Yes, we can.

[Kevy Baby]

What are you talking about? I don't see that sentence....:)See... it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy!

[SacTown Chronic]

The liberal media painted the Ivy League educated son of a former president as a good ol' boy who Joe Eighteen-Pack would love to share a beer with. Now that same liberal media is telling us that a man from a mixed-race broken home is an elitist. And the gun-and-bible crowd swallows it......again. And they always will.


The media has been plenty hard on Bush since his re-election (ha!) -- almost to the point that I feel sorry for him some days. Of course, a truly liberal media would have picked apart Bush's every word from, say, Sep 12, 2001 to March 20, 2003 instead of helping him sound the drumbeat for war.

[sleepyjeff]

Now that his wife is proud to be an American Obama feels it's ok to wear the pin again;)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflagpinlap.html

I guess his words alone are not testimony to his patriotism after all:)

[SacTown Chronic]

Resolving the lapel pin issue should free up time for B-HO to work on being less nuanced elitist. Those flag lapel pins are amazing, man!

[JWBear]

Yeah... 'Cause you're not really an American, and can't really love America unles you have a little peice of metal and enamel stuck to your clothing. That's the definition of being a proud American. :rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

Yeah... 'Cause you're not really an American, and can't really love America unles you have a little peice of metal and enamel stuck to your clothing. That's the definition of being a proud American. :rolleyes:

McCain doesn't wear the pin.

[Sub la Goon]

McCain doesn't wear the pin.


Not where you can SEE it.

[JWBear]

McCain doesn't wear the pin.

Then why is Obama being pilloried for the same thing? Double standard? Hmmm?

[Alex]

McCain doesn't have to wear the pin. On any question of patriotism he has the trump card.

Kind of like when the Daily Show ranked the political power of each candidates response to the question where they were when they learned of MLK's assassination and McCain tromped the other two for being able to respond "well, I was living alone in a small cell..."



[Not that wearing a pin in any indication of actual patriotism. For example, I've never even owned a flag and I'm thoroughly unpatriotic.]

[scaeagles]

I think it's because he (Obama) genuinely looks pained to wear it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think it's because he (Obama) genuinely looks pained to wear it.
I think he looks pained that he's forced to wear it for stupid reasons.

[sleepyjeff]

Then why is Obama being pilloried for the same thing? Double standard? Hmmm?

Because he made a point of not wearing it saying that his words alone should be testimony to his patriotism....

and wonder of wonders now that these same words that were supposed to be proof of his patriotism are failing him(ie. the whole guns and religion speech) a little pin finds it's way onto his lapel.

I don't care if he wears one or not and I certainly don't think he is any more or any less of a patriot one way or the other......but apparently he thinks it matters;)

[Alex]

Before I try to decide if this is an indication of change, does anybody know his itinerary today?

Did it possibly include anything where outward symbols of patriotism are more de rigueur? Such as a a speech at an American Legion post, a military base, visiting wounded soldiers in hospitals, etc.?

[sleepyjeff]

Before I try to decide if this is an indication of change, does anybody know his itinerary today?

Did it possibly include anything where outward symbols of patriotism are more de rigueur? Such as a a speech at an American Legion post, a military base, visiting wounded soldiers in hospitals, etc.?

Here you go:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NmZhxltfSi8

[JWBear]

I'm so tired of these meaningless "outrages". If you (generic you, not anyone specific here) think a candidate is unqualified for office because of whether or not they wear a flag pin, or when, or why; or because of something someone else said or did in the past; or because that candidate spoke and uncomfortable truth, then I feel very sorry you. Your priorities are way out of whack.

We need a President who can bring people together to fix the problems this nation has. What we don’t need is posturing and “I’m more patriotic than thou” penis waiving (and that goes for you too, Hilary).

[Alex]

I can't watch YouTube at work, but I know he wasn't at such a place when the photo I saw was taken. But he probably does at least a dozen appearances a day and I doubt he's changing suits between each one.

[scaeagles]

I like what Dr. Thomas Sowell has to say (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/15/a_living_lie) about Obama regarding "bringing people together".

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate.

[JWBear]

And of course, you completely missed my point.

[sleepyjeff]

We need a President who can bring people together to fix the problems this nation has.

That President doesn't exist......no way can you fix the problems and bring the people together; at best you can get one or the other.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I can't watch YouTube at work, but I know he wasn't at such a place when the photo I saw was taken. But he probably does at least a dozen appearances a day and I doubt he's changing suits between each one.
The YouTube clip is of him speaking to a group of veterans, something about honoring a specific veteran (I gathered this from the comments on the video, I don't have sound on this computer so I don't know the details).

Seems right to me. I hate ties. I don't wear them if I don't have to. But if I'm in a place where there's an unspoken "wear a tie" dress code, I wear a tie. And you just don't speak in front of a veterans' group without some sort of "patriotic" regalia.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate.Errr, Lugar-Obama. Coburn-Obama. And many more from his decade+ stint in Illinois. But I suppose facts shouldn't get in the way of good punditry.

As for his voting record being liberal...duh. He's liberal. It's not about voting record. It's about attitude. It's about his ability to talk to everyone like they're adults and not condescend his opponents.

[Alex]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. What I am looking for in a political leader is not necessarily someone who will achieve unanimity.

I'll be happy to have one that is capable of pursuing their agenda without treating the opposition as a hated enemy. I currently support Obama for president and I fully expect that once elected I will disagree with the vast majority of his policy positions and proposals.

And he may not have shown an ability to transcend party differences in the Senate but he certainly has in the presidential race. I know a lot of Republicans who are for him and not in a cynical "drag out the race to the advantage of McCain" way, but they actually think he'll be a better president.

I've never understood the idea that bipartisanship is supposed to mean "even though you're on the other side of the aisle you'll support my point of view." I don't think transcending party requires that Obama ever endorse or support a single Republican issue, nor is the same required of McCain or whomever.

Now, whether Obama will actually achieve this change in tone and atmosphere I strongly doubt. I just don't think the other two will even try. And if he is elected I will politely and respectfully oppose his agenda where I disagree with it. And I'll ultimately be on the losing side of some and the winning side of others and if that can happen without being expected to hate the other side then I'll be happy.

[Kevy Baby]

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?

I don't care what kind of spin someone tries to put on it from either side: it's a freakin' non-issue.

[Morrigoon]

Beautiful, wasn't it? I love a good absurd comedy.

[JWBear]

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?

I don't care what kind of spin someone tries to put on it from either side: it's a freakin' non-issue.

Thank you! That was my point!

[SacTown Chronic]

I can't believe I just passed an argument about wearing a lapel pin. Is this really all we have to discuss?Tell it to Disney and their serious, traditional news division.

[Moonliner]

Tell it to Disney and their serious, traditional news division.

One interesting side effect is that it gives Obama rational to declare he will not participate (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/17/campaign.wrap/?iref=hpmostpop)in any more debates. Which, as the front runner, is good for him. All he needs to do now is not mess up and no more debates is a good step in that direction.

[flippyshark]

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. What I am looking for in a political leader is not necessarily someone who will achieve unanimity.

I'll be happy to have one that is capable of pursuing their agenda without treating the opposition as a hated enemy. I currently support Obama for president and I fully expect that once elected I will disagree with the vast majority of his policy positions and proposals.

And he may not have shown an ability to transcend party differences in the Senate but he certainly has in the presidential race. I know a lot of Republicans who are for him and not in a cynical "drag out the race to the advantage of McCain" way, but they actually think he'll be a better president.

I've never understood the idea that bipartisanship is supposed to mean "even though you're on the other side of the aisle you'll support my point of view." I don't think transcending party requires that Obama ever endorse or support a single Republican issue, nor is the same required of McCain or whomever.

Now, whether Obama will actually achieve this change in tone and atmosphere I strongly doubt. I just don't think the other two will even try. And if he is elected I will politely and respectfully oppose his agenda where I disagree with it. And I'll ultimately be on the losing side of some and the winning side of others and if that can happen without being expected to hate the other side then I'll be happy.

Totally in the "wish I had said that" category! Thanks!

[sleepyjeff]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks



Time and again, the rookie Senator has said he would not raise taxes on middle-class earners,
But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising ..the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.



"Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20%," said Mr. Gibson. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"



The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.

Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.


By the way, a higher capital gains tax rate isn't the only middle-class tax increase that Mr. Obama is proposing. He also wants to lift the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. That cap was $97,500 in 2007 and is $102,000 this year. "Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200[,000] and $250,000," said Mr. Gibson. "If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them." Ignoring the no-tax pledge he had made five minutes earlier, Mr. Obama explained that such a tax increase was nevertheless necessary.

[Alex]

We should reduce the capital gains tax down to 0% so that we can get the maximum revenue. In fact, if the government started paying people to take capital gains just imagine how much revenue would come in.

I'll have to look at Obama's complete tax plan but there may appear to be an inconsistency. Though, of course, "I will cut your taxes" does not necessarily mean "I won't raise any of the individual taxes." But if he's talking out both sides of his mouth, then by all means let's point it out.

But this chart doesn't seem to quite show the correlation that is described. I don't see anything indicating that a rate reduction does anything to permanently increase revenues. Looks like if anything, all it does it create a couple year spike before it falls back to where it was. If the cut in 97 is solely responsible for the steep increase in 98 and 99 isn't it also responsible for the steep decline in 2000 and 2001? And do we have to ignore the fact that the increases were already going up in 1995 and 1996 before the rate was changed? It looks to me like the rate seems to get changed in the midst of already significant economic changes.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH376_1capga_20080417205212.gif

The capital gains tax increased hugely at the beginning of the chart without dramatically impacting gross revenues. So maybe all lowering does is increase uncertainty of revenue?

[Morrigoon]

I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market. Or by the losses that occurred (no gains, no tax). Otherwise, I see a pretty solid inverse relationship there.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think 2001-2 could be explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble and resultant hesitancy to participate in the stock market. Or how about the fact that, because the tax was reduced, people began selling off investments to take advantage of the lower taxes in 98/99, leaving them with far fewer investments to sell off in 01/02. That's a phenomenon that's been pretty consistent with these kinds of tax cuts, people cash out immediately, temporarily bumping revenue, but really all it does is shift revenue ahead a year or two, leveling out in the following years.

