SuperJerk

And Marvin just doesn't count! Oh...BURN!

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions. "I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)." -Marvin Romney had ZERO voes and delegates when he was the supposed front runner because they hadn't even started voting yet so I dont see how he fits the actual definition. I was going to give you he was a front runner for the last quarter of 07 but if thats the definition of front runner than there wasn't a front runner at all at that point. And when the primaries started he was 2nd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire and never held the most delegates even when he managed to win insignificant states like Wyoming and Utah. Before the winner-take-all Florida primary, Romney was the frontrunner because he'd won already 65 delegates when McCain had only won 38 and Huckbee only had 27. And if Florida had assigned its delegates porportionally, Romney would've still been the front-runner until Super Tuesday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_th...ntial_primaries

I remember one time I cornered Mike on why, if supply-side worked so well, did Reagan raise taxes in 1982? He denied knowledge that Reagan ever did any such thing, of course.

Imagine what Lincoln would've been able to accomplish if he'd been black. Nevermind, he probably would've been sold into slavery.

Romney only had a few % points lead in the polls and there wasn't much seperation between him and Giuliani, Mccain, Huckabee and Thompson in any of the polls, especially considering you could look at certain polls and see any of the other 4 ahead going into actual voting. So I find it really hard to consider him a front runner with like 25% of the GOP poll votes. Thats not a front runner, thats a guy who's in the lead because the party vote is split in several directions. "I only disagree with you because I'm redefining the word 'front-runner' to mean what I want it to instead of defining it as the guy who has more votes and delegates than anyone else (a.k.a. the actual definition)." -Marvin

While there may be people who are ONLY supporting Barack Obama because he is black, I assure you that for the first 231 years of this nation's history, being black never got you special treatment in a presidential campaign. Perhaps the real reason for Obama's frontrunner status is that he has a MESSAGE people want to hear. He has a positive vision for changing America's political climate, instead of the fear-mongering and mock-sentimentality we get from Senator Clinton. And in November, there are going to be a LOT people voting against Obama because he's black.

Except Obama being a "world-changing force" wasn't what Ferraro was asked about. And did it ever occur to you that maybe people just really like what he has to say? Maybe he offers something different that the other candidates do not? Maybe he has a positive vision for changing America's political climate, instead of the fear-mongering and mock-sentimentality we get from Senator Clinton. Oh, she doesn't owe the party anything anymore. They've abandoned her. If she ranks McCain as the second-best candidate and Obama the third, fine. I can't blame her. She doesn't owe anything to the party that handed her a Senate seat? It's not the party's fault she got greedy and thought she was entitled to the presidency based on her husband's accomplishments.

A vice presidential nominee?

Apparently Marvin was asleep for the entire month of January.

Geraldine Ferraro. In poor taste, but hardly false. That's right! A charismatic but relatively inexperience WHITE first-term Senator could never mount a serious campaign for the White House. WHY, IT'S COMPLETELY UNHEARD OF!!!!! "Hi, have we met?" Okay...maybe she means that because Obama's the front runner, and no WHITE MAN with only FOUR YEARS of major political experience can be a front runner. "Hello, my name is Mitt. Pleased to meet you." In other news...YOU PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.

What about David Vitter? I'd rather he was simply shot into outer space never to be heard from again.

Because this is just more proof that liberals are evil.

New York's Lt. Governor David A. Paterson sounds like an interesting fellow. I can't believe Spitzer hasn't resigned yet. (Same goes for Larry Craig.)

I thought this was going to be another Civil War thread.

No, not exactly. Dean had lost Iowa BEFORE that happened. His momentum and support was already fading (which was already over-estimated due to his notorious use of out-of-state supporters at his Iowa rallies). The Dean Scream was just the final nail in his coffin. The difference between Edwards in 2004 and 2008 is that he learned from his vote in Iraq, and had a more fine-tuned message and idea of what he planned to do as president. There's more to preparation to be president than holding state-wide elected office. Edwards: Trial lawyer. No political experience before election to the Senate. Obama: Community organizer and Constitutional law professor. 3 years as a civil rights lawyer. 8 years as a state legislator.

...? In Democratic field in 2004 was pretty terrible. Edwards wasn't ready yet, Dean couldn't stop sticking his foot in his mouth, and Clark was suffering from his "I would have been a Republican if they'd asked me to help with Iraq" image. Kerry forgot to mention he'd had his testicle surgically removed before he was nominate, so he won be default in a field of weaklings, so he had everyone fooled into thinking he was the same guy who LOL PWN3D William Weld back in 1996.

It's not a recount, Marv.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/tex...ount/index.html

Here's some fun footage that compares and contrasts Clinton's and Obama's judgement on Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUa5Bw2oiw CNN Analysis of Mrs. Clinton's claims about foreign policy http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/06/cli...fact/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23510245/

Found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ-DMyo_Y-o The idea that being First Lady of the U.S. is better foriegn policy experience than serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is laughable.

Can someone provide the exact quote or footage of Mrs. Clinton saying McCain had the lifetime of experience to be president, but Obama didn't? Standin' by this Jerk? In my defense, I probably said that before the Democrats took back the Congress and I was still drinking the "only a moderate Democrat can win" kool-aid. In other news... http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03...obama-kin_N.htm So, in summary, according to Grandma Obama, only Grandpa Obama was a Muslim. