of just talking about weather it exists or not.

Won't happen in our lifetime as long as you have the wrights,jacksons and sharptons of the world continually playing the race card and extorting money from businesses for their own selfish reasons. What office have these assholes ever been elected or appointed to? They've never had to work a day in their lives. They're nothing but racial extorsionists scum bags.

Now, here's a prediction that no one has mentioned.

We may have to put up with GW a little longer than first thought.

I predict that the US will declare war on Iran and Bush will remain POTUS.

No president has ever been replaced during war time unless they have died in office.

Just a thought to ponder. :thanku::whistling::hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...