I've posted several stats and links before that show that there is zero evidence for any direct causal relationship between tax decrease and increased tax revenue. There are way too many factors, and way too much variation on the results to even remotely link the two.

[Alex]

Yes, but there are similar economic events coincident with most of the big changes. How do you pick and choose. As is so often said, correlation is not causation.

And why did it only start working in 1987? All of the previous changes in the rate didn't do much to move the revenue unless you are going to say that a rate reduction in 1982 took 5 years before having a major impact while a relatively small rate reduction in 2002 caused an immediately tripling of it. And a big rate increase in 1972-3 did nothing really, but relatively smaller one in 1987 immediately tanked it. There are four spikes in the graph. The first happened when rates went up. The second happened when rates were unchanged. The third peaked two years after they went down but the peak starts before the change. The fourth happens simultaneously.

Or it could be the there is no strong causal connection and that they are just inversely impacted by the same underlying things. I don't know if that is the case. But while the chart seems to indicate an inverse directional correlation it doesn't seem to be consistent in scale and none of that indicates cause. Perhaps when when the revenues go too high that creates political pressure to increase taxes on those who are getting rich in the stock market and so congress does this but since the stock market is somewhat cyclical they generally do this at just around the same time that things start to go south? I have no idea if that is true but it would be a causal link in the opposite direction (success brings to light money that government thinks it can take without outrage so it does). In 2002 you had the dotcom bust which is a not rate possibility for why revenues fell. But in 2000 you had the dotcom boom which would also be a non-rate indicator of why they rose.

While the Wall Street Journal editors obviously accept the causal link you'll find plenty of other economists and market journalists who do not. And of course, it ignores the fact that even if a previous decrease caused an increase that this does not mean that further decreases would do so.

Plus, what if it is just the downward movement that does it, and it isn't so important what the actual rate is? Then this would mean that every once in a while you need to dramatically increase it again, take the short term hit, so that you can go about lowering it in steps again. Just like eventually the Fed is going to have to raise rates back up to 4-5% again otherwise they won't have the stimulus tool of lowering them available (as Japan learned once they hit zero).

[Morrigoon]

Well, that's the hell of economics. There are always multiple unaccounted for factors. Like when the Fed though they'd figured out the relationship between inflation and unemployment back in the 70's. That worked out real well.

(Though again, true to this argument, there are other factors that contributed to runaway inflation in the 70's, like women entering the workforce in droves)

[scaeagles]

My favorite economist, Dr. Walter Williams, on the capital gain tax rate (http://www.bearpit.net/lofiversion/index.php/t6352.html)...

Let's talk about capital gains taxes starting out with a few questions for you. Suppose you see a couple highway construction projects.

On one project, the workers are employed using shovels and wheelbarrows. At the other project, the workers are using huge earthmovers, cranes, asphalt-laying machines and other equipment. On which project do the workers earn the higher wage? You'll probably answer, "Those on the project with all the machinery." Now the question becomes, why? Is it because construction company owners like machine operators more? Or, is it because the machine operators have more bargaining power?

The answer to both questions is no. The correct answer is that the workers on the project using all the machinery are more productive. They are more productive because they have much more capital (equipment) working with them. As a result, more road is built per day, per worker, and their wages reflect that higher productivity.

Creating more equipment, whether it's earthmovers, computers or technical innovation, is called capital formation. The capital gains tax is a tax on capital formation, and when anything is taxed, one expects less of it. Less capital formation means a slower growth in wages. Roughly 95 percent of the growth in wages over the past 40 years is explained by the capital-to-labor ratio.

The capital gains tax dampens risk incentive. Put yourself in the place of an investor. You can invest in a utility company that's been earning a six percent rate of return for decades. Alternatively, you can invest in a high-tech, high-risk startup company. While such an investment has a high risk, and you stand to lose all of your money, success can deliver a potentially very high payoff. Capital gains taxes reduce your rate of return on the risk you have taken. Reduced rates of return mean that people will undertake less risk.

The capital gains tax has another debilitating effect on investment that's called the "lock-in" effect. People who have made a capital gain on an investment know that if they were to sell they would have to pay the capital gains tax. Therefore, for tax reasons, they often hold on to that investment longer than they otherwise would. With a reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax, instead of people's decisions being driven by tax considerations, they would focus more of their portfolio to areas in the economy with a higher long-run growth potential.


There is so much more involved in the capital gains tax rates than the pocketing of cash on the sale of assets.

[Alex]

That is true. But if maximizing capital gains (not capital gains tax revenues) is the only goal then the obvious answer is to have zero taxes. And this would apply to pretty much every other form of taxation. Taxes have a suppressing effect.

I wouldn't contest that at all.

However, that is not the same as saying that an increase or decrease in a tax always has the inverse impact on revenues from that tax. Obviously that is not true. Going from 1% to 0% tax will decrease the depressing effect of that tax but it will not increase the revenue of the tax.

I'll happily come closer to your side on the question of whether capital gains should be taxes at all.

[Morrigoon]

Well obviously it would help if they sought the point of maximum benefit, because one expects the benefit to be a curve (or curves).

I can't believe I can't think of the name for that point on the graph, but you know what I'm getting at here. The point at which a movement in either direction would see a decreasing benefit in terms of total tax paid.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well obviously it would help if they sought the point of maximum benefit, because one expects the benefit to be a curve (or curves). There are 2 problems with that, the first being that there's been no reliable data to determine what that point is, the second being that in all likelihood that point is a moving target.

In other news, Howard Dean is stepping up pressure on Superdelegates to state who they're supporting, which in turn is indirect pressure for Clinton to drop out.

[Morrigoon]

Hmm... CP, GD, anyone, wanna do phone bank for Barack? They've even got a location called "The Lot".

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/nvp2region6/

I could do Saturday morning, perhaps. As long as they don't mind a registered Libertarian phone banking for them.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I have considered doing the phone thing for Barack for months now, but I have to bow out. (The site is always asking for volunteers.) I simply do not like it when people call me to support their candidate. It makes me like the candidate less. I can't do it to other people in good conscience, even though it may help.

[JWBear]

Here's (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html) something not being reported by the "liberal" (cough, cough) mainstream press.

I'm sure those who think the words of Rev Wright make Sen Obama disqualified to be President will now denounce Sen McCain. It's only fair, after all.

[Strangler Lewis]

How are McCain's pastor's views about America's destiny inconsistent with conservative denunciation of Reverend Wright?

[scaeagles]

Well, I would hope that McCain does renounce that. I do, however, fail to see a comparison between hailing someone as a spiritual leader and sitting under his teaching for 20 years. I'll just wait for McCain to come out with some lame justification like "I wasn't at church the day he said it".

Also, interestingly, the story about "Reverend" Wright had been out amongst conservative circles for a very, very long time before the "mainstream" media picked it up.

edited for typos.

[3894]

Speaking of the audacity of hope, I audaciously hope for the demise of Sen. Clinton's candidacy tomorrow.

[scaeagles]

I have read polls today saying anything from a 5 point to an 11 point win in PA for Clinton. I think that keeps her in the race.

[3894]

I think that keeps her in the race.

Come on, high voter turnout!

[scaeagles]

Not to rain on your parade, but I've heard a high vote turnout probably increases her margin of victory in PA.

[wendybeth]

Why, Scaeagles- you sound almost excited at the prospect....don't tell me you've fallen for Hillary?;)

[scaeagles]

I admit it.....I've had a crush on her for quite some time.

[wendybeth]

You cons are such masochists.;)

[Kevy Baby]

Why, Scaeagles- you sound almost excited at the prospect....don't tell me you've fallen for Hillary?;)I think he is fantasizing about a three-way with Hillary and Ann Coulter.

[lashbear]

Go Hillary !!!!!

....just thought I'd pop back and say that. As an Australian, I'd love to see Hillary voted in. As an American, I'd have to read this whole thread. :p

[Kevy Baby]

As an American, I'd have to read this whole thread. :pAnd then you would probably be more educated on the election than 90% of Americans.

[3894]

I think he is fantasizing about a three-way with Hillary and Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is a man, baby. His neck gives it away.

[scaeagles]

That's funny....I think Obama is a woman. Her bowling skills gave it away.

A three way with Hillary and Ann? It would be like being in the cage during some barbaric mixed martial arts match.

[wendybeth]

I ought to give Scaeagles IP address to the Women's Bowling League, Militant Division. There wouldn't be room for ham when they were through.;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not to rain on your parade, but I've heard a high vote turnout probably increases her margin of victory in PA.And I've heard the exact opposite. There's been a sharp increase among college-aged voter registrations in PA, which is a big demo for Obama.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's funny....I think Obama is a woman. Her bowling skills gave it away.
But can Hilary handle the rock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYCEnVmNkpE)?

[Alex]

I've seen all the pundits cover all of the bases of potential outcomes. The networks are happy with this because like a fraudulent stock newsletter after the fact when one of the outcomes becomes reality they'll be able to say "see, we told you that's how it would go down."

[Strangler Lewis]

After seeing the tapes of the three candidates on last night's Raw, I may skip this election.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There must be something in the Whitewater at the Clinton household that affects memory.

One day, literally one day, after Bill Clinton, during a radio interview, said that Obama "played the race card", he denied having said it. It's on tape, man! Yesterday! You're either really stupid, or a bald faced liar.

[Alex]

After seeing the tapes of the three candidates on last night's Raw, I may skip this election.

I know. That's sad isn't it (not that I saw it in context, just bouncing around the web). At least Obama looked the most insulted to be doing it but that's only small solace.

And I don't even really have a problem with professional wrestling. It doesn't appeal to me (though it did when I was a tween). I'd find it just as stupid and absurd if they all did stupid teasers for My Name is Earl or The Office

[Morrigoon]

There must be something in the Whitewater at the Clinton household that affects memory.

One day, literally one day, after Bill Clinton, during a radio interview, said that Obama "played the race card", he denied having said it. It's on tape, man! Yesterday! You're either really stupid, or a bald faced liar.

He did not... sleep... with that woman... Monica Lewinsky.

[scaeagles]

It's on tape, man! Yesterday! You're either really stupid, or a bald faced liar.

This is the Clinton political machine. He did this CONSTANTLY through his whole administration.

[Morrigoon]

For the record, here's that WWE stuff. Alex made a big deal of it last night but... meh... snooze-fest. Might mean more to me if I got the references.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4

[sleepyjeff]

There must be something in the Whitewater at the Clinton household that affects memory.

One day, literally one day, after Bill Clinton, during a radio interview, said that Obama "played the race card", he denied having said it. It's on tape, man! Yesterday! You're either really stupid, or a bald faced liar.



Welcome to my world of the 90's;)

[Kevy Baby]

As defined by the President of the US of A, I have been totally faithful to my wife!

[Strangler Lewis]

For the record, here's that WWE stuff. Alex made a big deal of it last night but... meh... snooze-fest. Might mean more to me if I got the references.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbaxHjxOlo4

I thought Obama came off worst, if only because he probably could have done a pretty good impression of The Rock--another mixed race performer of considerable oratorical skill--but he pulled back.

[Prudence]

I'm surprised that they were even on WWE. Guess that race must be pretty tight.

[Morrigoon]

I read one survey that said it's to Hillary's advantage to increase voter turnout among the non-degreed set.

[3894]

So who else will be watching the returns tonight?

[Morrigoon]

OH, I thought it was yesterday... no wonder there was no info on who won, heheh.

I don't think I'll be "watching" them, but I'm sure we can hardly avoid hearing the outcome at any rate. :)

[SacTown Chronic]

Bill Clinton lying? Imagine that!

[blueerica]

lawls

[Morrigoon]

Ugh, will it ever end?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/133325

[scaeagles]

I hope not. I want them to fight it out until they are both unrecoverably bloodied and the democrat party is fractured beyond all recognition.

[Morrigoon]

You mean until they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

[scaeagles]

Why, yes, Morrigoon, that is precisely what I mean.

And I don't think Hillary is going away any time soon. If you look at the electoral college counts of the states Obama and Hillary have each won, Hillary has HUGE advantages. Without FL and MI, she's up 240-141. If you throw those two in, she's up 284-141. That's huge, and you know she knows that, and you know the super delegates know that. She's got big, big mo right now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Why, yes, Morrigoon, that is precisely what I mean.

And I don't think Hillary is going away any time soon. If you look at the electoral college counts of the states Obama and Hillary have each won, Hillary has HUGE advantages. Without FL and MI, she's up 240-141. If you throw those two in, she's up 284-141. That's huge, and you know she knows that, and you know the super delegates know that. She's got big, big mo right now.
Someone needs to remind you and Hillary that electoral college counts matter only in the general election, against John McCain. Whether Hillary can beat Obama in big states is NOT the same question as whether Hillary can do better than Obama against John McCain in big states.

[3894]

She's got big, big mo right now.

Pfft. She could only pull that summers-in-Scranton crap in Pennsylvania. Indiana is May 6; Indiana is close to Illinois.

[scaeagles]

Someone needs to remind you and Hillary that electoral college counts matter only in the general election, against John McCain. Whether Hillary can beat Obama in big states is NOT the same question as whether Hillary can do better than Obama against John McCain in big states.

Gee, someone, I think I'm aware of that fact. I just find it hard to beleive that with the exit polling data, particularly in PA when something like 60% of Catholics who voted for Hillary in the primary said they would never vote for Obama, that the dem party and super delegates are aware and deathly afraid of this fact.

Hillary isn't going anywhere. Nor should she.

[JWBear]

I hope not. I want them to fight it out until they are both unrecoverably bloodied and the democrat party is fractured beyond all recognition.

If we can do the same to the Rebulican Party, and then start all over with new parties that really represent the people, then I say "deal". Otherwise, no thanks. The last thing this country needs is a one party rule (Regardless of which party).

[sleepyjeff]

If we can do the same to the Rebulican Party, and then start all over with new parties that really represent the people, then I say "deal". Otherwise, no thanks. The last thing this country needs is a one party rule (Regardless of which party).

You already did....why do you think we have John McCain as our nominee?

[JWBear]

I did what?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Gee, someone, I think I'm aware of that fact. I just find it hard to beleive that with the exit polling data, particularly in PA when something like 60% of Catholics who voted for Hillary in the primary said they would never vote for Obama, that the dem party and super delegates are aware and deathly afraid of this fact.And what percentage of moderate voters that voted Republican in '00 and '04 would never vote for Hillary? And what percentage of Obama voters would never vote Hillary. And what percentage of voters would vote for Nader over Hillary or McCain.

Sorry, but "I win in Me vs. Obama in big states" is such a tiny portion of the overall picture that it's pretty irrelevant.


Hillary isn't going anywhere. Nor should she.

As I said before, whether she should or not is up to the party leadership. Dean was turning up the heat to clarify the picture leading up to PA. The coming week will show if he wants to really put the pressure on.

[sleepyjeff]

I did what?

Well, not you personally since I doubt if you live in New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida but many Democrats in those states and others did exactly what some Republicans are doing now.....

Great minds thinking alike and what's good for the goose etc;)

[scaeagles]

Sorry, but "I win in Me vs. Obama in big states" is such a tiny portion of the overall picture that it's pretty irrelevant.


Couldn't disagree more, and it has to be something the dem party leadership will consider.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Couldn't disagree more, and it has to be something the dem party leadership will consider.
I'm looking through the polls of the theoretical Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain by state. Obama's got NY and MI. Clinton's got PA, OH, FL. McCain's got VA and TX, but Obama is significantly closer to him in both of those. Either Clinton or Obama takes NJ and CA with Clinton doing a little better in NJ and Obama a little better in CA.

Those stats come out pretty much a wash, and that's before taking into account the fact that the margins involved are almost universally tiny. Either less than, or barely over, the statistical margin of error for the polls. I just don't see the evidence of Cilnton's supposed big-state dominance in a general election. Wins over Obama just do not translate directly, as she'd like everyone to believe, to wins over McCain (or, rather, wins over McCain that Obama wouldn't get).

[Kevy Baby]

IMO, any theoretical polls (Clinton v McCain or Obama v McCain) are completely worthless at this point.

But then, I think most polls are irrelevant anyways.

[Ghoulish Delight]

IMO, any theoretical polls (Clinton v McCain or Obama v McCain) are completely worthless at this point.

But then, I think most polls are irrelevant anyways.I tend to agree, but the conversation was started with the "60% of catholics" presented as evidence, so staying within that realm, the polling seems to agree with my assessment. My main point is that there are way too many factors to say that just because Clinton is beating Obama in large states that she'll fare better in the same states in a general election. It's a claim she's been making for months, what exactly is that claim based on? All she might have to hang on would be polls, but those don't even agree.

[scaeagles]

Well, in spite of squabbling, this (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/exit-polls-mccain-would-win-clinton-and-obama-supporters/) is the type of information that I KNOW concerns dem party leadership.

Only 50 percent of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania said they would support Obama if he is the nominee. Twenty-six percent said they would back McCain over Obama, and 19 percent said they would not vote at all.

Among Obama’s Pennsylvania voters, 67 percent said they would support Clinton if she is the party's nomine. Seventeen percent said they would back McCain instead, and 12 percent said they would stay home.



Either way, these are simply horrid numbers for the dems. Now, do I believe they will stand that way? Not in the least. There is plenty of time for the eventual nominee to reach out, mend fences, etc, etc, etc. But that's why I want this race to continue on as long as possible. And frankly, with momentum clearly on the side of Hillary, she shouldn't drop out.

[3894]

But that's why I want this race to continue on as long as possible. And frankly, with momentum clearly on the side of Hillary, she shouldn't drop out.

Aw, you're all heart, sceagles. Some talking head summed up the Dem fight pretty well the other night: you have a woman who's "too" tough and a man who's "too" wussy. How the world has changed.

On the Republican side, McCain can't even get the N.C. Republicans to stop running an ad. I'm enjoying that.

[scaeagles]

I have no doubt that dems enjoy any problems on the republican side as much as republicans enjoy the distress on the dem side. And of course, you're assuming that McCain really wants the ad to stop running, which I doubt. It is standard operating procedure to have the party structure do the dirty work so that the candidate can appear above the fray, and I have little doubt that's what's happening there.

[3894]

And of course, you're assuming that McCain really wants the ad to stop running, which I doubt.

If so, he made the wrong calculation. It's easy to spin it. How weak McCain is when his even own party at the lowest levels won't listen! Commander-in-chief of nothing!

Now let's talk about McCain's continued confusion between Suni and Shia. Is it calculated or genuine? Either way, he's not presidential material.

[scaeagles]

I could easily argue the same thing about Hillary and Obama. Regardless of his constant calls of "hope" and "change", the man has virtually no experience in any area that the President would be responsible for. And Hillary....while I'm currently cheering for her, there is nothing Presidential about her.

So it's all perspective. I'm no McCain fan and you aren't going to hear me say that he is Presidential material, but he is more so than either of the other two.

[3894]

So it's all perspective. I'm no McCain fan and you aren't going to hear me say that he is Presidential material, but he is more so than either of the other two.


McCain is too old.

[scaeagles]

To quote my hero, Ronald Reagan, from his debate with Walter Mondale when asked about age, when he promised not to "exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience."

[Alex]

And look how well that worked out for him in the final couple years of his presidency.

It isn't fair to him, but he is too old. And that is why Hillary Clinton won't drop out until absolutely forced to, because by the time she can be sure she'll have another chance to run, she also will be too old (not as old as McCain but if she has to wait 8 more years to be president she'd be 69 when taking office).

Yes, McCain may very well be hail and hearty into his 90s but is it a simple fact of life that it is reasonable to expect significant mental and physical declines in people in their 70s. And I don't think it is unreasonable to take those concerns into account.

It isn't an issue that he can't overcome and if it is Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain I'll have to think long and hard whether her unfair disqualifying issue (returning a former president to the White House in any capacity) are more important than his (significant risk of mental decline during his presidency and being a member of a party that pretty miserably failed in its turn at complete power).

[Ghoulish Delight]

And frankly, with momentum clearly on the side of Hillary, she shouldn't drop out.
Yes, going from a >20% lead to winning by only 10%. Whew, serious momentum there!

[scaeagles]

Yes, going from a >20% lead to winning by only 10%. Whew, serious momentum there!

That's the same talking point the the Governor of Arizona said in her press conference. Glad you are reciting the same things.

[Morrigoon]

Well, if the shoe fits...

[scaeagles]

Talking points are talking points because they have some validity. Just because it is a talking point doesn't mean it is invalid. The 20% was one poll, one time.....an anomaly.

[JWBear]

It truly amazes how all these Republicans are suddenly becoming Hillary Clinton fans.

[scaeagles]

I have clearly stated why I want her to stay in the race. I am no Hillary fan, nor am I an Obama fan. Hell, I'm no McCain fan, and I've been clear on that as well.

[JWBear]

Sorry... I forgot the ;) in my last post.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Talking points are talking points because they have some validity. Just because it is a talking point doesn't mean it is invalid. The 20% was one poll, one time.....an anomaly.Oh, but your "60% of Catholics" and "50% of Clinton voters" are gospel truth?

[Not Afraid]

I see this thread and ALWAYS say "NO WE CAN'T!"

[scaeagles]

Oh, but your "60% of Catholics" and "50% of Clinton voters" are gospel truth?

A difference - you can't have daily tracking of exit polls. Exit polls happen once, so it is true that it could certainly be inaccurate. Daily tracking polls, though, typically change slightly day to day, and the 20% was a statistical anomaly that stood out from the normal trends of the numbers.

[Alex]

And since the exit polls have been significantly off in many of the recent primaries (after all it was because of misleading exit polls that the networks waited a couple hours before officially calling PA for Clinton despite her fairly large margin) how reliable should that data be considered when trying to break it down into ever smaller cohorts?

[Strangler Lewis]

I think this will all much ado about nothing. There'll be about three months between the last primary and the Democratic convention. Even if Hillary has not yet conceded, it will all be choreographed to put on a good show. There'll be lots of good, inspiring speeches that remind people that this election is not about Hillary vs. Obama or even voting against McCain. It's about voting against Bush (whom McCain is increasingly starting to resemble.) Then, the Republicans will have their convention a week later. They'll do their best with what they have, but it will all be capped by McCain, who, in addition to his other shortcomings, is the worst speaker ever. No one who said "I'd rather vote for McCain than the other Democrat" will stick by it.

[3894]

Well, if the shoe fits...

I'm making a citizen's arrest. Sen. Clinton, you have willfully and repeatedly committed fashion felony with those -I'm about to use a word I swore would never pass my lips - pantsuits.

[sleepyjeff]

Every time soneone critiques Obama(wow, critiqing someone who is running for President, what's the world coming to) we hear the usual "why don't we talk about the issues and leave his character, bowling skills and business deals alone"

but when someone asks Obama about the issues all Obama wants to do is be left alone to eat waffles:D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3H5IOGF-qU

[Strangler Lewis]

Every time soneone critiques Obama(wow, critiqing someone who is running for President, what's the world coming to) we hear the usual "why don't we talk about the issues and leave his character, bowling skills and business deals alone"

but when someone asks Obama about the issues all Obama wants to do is be left alone to eat waffles:D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3H5IOGF-qU

One ducked question does not a dodger make. The funny--or telling--thing about the clip is that he obviously didn't want to eat the damn diner waffle in the first place. As you can tell by looking at him, he is not a high carb kind of guy. From what I read, he didn't finish the waffle and at another stop he handed off his fries to somebody else.

[sleepyjeff]

One ducked question does not a dodger make. The funny--or telling--thing about the clip is that he obviously didn't want to eat the damn diner waffle in the first place. As you can tell by looking at him, he is not a high carb kind of guy. From what I read, he didn't finish the waffle and at another stop he handed off his fries to somebody else.

Oh, I agree and actually felt sorry for him and every politician who has to go and do the diner thing...there he is, trying to act like he is enjoying a food he normally wouldn't ever eat and just when he is about to take a bite a reporter asks him a serious, albeit a little off the wall, question about Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

Still, this question was totally about the issues and unless its' slipped past my radar remains unanswered.

[wendybeth]

Well, at least he plays a good game of basketball. He should challenge Hillary to a game. Loser has to eat waffles and fries.

Really, Jeff- I don't for a moment think that you care a bit about his opinion regarding Carter's trip. I also really don't think it matters squat as an issue, at least when compared to the many, many others that come to mind as I type this. It must be hell being a candidate sometimes- everyone wants the perfect soundbite response to questions that are either complex, poorly posed or just plain asinine. McCain would have just told the reporter to **** off, and maybe shoved him as he said it.

[sleepyjeff]

Really, Jeff- I don't for a moment think that you care a bit about his opinion regarding Carter's trip.

I didn't...but since he has been dodging this question my curiosity is piqued.

[sleepyjeff]

After laying a wreath in honor of the murderous Yasser Arafat, Carter dutifully agreed to deliver a letter from kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to his parents on behalf of the terrorists who are holding him hostage. Shalit's father rightly jeered Carter as nothing more than a postman for Hamas.


After Carter asserted that the State Department never clearly opposed his trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pointed out that she had explicitly warned him against meeting with Hamas. Not to mention all those bold-faced, unequivocal headlines before the trip announcing that "State Department opposes Carter meeting with Hamas chief" (USA Today) and "Rice Criticizes Carter for Reported Meeting Planned With Hamas" (Fox News).


What part of "Don't meet with the Jew-hating killers, you idiot!" didn't Carter understand?



http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin.php3

[scaeagles]

WB, why would we not care about what he thinks of Carter's trip? I believe it is an important issue. I do care what he thinks about it.

[sleepyjeff]

Here's a question I would like to ask Obama:


Sen. Obama, Canada, the United States and Mexico are contiguous countries. Yet you insist that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, causes companies to ship jobs overseas. Will you, before the American people, tell us the grade you received in high school geography?

~Larry Elder

:)

[scaeagles]

This whole issue with Wright I think has revealed that Obama is no different than any other politician.

Without going into too much detail, I do not see it as possible that Obama only just discovered the views of the man he has called his spiritual mentor. While Obama is correct in that the man is offensive, he is simply being politically expedient in his current posturing. Indeed the looped soundbites didn't do Reverend Wright justice, as his bigotry and insanity were not fully represented in those.

Do the views matter? What Wright says doesn't in terms of the campaign (though I think his views are indeed problematic in the community), and Obama was also correct in that Wright doesn't speak for him or his campaign. But only a couple of days ago Obama was standing by Wright, and one press club appearance suddenly shows him the light? I don't buy it at all.

And I will say once again that it does concern me that Obama has referred to this man as a mentor. I think it is reasonable to look at those that a candidate has looked up to and respected and admired as those people shape who he is and what he believes himself.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

And I will say once again that it does concern me that Obama has referred to this man as a mentor.

Interestingly enough, I was just reading a debate on another board and a cite was asked for a few days ago that contained a direct quote from Obama saying that Wright was a mentor. So far, none has been offered. Would you happen to have one?

[innerSpaceman]

His flip-flopping on the Wright issue makes me :rolleyes: , but to the extent he might have been mentored and influenced by Rev. Wright, I like him more and more.

[scaeagles]

Interestingly enough, I was just reading a debate on another board and a cite was asked for a few days ago that contained a direct quote from Obama saying that Wright was a mentor. So far, none has been offered. Would you happen to have one?

I admit, I have searched, and cannot find a direct quote of Obama calling him his mentor. However, I can find articles in the Chicago Tribune about Obama always consulting Wright before making a political move, found out that his book The Audacity of Hope was inspired by a sermon made by Wright, that the man married Obama and his wife and baptized his children, have found hundred s of references to a letter penned by Obama in which he referred to Wright as a "friend, mentor, and pastor".....such things are endless. sso while the word mentor may not have specifically come from his mouth, the shoe would indeed seem to fit.

[Alex]

Other than the AIDS stupidity (and, frankly, we've had actual elected officials who believed stupider things and it isn't like there's absolutely no precedent for the government intentionally inflicting diseases on black populations) I still haven't heard much of anything from Wright that I find all that upsetting.

Other than Obama having heard the things Wright has said, has Obama ever actually done anything to make you believe the same thing? Do you think that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate unleashed upon America by the Black Liberation Theology Illuminati?

So, I honestly still don't care. Just as I honestly don't care if the Republican candidates sit at the feel of the equally obnoxious Jerry Falwell types except insofar as I perceive the candidates will attempt to govern like the Jerry Falwell and/or Wright types.

I'm more concerned that all three candidates took pretty stupid positions on the mercury-vaccination issue when they obviously haven't a clue what they're talking about than that any of them know people who say stupid stuff.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree with Alex. What has disappointed me about Obama's recent responses is that in the recent clips I've seen he's saying typical politician things like "Anyone who examines my prior pronouncements will know that this is not what I am bout." This is the cousin to "I am confident that after a full investigation I will be exonerated."

[scaeagles]

Do you think that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate unleashed upon America by the Black Liberation Theology Illuminati?

No, I don't think there is any conspiracy. I just think that Obama is very, very far left and may actually agree with what Wright believes. He only chose to distance himself from the man when it became an issue that started hurting his numbers.

[innerSpaceman]

Far left compared to who?


I'm afraid you're not leaving much room on the left if you consider Obama to be at the far end. Pfft.

[scaeagles]

Obama is consistently ranked as the most liberal member of the Senate.

I suppose you and I might have a vastly definition of center, therefore skewing our perspective of what is far left and far right.

[Strangler Lewis]

No, I don't think there is any conspiracy. I just think that Obama is very, very far left and may actually agree with what Wright believes. He only chose to distance himself from the man when it became an issue that started hurting his numbers.

I'm sure he does or did believe some of it to an extent, which is why he has not gone chapter and verse through everything Rev. Wright said. The question would be what he would to do to address the real problems that concern Rev. Wright.

And, really. If we're going to disqualify presidential candidates based on the cruelty, idiocy and hate perpetrated, espoused and ignored by their religious leaders or the larger bodies, then only atheists will get to be president.

[3894]

Re: Rev. Wright

Ever since this first appeared on the radar, I have thought the choice of this pastor has a lot more to do with Mrs. Obama than Mr. First, that's often the way things work. Second, remember what Michele Obama said after Barak's Iowa victory - for the first time in her adult life she was proud of this country.
That's someone who would be sympathetic to Rev. Wright's rhetoric.

[SacTown Chronic]

Still waiting for evidence that Wright is racist or un-American. Sure he's a crackpot (and race-obsessed, I'll grant you that), but no more so than most nationally known religious leaders. Certainly his claims can be proven* a lot easier than your run-of-the-mill blame the faggots and hedonists rhetoric that comes from the religious right whenever tragedy occurs. I suspect most of the sound and fury over Wright might be due to the fact that he is a black man who preaches like a black man.



*Except for that AIDS sh*t.


No, I don't think there is any conspiracy. I just think that Obama is very, very far left and may actually agree with what Wright believes. He only chose to distance himself from the man when it became an issue that started hurting his numbers. Why does agreeing with Wright and acknowledging that our government has a history of racism, atrocities committed in foreign lands, and mistreatment (and execution) of its own people have to be a right or left thing? It seems to me that holding one's country up to the light and learning from its history is what a true patriot does.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Black Liberation Theology

or, BLT.

Mmmm. Where do I join?

[Morrigoon]

I just don't buy into this whole "pastor's-thoughts-are-Obama's-thoughts" crap.

I had a pastor I liked a lot when I lived in Texas, went to church weekly, etc. But you know what? He's against gay marriage. Doesn't mean I am. I think anyone who knows me can appreciate just how much I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Granted, I only heard it once the entire time I attended there, so it's not like he harped on it the way that Rev. Wright harps on the AIDS thing, but my point still stands.

This may come as a surprise to the atheists, but churchgoers CAN think for themselves and decide to what degree they want to listen to their religious leaders.

[sleepyjeff]

"My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work,"

~B.H. Obama



Sounds to me like he is saying that he not only listens to what the Pastor says but intends to act upon it.

[scaeagles]

Still waiting for evidence that Wright is racist or un-American.

Wright has specifically acknowledged a man named James Cone as the father of the philosophy he believes in and has based his church upon. Some quotes from James Cone -

All white men are responsible for white oppression.

To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people.

What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love.

You get the idea.

He has also honored and lauded Louis Farrakhan, who is indeed a racist himself.

Now, I suppose ractist may not be the correct term, and I mean that sincerely. But he indeed propote racial hatred.

[scaeagles]

Sounds to me like he is saying that he not only listens to what the Pastor says but intends to act upon it.

Wow...if a Republican said that there would be hell to pay.

[innerSpaceman]

Obama must believe as Wright does as Wright must believe as Cone does.



You are stretching, scaeagles. Don't pull your sphincter muscles.

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't see why there would be hell to pay if a Republican said that. All Obama appears to be talking about is faith through salvation (or sitting on your butt in the Astrodome) vs. faith through good works.

Whether this is truly admirable, of course, all depends on what one defines as God's work.

[scaeagles]

Not a stretch at all, there, really. Wright says he based his entire philosophy on Cone. Obama says (or has implied, certainly) that Wright is a mentor.

If A = B and B = C then A = C.

As far as being in trouble, the whole topic of conversation would be whether or not the republican could keep his religious views out of his governing. He wants to do the Lord's work? What exactly does he think that means? Locking women up in the kitchen with no shoes????? Who's Lord is he referring to?!?!?! We all have our own religious or non religious views and he CAN'T IMPOSE HIS ON ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sleepyjeff]

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."
~B.H. Obama

Never mind the implication that Wright did indeed provide "day-to-day political advice".

So Obama needs Wright to keep from losing himself "in some of the hype and hoopla" of "national politics"...

What will he do now to keep himself from being lost?

[Alex]

That's true. But I would argue then when most Republicans say they are pursuing the Lord's work (as many of them have without seeming to suffer too much for it) that is often the only reason they can give for it.

So far, I haven't yet heard Obama say "I'm proposing Policy Z because it is what God would want." When he does that, I'll mock him just as much as I do any of the other hundreds of politicians that have pulled that stunt. I don't ask that religious people not be informed by their faith (though I would be happier if they weren't), just that their faith not be presented as justification.

While we're using math:

"mentor" != = & ∴ B != C ∴ A != C

[Strangler Lewis]

As far as being in trouble, the whole topic of conversation would be whether or not the republican could keep his religious views out of his governing. He wants to do the Lord's work? What exactly does he think that means? Locking women up in the kitchen with no shoes????? Who's Lord is he referring to?!?!?! We all have our own religious or non religious views and he CAN'T IMPOSE HIS ON ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And these concerns would be legitimate since, at least where the already born are concerned, Republican politicians typically invoke the old time religion in the name of exclusion and intolerance. If some politician wants to (occasionally) humbly cite Jesus's teaching as informing his message of brotherhood and charity, I'm not going to have too much of a problem with it. I believe the vogue phrase these days is "Red Letter Christian."

[JWBear]

Not a stretch at all, there, really. Wright says he based his entire philosophy on Cone. Obama says (or has implied, certainly) that Wright is a mentor.

If A = B and B = C then A = C.


The first two parts of the equation are just assumptions on your part, not facts.

[scaeagles]

I would argue that at least the second part of the equation is true enough to most people has caused Obama to react as he has in order to stop the tremendous tide of negative public opinion. I don't think anyone here (perhaps I'm wrong) thinks Obama distancing himself from Wright is anything but political expedience.

Based on Wright saying that Cone and his philosophy are what he based the philosophy of his church on, I would think the first part is relative sound as well.

[Kevy Baby]

While we're using math:

"mentor" != = & ∴ B != C ∴ A != CThat's fuzzy math.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't get the controversy - I mean, so are we supposed to be worried that Obama will stop the infect African americans with aids program, or spoil the next 911 conspiracy?

[Not Afraid]

James Cone, eh? I wonder if I'm related.

[scaeagles]

I don't get the controversy - I mean, so are we supposed to be worried that Obama will stop the infect African americans with aids program, or spoil the next 911 conspiracy?

Personally, I think it speaks to poor judgment.

[innerSpaceman]

Eh, I'm not the biggest Obama fan ... but if this is the worse that can be flung against him ... say hello to the next President of the United States.

I've rarely seen so much ado about nothing.

[€uroMeinke]

Personally, I think it speaks to poor judgment.

I dunno - Bush fell for the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction conspiracy theory and we made him president

[scaeagles]

Bush indeed did, as did his predecessor, but we're talking about Obama.

If this is no big deal, however, why did Obama feel the need to suddenly "see the light" when only a day or two before he had said he could not abandon Wright? It was a political decision made to limit political damage.

[innerSpaceman]

Because he's a tool. He's a maroon. I think it's the stupidest thing he's done in the whole campaign.

BUT, he's human. And this is typical. Now that he's getting so close to the nomination and the presidency he can taste it, he's starting to make mistakes. The closer to the presidency he gets, the more of an idiot he will become.

[scaeagles]

Here's yet another thing that scares me about Obama. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is unsound economics and is another example of a politician who does not know economics proposing economic ideas because they are politically advantageous.

What he wants to do: (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gqWhoBksx6mCNf_jCCUPnoojMlww)

Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign.

Here's a column (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4467) chastizing republicans for a similarly stupid proposal.

The feel good politically expedient thing to say (and something I believe he'd do as well) only makes the problem worse.

[Kevy Baby]

I've rarely seen so much ado about nothing.It is rare, but we do agree once in while!

If this is no big deal, however, why did Obama feel the need to suddenly "see the light" when only a day or two before he had said he could not abandon Wright?I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, but I thought that Obama spoke up because Wright came out with even more inflammatory rhetoric. I may very well be mistaken as I have not been keeping up on things lately.

Here's yet another thing that scares me about Obama. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is unsound economics and is another example of a politician who does not know economics proposing economic ideas because they are politically advantageous.

What he wants to do: (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gqWhoBksx6mCNf_jCCUPnoojMlww)

The feel good politically expedient thing to say (and something I believe he'd do as well) only makes the problem worse.Who is going to be taxed? Exxon, et. al. don't sell barrels of oil, they buy them. Does Obama plan on taxing the Saudi's? Good luck with THAT! There are a few, very small domestic oil sellers that might impacted by this, but since they really can't make much money unless oil sells in this range, then yeah, it is stupid election time politicking.

[Not Afraid]

I wonder what would be said about my friendships here if I were to run for office?

[Kevy Baby]

I wonder what would be said about my friendships here if I were to run for office?At first, I thought that you would be laughed out of the race. Then I realized you would be laughed into office.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree that there's a lot of bad behavior all around and that a tax-as such-on the oil companies is not the best way to target it. Some suggestions:

* If Obama truly feels that the oil companies' profits do not accurately reflect supply and demand, market conditions, etc., he should have the stones to launch a big old fashioned criminal price fixing investigation.

* I have limited sympathy for most people affected by rising gas prices since many of them are driving fuel-inefficient, anti-social vehicles. Just as inner city police departments have had some success paying gangbangers $50 to turn in their guns, the government could help people help themselves by insisting that everyone turn in their SUVs and oversized pickups in for a new hybrid. (Or a new hybrid plus a gun, a Faces of Death video, etc. to keep testosterone levels up.)

* Anyone who wanted to keep their SUV or pickup truck would have to get a special permit justifying the need. It would cost $1,000 just to have the permit considered. E.g., an SUV would not be justified by commuter safety concerns. An oversized pickup would not be justified by the need to haul stuff to work on your house twice a year.

* There would be additional federal funding for school districts to run buses.

* Etc.

[sleepyjeff]

I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, but I thought that Obama spoke up because Wright came out with even more inflammatory rhetoric. I may very well be mistaken as I have not been keeping up on things lately.


But Wright didn't say anything he hasn't been saying for the last 20 odd years. The only differenece that I can see is this time Obama and his apologists couldn't say Wright was being taken out of context:rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

Back to the Obama and the oil company issue. Clinton and McCain are calling for a gas tax suspension. Obama doesn't like the idea....

Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a vote Friday in the Democratic-controlled Congress on a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax, a plan that Barack Obama dismissed as a political stunt that would cost thousands of construction jobs.

"It's a Shell game. Literally," Obama said to laughter from his campaign audience, adding it would mean little for hard-pressed consumers.



When the gas taxes or about 3 times what the oil companies make on a gallon of gas, I am amused that he wants a windfall profits tax when oil companies make about 8-9 cents/gallon, and the government takes about three times that. If taking away that tax means little or nothing to the average consumer, what does the wind fall profits tax mean to the average consumer?

[innerSpaceman]

Well he pretty much outted the pander of the gas tax suspension proposal this morning on national tv. Great interview on Meet the Press.

[Alex]

Yes, it was a very good interview though I think he muffed the Iran/Israel question a bit.

On the tax holiday question I think he needs to modify that answer a bit and give it great prominence. So far I had mostly seen him trying to explain the economics of why a tax holiday isn't really of any short term value and has short term negatives. Instead he should essentially say, "experience is an issue that keeps coming up and experience has taught me the answer to this question. Back when gasoline was a shocking $2 a gallon we had this same idea in Illinois. And the economists said it wouldn't work and we politicians gathered together and decided that it would and passed a holiday on the Illinois gas taxes. And you know what? The economists were right, the price of gas just rose to cover the tax holiday BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MARKETS DO and we simply transferred that money from the state highway coffers to the retail gas station owners. That is why I don't support a federal tax holiday. It is an idea born out of good intent but it won't work, it hasn't worked in the past, and the damages can be huge."

(Though, obviously, it would have to be shorter.)

[scaeagles]

I'll need to try to find a transcript of the program. Did he address the windfall profits tax? I personally agree that the economics of the gas tax suspension don't do much and could indeed be harmful, however I believe a windfall profits tax is far more harmful. Anyway, did that come up?

[innerSpaceman]

Nope. Wasn't raised by Russert.

[Alex]

In his answer Obama mentioned the windfall tax as something both he and Clinton wanted (in the context of the fact that Clinton has already committed the money from the windfall tax to energy independence measures and therefore by saying she'd use it to cover the revenues from a tax holiday she was double spending it). But yeah, there was no discussion of its merits.

I'd oppose one. I'd also support ending all tax incentives and direct subsidies they receive.

[Morrigoon]

Well, Obama took North Carolina :)

Indiana's going to be much harder. Looks like he's a little bit behind there.

[scaeagles]

Very interesting.....reports are out this morning that Clinton has made a multi-million daloor loan to her campaign today. This would seem to suggest that she is certainly not dropping out yet.

What I think is bizarre about how the democrats have their primary system set up is the porportional distribution of delegates. Even with his 14 pt win in NC and 2 pt loss in IN, Obama only picked up something like 17 delegates in the margin.

Clinton is going to be hitting the super delegates HARD today and over the next week. Remember the 900 FBI files the Clintons acquired? I wonder how many of those were on dem super delegates. I would not put anything past the Clintons, even blackmail.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

At this point she should just be embarrassed to continue, but then I remembered that the Clintons do not get embarrassed about anything. I remembered when I thought that President Clinton would leave office out of sheer embarrassment, but I totally underestimated his ability to put up with being a liar in front of the entire world.

I simply cannot wait until the kicking-and-screaming moment when she is silenced, just because at this point she's running on sheer chutzpah, not reality. Bottom line - She Is Hurting The Party. How unbelievably selfish of her, if she continues.

[Moonliner]

I just can't helping thinking that from the Clinton's perspective, if she can't win the nomination this year then the next best thing for her is if McCain wins and she can run again in four years.

If Obama wins then she's pretty much cooked for good as far as the presidency goes.

So knowing that the longer this drags out, the better it is for the Republicans......

[3894]

How unbelievably selfish of her, if she continues.

Lots of people have pointed out that Sen. Clinton's rhetoric is I, me, mine but Sen. Obama's is We, us, our. It's a simple but important difference and one you'd think Sen. Clinton would have appropriated. But no and so her language comes off as egocentric and self-involved, which reinforces the perception of her candidacy as about her and no one else.

My husband thinks Sen. Clinton has gone off the deep end and that her advisers will earn their pay by pulling her back to reality.

[scaeagles]

I just can't helping thinking that from the Clinton's perspective, if she can't win the nomination this year then the next best thing for her is if McCain wins and she can run again in four years.

If Obama wins then she's pretty much cooked for good as far as the presidency goes.

So knowing that the longer this drags out, the better it is for the Republicans......


I have heard theories on this and would not be at all surprised if this is her angle. Should that happen, and McCain defeats Obama, it will be very interesting to see the dynamics in the Senate for the next 4 years as those two will basically continue the campaign and struggle for power and influence far beyond the norm.

Clinton, Inc. is all about the power and influence of the Clintons and the fact that they will do anything to acquire and maintain it. This has indeed always been the case.

Obama is well polished in his rhetoric, but I don't buy the "our" and "we" stuff. It is "we" and "our" only for those that wish to accomplish the same agenda. I have no problem with that (beyond that he scares the hell out of me) - elections mean things and if he wins, he should try to push his agenda through.

[Gemini Cricket]

Time for Hillary to stop.
Obama can't fly if she's blocking the runway.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Bottom line - She Is Hurting The Party. How unbelievably selfish of her, if she continues.

I'm confused. How is she hurting the party by staying in the race and yet, Obama isn't? Couldn't the same logic be applied to either candidate?

[Kevy Baby]

I just can't helping thinking that from the Clinton's perspective, if she can't win the nomination this year then the next best thing for her is if McCain wins and she can run again in four years.

If Obama wins then she's pretty much cooked for good as far as the presidency goes.I think the overall feeling is that McCain's chances are slim at this point, especially against Obama. So this really is her chance - as slim as it may be.

I'm confused. How is she hurting the party by staying in the race and yet, Obama isn't? Couldn't the same logic be applied to either candidate?Because the only chance Hillary has of gaining the nomination is by back room deals and other shady efforts which would cast a bad shadow on the Democratic party.

[Strangler Lewis]

I could see someone in Hillary's position staying in the race if the leader was--from my perspective--a dangerous demagogue who had pulled the wool over the public's eyes. However, unless she's going to explode his candicacy and say he does not deserve to be president over McCain, I don't see any purpose to her continuing.

And while Bill has not been at his best for years, the only people who should have resigned in shame over the impeachment scandal were the Republican Congress and Kenneth Starr.

[scaeagles]

Never mind. Been there, argued that.

[innerSpaceman]

I simply cannot wait until the kicking-and-screaming moment when she is silenced, just because at this point she's running on sheer chutzpah, not reality. Bottom line - She Is Hurting The Party. How unbelievably selfish of her, if she continues.
What is this "hurting the party" nonsense? How so? By keeping the democrats in the news 24/7? By making their contest exciting and making everyone want to participate? By not having the candidate selection over before every democrat in America gets to vote? By maybe having the first democratic convention in decades that's not an ignored yawnfest?


Also, while I don't approve of the "methods" Hillary might employ to win, the fact is tons of people are voting for her. Though she's behind in delegate counts, and even though it looks like she can't win, roughly half the voters still vote for her. Hmmmm, how does that make you want to quit?

I don't agree with her strategy ... but it's a legitimate one. Demonstrate that you can win in the states that actually MATTER in the General Election, and hope that super-delegates are swayed by that. Remember, there's nothing nefarious about super-delegates. The system is DESIGNED to over-rule the voters if the party big-wigs believe it's necessary.

I don't think it is, in this case. Nor do I think they will do that in this case. But the system is SUPPOSED to pick the candidate that the party big-wigs think can win in November, even if that's not what the pledged delegates were elected to do. I can't exactly find fault with a candidate who wants to use that function to their advantage.


Fat chance for Hillary, says me. But far from "hurting the party," I think it's giving the Democrats the biggest shot in the arm ever. The longer this goes on, the longer John McCain stays out of the news. He'd have to light himself on fire to get some press before the Dem candidate is selected.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What is this "hurting the party" nonsense? How so? By keeping the democrats in the news 24/7? By making their contest exciting and making everyone want to participate? By not having the candidate selection over before every democrat in America gets to vote? By maybe having the first democratic convention in decades that's not an ignored yawnfest?

....snip...

Fat chance for Hillary, says me. But far from "hurting the party," I think it's giving the Democrats the biggest shot in the arm ever. The longer this goes on, the longer John McCain stays out of the news. He'd have to light himself on fire to get some press before the Dem candidate is selected.

John McCain staying out of the news is a bad thing. He's getting a free ride on the fact that he doesn't know Al Quaida from his asshole, that he has no problem with the idea of going to war for oil, and his constant flip flopping. Meanwhile we get to endlessly hear about pastors, lapel pins, and Sinbad. The more the democrats have torn each other apart, the further ahead McCain has gotten and the more time he's had to cover up for letting slip his ignorance on foreign policy. He's had months to take it easy and polish his campaign while the eventual democratic nominee has spent months fighting with their own party.

What we need is for McCain to be IN the news, not coasting along on the sidelines.

[Morrigoon]

The point is, the more they rip at eachother, the more damage done to the eventual nominee.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, you don't think McCain is going to rip at the nominee?


And if lapel pins and the views of someone's pastor are going to guide the prevailing voters, nothing much maters anyway.


Where' s the damage done to Obama because of LapelPinGate and PastorGate? He won decisively in North Carolina, and got nearly half the vote in Indiana. Oh, he's crushed. The damage is done, it's over.

[Morrigoon]

Of course McCain will rip at the nominee. But at least if he's doing it, he takes some heat onto himself for running a negative campaign. Right now, he's getting a free ride while they rip into each other and he gets to stand on the sidelines and not get his hands dirty.

[JWBear]

...(beyond that he scares the hell out of me)...

Why? I'm curious.

[scaeagles]

His stance on taxes. He has said he will raise taxes, both income and capital gains. He is for wind fall profits taxes.

I believe he is ignorant in terms of foreign policy. I honestly don't know what his foreign policy views are on many things, but most things I hear him say are bothersome to me (such as previously discussed viewpoints on Iran in particular). He was harping on Hillary for not cosponsoring a bill that would try to outlaw OPEC. Yikes. That is either ridiculous or scarily ignorant or both.

His voting record is ranked as the most liberal in the Senate (which I realize is a plus for many who post here).

Those would be the primary things, but that covers the most important things to me - tax policy, dealing with terrorists and rogue states, and how he has voted on issues before him.

As a person, I believe he's a decent guy. I'm a policy guy. I will say that none of the candidates will get my enthusiastic support, and McCain is the least scary to me of the three.

[JWBear]

Sorry, but to me, McCain is the most scary of all three!

[scaeagles]

Understandable. The man scares me, too. Probably the only one I wouldn't be afraid to meet in a dark alley, though, would be Obama.

[wendybeth]

Well, McGovern (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/politics/2008/05/07/McGovern.Clinton/) seems to think she's hurting the Party. He is not a superdelegate, but he is very influential and switching his endorsement to Obama is just another sign that the Dem leadership is getting nervous about the potential for splitting the Party should this nastiness continue.

[innerSpaceman]

Probably the only one I wouldn't be afraid to meet in a dark alley, though, would be Obama.
Whoa, that better have been a joke.


Where's the smiley?

[3894]

His stance on taxes. He has said he will raise taxes

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

[scaeagles]

Whoa, that better have been a joke.

I'm only saying I think I could take him. Hillary and McCain would whip up on me with their internal rage power.

[Moonliner]

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

[scaeagles]

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

The premise of your question is flawed on two counts.

First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place.

Secondly, the government should spend less money if money is tight.

Borrowing money from China is only for the Clinton's campaign coffers.

[wendybeth]

Is borrowing money from China the better way to pay for our spending?

I owe you mojo.:cheers:

[JWBear]

A McCain Presidency scares me because it would be, at least, four more years of what we have now. I honestly don't think this country can survive that.

ETA that a Hillary Clinton presidency scares me because I fear that she will do anything she can to prove she has bigger cojones than anyone else.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, does the government military spending fuss you at all? Just wondering. Also, if not- where the hell do you think they get the money to do so?

[scaeagles]

Really? You believe that it would literally mean the end of America?

[scaeagles]

Scaeagles, does the government military spending fuss you at all? Just wondering. Also, if not- where the hell do you think they get the money to do so?

I have no problem with taxation for Constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government. Well over half, and I'm sure it's over 75% though I do not know exact numbers, of federal spending is not for Constitutionally mandated functions. So, no, military spending doesn't anger me at all. Wasteful spending in all areas does, so to the point that military funding is wasted - and we would disagree on what constitutes wasted military spending - that is a problem.

[Kevy Baby]

He's [Obama] a maroon.Hmm... I thought Obama was black


:D

[wendybeth]

Studying the American Revolution, especially the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution when viewed through the eyes of the original participants, I must say I disagree with your logic. The original patriots would be appalled at our world stance right now- we are little better than England was in our arrogance and imperialistic pursuits, no matter what guise (Democracy) we throw on them. We fought a Revolution over less- what makes you think it can't happen again? Everything is lining up for social upheaval, and it's just getting worse. When it hits you in the pocketbook, I suspect you too will join the ranks of those who cannot afford to be Republican anymore.

[scaeagles]

I would suggest, from what I know of the Federalist Papers (which I've read, but certainly do not consider myself a scholar on), that they would be far more appalled at the level of spending on clearly not Constitutionally mandated functions. James Madison once said, when a bill appropriating $15,000 for some....gosh, I'm thinking refuges from somewhere, but can't be sure....that "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You think I haven't been hit in the pocket book? Do you think I'm rich? I still believe in the principles I'm espousing regardless of their direct impact on my bottom line because I think they're right.

[JWBear]

Really? You believe that it would literally mean the end of America?

America as we know it now. If we continue on our present course, I can only see disaster coming... economic collapse, destruction of our military, massive civil unrest, revolution, invasion… take your pick. The policies of the current neo-con/corporate controlled Republican Party will destroy this nation.

[JWBear]

I would suggest, from what I know of the Federalist Papers (which I've read, but certainly do not consider myself a scholar on), that they would be far more appalled at the level of spending on clearly not Constitutionally mandated functions. James Madison once said, when a bill appropriating $15,000 for some....gosh, I'm thinking refuges from somewhere, but can't be sure....that "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

You think I haven't been hit in the pocket book? Do you think I'm rich? I still believe in the principles I'm espousing regardless of their direct impact on my bottom line because I think they're right.

How would the founding fathers feel about domestic spying and the Patriot (sic) Act?

[scaeagles]

America as we know it now. If we continue on our present course, I can only see disaster coming... economic collapse, destruction of our military, massive civil unrest, revolution, invasion… take your pick. The policies of the current neo-con/corporate controlled Republican Party will destroy this nation.

It is so funny that I feel that same way when thinking about Obama or Hillary in office. Without the last sentence, of course.

[scaeagles]

How would the founding fathers feel about domestic spying and the Patriot (sic) Act?

Fair question, and it is very tough to say.

I must say, being that I am a strict constructionist and I must be true to my belief system, that they would indeed object as a violation of the 4th amendment.

That being said, I personally do not have problems with the echelon system and software flagging personal conversations based on keywords for later analysis by a human. I'm not sure how they what they would think about that, because the flagging of keywords can perhaps mean that it is no longer unreasonable to listen in.

[wendybeth]

I resent the hell out of our tax dollars going to the industrial war complex. By that, I mean the apolitical politicians- like Cheney- who stand for nothing more than profit at any cost, even if it means the destruction of our country and the deaths of thousands of our citizens. I never thought you were rich, Scaeagles- I really don't concern myself with such matters, but I do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

[Ghoulish Delight]

First is that raising taxes will result in raised revenue, far from a certainty, and I would argue the opposite takes place.
And you'd be wrong (http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm). (or rather, you'd be just as likely to be wrong as right since all the evidence has shown that far too many economic factors are at play for incremental changes, up or down, in taxation to produce any sort of predictable, measurable effect on overall revenue due to economic growth or shrinkage).

By the same token, ignoring the last clause of the sentence, I agree that raising taxes is not a certain path towards revenue increase (see above). But the reality is that our spending is growing and that's not going to change no matter who is in office. The only thing that is going to have an effect at this point is military spending and McCain will certainly continue the trend of blowing the budget out of the water on that. From the standpoint of economic stability, while my druthers would be to make large cuts in all areas where there is waste, that's simply not going to happen in the short term so the next best thing is to stop the bleeding via un-budgeted military spending and continue to ensure there is enough revenue to cover the current levels of approved waste. When we had a budget surplus, moves were being made to begin cutting intelligently because Congress could look at the budget rationally instead of in panic mode. It'd be nice to be there again.

[scaeagles]

II do know that you cite money as a primary motivator in your political decisions. I like money as much as the next person, but not at the cost of my humanity.

It isn't that my motivation is that I like money more than the next person. I am just against legalized theivery and redistribution of wealth, which is what I regard a large portion of taxation as. I am against the legalized pyramid scheme of social security. I do not believe that it is the place of government to determine that they can make better use of money I earn than they can. And I resent the hell out of the fact that the government never feels like they can do with less....it is ALWAYS more. Sadly GWB has failed me (and America) mightily in this area with the virtually exponential growth of the federal budget.

[wendybeth]

Saying GW failed is understating the situation. He and his gang have lied and stolen from the American people, and the world as well. They are nothing more than criminals- not failed idealists. I look at the actions of people like Limbaugh, who openly encouraged crossover voting, and wonder why anyone would align themselves with a party that engages in such cynical and deceptive practices. I'll take a good sex scandal over this **** anyday.

[scaeagles]

Sorry, but crossover voting has been going on with dems for a long time. This is how we got McCain as the republican nominee. I guess open primaries are OK unless they aren't.

I don't agree on the "stolen from the American people" thing.

GD, I knew you'd jump on that statement, but an argument can be made and has been by many an economist, though certainly not supported by what you cite.

[Ghoulish Delight]

GD, I knew you'd jump on that statement, but an argument can be made and has been by many an economist, though certainly not supported by what you cite.
I have never seen any remotely convincing argument. Every argument I've seen is based either purely on theory, or on short-term economic effects that can easily be attributed to other factors and (as demonstrated by my link, and countless other sources) are negated by opposing trends in any long term analysis. There has never been any credible evidence of the supposed stimulating economic effect of incremental tax cuts that has crossed my eyes.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, somehow I knew you'd come back with a 'but they do it too' argument. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and it needs to stop somewhere. THAT is my main reason for voting for Obama- I will not vote for a candidate who engages in destructive politics . It's one thing to point out inconsistencies and untruths, and quite another to manufacture and engage in deception. So long as Obama continues on the high road, I will gladly follow.

[wendybeth]

The Obama campaign is getting some major backing today: Delegates aligning with Obama (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/07/obama-camp-aims-to-finish-off-clinton-in-nomination-fight/).

"
At least four new Democratic superdelegates shifted toward Obama on Wednesday, convinced by his double-digit victory in North Carolina and better-than-expected showing in Indiana that he will be the candidate who takes on McCain in November.
Among the newly added supporters was Virginia’s Jennifer McClellan, who used to support Clinton, as well as North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek, North Carolina Democratic National Committee member Jeanette Council and California DNC member Inola Henry.
Earlier in the day, 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern, who formerly backed Clinton, gave his blessing to Obama, saying he didn’t see how Clinton could win."






I took the article from FauxNews so Scaeagles wouldn't feel it was unbalanced.:D

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

I will, without hesitation, toss my support to Obama. This crap about, "if my candidate doesn't win, I'll vote for McCain or just not vote" peeves me to no end.

There are two Supreme Court Justices that are not likely to last for another four years. If they were to be replaced by the types of judges that McCain has pledged to support, we are royally screwed. I urge anyone who is contemplating following through on their professed threat to vote for McCain if they candidate doesn't win the nomination to carefully consider the ramifications of a judicial branch that is completely lopsided before making that decision.

Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain.

[JWBear]

Dear Hillary supporters:

When If Obama officially receives the Democratic nomination for President, will you then toss your support over to him? Vote McCain? Stay Home?

I'm an Obama supporter, so the question does not apply to me. However... If Clinton should manage to win the nomination, I will vote for her without hesitation in November – albeit with a firm grasp on my nose. She would be the lesser of two evils.

[innerSpaceman]

Of course I'm throwing my support behind Obama if, er, when Clinton loses the nomination. D'uh.


Funny, because as scary as he is, I find MCain to be the least objectionable Republican candidate for president of my long lifetime.

[scaeagles]

Hell, I even know of a few conservatives who shudder at that prospect and have cited it as the number one reason they will not vote for McCain.

Different worlds....justice openings are one of the only reasons I would vote FOR McCain.

If Obama wins, I'm going to find it amusing should his nominations be filibustered in the same way Bush's were, listening to the left side of the aisle screech about how unfair that is.

Does it make it right? No, just like WB alluded to with the open primaries. I hate open primaries. Doesn't stop me from enjoying the turmoil. Maybe no both sides will finally agree that open primaries are a bad idea.

BY the way....as far as counting all votes....if Florida and Michigan were counter, wouldn't Hillary have the popular vote lead? I thoought I heard that. What the dems choose to do is their own business. They wouldn't be in this mess if they hadn't set up their primaries as porportionally awarded so that super delegates could make the decision. They've gotten just what they have asked for.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You can't use the Florida and Michigan #'s. No campaigns were run there. Rather, Obama didn't run campaigns there due the the party rules. Clinton, while she didn't visit, actively pandered to them. Plus, wasn't there at least one of those where Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's wasn't?

[scaeagles]

I'm not sure. I just think it is a card Hillary might play in her desperation.

[JWBear]

You can't use the Florida and Michigan #'s. No campaigns were run there. Rather, Obama didn't run campaigns there due the the party rules. Clinton, while she didn't visit, actively pandered to them. Plus, wasn't there at least one of those where Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's wasn't?

Michigan. Obama played by the rules that both he and Clinton agreed on. Clinton is trying to change them.

[scaeagles]

There's a shock.

[mousepod]

I'm a Clinton supporter who will vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever that may be (I originally supported Richardson, btw). What irks me to no end are the Obama supporters who are doing the Republicans job for them, by bashing the hell out of HC. The argument that Hillary is somehow ruining the Democrats' chances in November by staying in the race is a convenient (and silly) argument that seems to be the club of choice here. Blah to you.

For the record, Obama ran a cable TV ad which showed in Florida and even appeared at a fundraiser there last September. Both of these were choices he made after he promised to not campaign in Florida.

I'm not bashing, but c'mon people... the guy's a politician. Just like Clinton. Just like McCain.

[scaeagles]

And speaking of McCain.....I'm almost back to thinking I can't vote for him. He takes more sides of an issue than Kerry.

He speaks about the need to secure the border to one audience, but when speaking to a racist Hispanic organization called "La Raza" he talks about the need for "comprehensive immigration reform" (which I take to mean his original amnesty plan), and then at other times he says all he needs is border governors to certify to him that their borders are secure. Yeah, right.

That's just one example of many. The man has always made me ill and I'm trying to ignore it, but it's only going to get worse after the dem nomination is decided (officially) and he is getting press again.

Back to thinking I may just sit this one out, but the thought of that just makes me feel as if I am failing in my civic duty. I've NEVER skipped even the most minor local election....not that I'd completely skip this one, as there are other casdidates and offices and propositions requiring votes.

[Alex]

BY the way....as far as counting all votes....if Florida and Michigan were counter, wouldn't Hillary have the popular vote lead?

That was true yesterday (and then only if Michigan was counted, which is most universally agreed to not be at all reasonable since Obama wasn't on the ballot) but now even that is not the case. Add both in and Obama still has the lead. Plus there would be the fact that his "vote counts" from most caucus states (which he mostly won decisively) are just estimates and most likely understated.

[Fab]

Studying the American Revolution, especially the drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution when viewed through the eyes of the original participants, I must say I disagree with your logic. The original patriots would be appalled at our world stance right now- we are little better than England was in our arrogance and imperialistic pursuits, no matter what guise (Democracy) we throw on them. We fought a Revolution over less- what makes you think it can't happen again? Everything is lining up for social upheaval, and it's just getting worse. When it hits you in the pocketbook, I suspect you too will join the ranks of those who cannot afford to be Republican anymore.

Because the majority of Americans are more concerned with who got booted off "Dancing with the Stars" and if Paris Hilton is flashing her privates than boring, complicated things like liberty and justice for all.

[Morrigoon]

Holy reappearing posters, Batman, it's Fab! Hiya!

[Fab]

Hiya! I'm arriving back in SoCal for good June 9. First thing: get a job. Second thing: build a firepit in the backyard. Yep, I have a real-for-real HOUSE now.

[JWBear]

Leave Hillary ALONE!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFOZH9A30o) ;)

[sleepyjeff]

Leave Hillary ALONE!!!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJFOZH9A30o) ;)

:snap: :snap: :snap:

[scaeagles]

What is the definition of a smear? Obama seems to think is he being smeared because of this -

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that Republican John McCain was "losing his bearings" for repeatedly suggesting the Islamic terrorist group Hamas preferred Obama for president.


However, what McCain is saying is 100% true.

At the root of the dispute is McCain's decision to call attention to a Hamas adviser's apparent affinity for Obama. The adviser, Ahmed Yousef, said in a recent interview: "We like Obama and hope that he will win the election."


Obama says

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,'" Obama said. "And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."


So how is that a smear? Hamas said we want Obama to win. McCain says Hamas wants Obama to win. Obama cries foul.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Call it truthful or not, it's dirty and pathetic to use the propoganda from terrorist organizations as an aid to your campaign. What Hamas says shouldn't be a factor in US elections. Lord knows what their motivation is. It's hardly far-fetched to think that they'd be saying that because they don't want Obama and know that such an endorsement, if believed by voters, would hurt him.

[Gemini Cricket]

Isn't it a smear to associate Obama with the Hamas group's opinion? I mean, who cares who Hamas favors. That is irrelevant to our elections. Just because Hamas favors Obama it doesn't mean anything.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And "smear" != "dishonest". You can use perfectly "truthful" information to unfairly smear someone. Say, by presenting information in such a way that implies an association with something hateful when there is none.

[wendybeth]

Hillary Clinton's camp put out the pic of Barack in Kenyan traditional garb, which was a gift to him from the country of his ancestors. Did they do this to increase his popularity? Not hardly- doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what they were not-so-subtly trying to do. Same for McCain. You know, every time another candidate stoops to this level I feel even better about my choice. He's too clean to do anything but make up stuff about. McCain should be so lucky.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, I keep thinking that - if this is the best they can throw at him - this guy's pretty damn Teflon.

[scaeagles]

Well, the media has been making up stuff about McCain. The day after the nomination was secure, the NY Times published a story about an alleged affair between McCain and a lobbyist. No evidence and eveyone denied it, and the entire story was based on "anonymous sources". It was an obvious hit piece.

I think McCain has plenty wrong with him to go after, so why make up stuff?

I'm interested in knowing more about the relationship between Obama and Tony Rezko.

[3894]

I'm interested in knowing more about the relationship between Obama and Tony Rezko.


They were lovers for years. They met at Obama's mosque. Then Obama met William Ayers at a terrorist retreat and that, as they say, was that.

[wendybeth]

Helen's right. In fact, that's the real reason the terrorists are so mad at us. It's totally Obama's fault, and I- as a Liberal Commie Red Diaper Doper Baby- will of course be supporting him. I can't resist a good love triangle.

[BarTopDancer]

Helen's right. In fact, that's the real reason the terrorists are so mad at us. It's totally Obama's fault, and I- as a Liberal Commie Red Diaper Doper Baby- will of course be supporting him. I can't resist a good love triangle.

Hey, sex scandals any day over the mess we're currently in, right?

[Gemini Cricket]

Safe for work YouTube Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i7j3sQUusw)
Do people really think he's Muslim? This lady doesn't seem too bright. Why would GMA air something like that? Kinda weird.

[BarTopDancer]

Ya, people do. There's been emails upon emails going around that he's Muslim, and that he's associated with Saddam OR Bin Laden (similar names). People will believe anything. It scares me that these same people will be voting.

[wendybeth]

I can't remember if I mentioned it before, but I had one client who thought he'd had an affair with Barbara Walters in the Seventies, and she was quite worked up about it. I pointed out that her affair was actually with an older African-American senator who also happened to be a Republican. ( I believe Obama was all of 12 when she was dating the senator.) This particular person is a rabid conservative and was in the middle of an anti-Dem rant based on their loose morals. Felt good to set her straight.:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, CP's Dad is convinced that the fact that his middle name is Hussein that he's clearly got sympathies for our enemies.

I'm not exaggerating.

[Moonliner]

Oh, CP's Dad is convinced that the fact that his middle name is Hussein that he's clearly got sympathies for our enemies.

I'm not exaggerating.

Huh? How does the name "Hussein" imply sympathies for the current administration?

[BarTopDancer]

We could turn the logic around and say any time you buy Bush's Baked Beans you're supporting the Bush administration.

[Alex]

There is a surprisingly large community of people that believe we faked the moon landings.

Believing that a single man is hiding his religion until achieving power doesn't require a particularly large leap compared to that.

[Not Afraid]

Well, you know, anyone who even TALKS to another Muslim is friends with Bin Laden AND Saddam. That is one close knit group, let me tell you!

In other news, when I was growing up Christian, Benny Hinn was over for dinner at least one night every week. The other 5 nights he spent with my parents' closest church friends and one night a week was dinner with GC Mom.

[BarTopDancer]

Well, you know, anyone who even TALKS to another Muslim is friends with Bin Laden AND Saddam. That is one close knit group, let me tell you!

And how do YOU know?

Humm.

Maybe you know where Bin Laden is hiding toO!

[Kevy Baby]

Maybe you know where Bin Laden is hiding toO!I know where Obama is hiding: does that count for anything?

[JWBear]

Huh? How does the name "Hussein" imply sympathies for the current administration?

Not enough Mojo in the world for that! :snap: :snap: :snap:

[wendybeth]

Huh? How does the name "Hussein" imply sympathies for the current administration?

I've heard Hussein is a very popular Saudi name. Don't you know we're bestest friends with them?

[BarTopDancer]

I've heard Hussein is a very popular Saudi name. Don't you know we're bestest friends with them?

BFF KIT k?

[blueerica]

There is a surprisingly large community of people that believe we faked the moon landings.

Believing that a single man is hiding his religion until achieving power doesn't require a particularly large leap compared to that.

Don't you mean giant leap?

[SacTown Chronic]

Alleged giant leap.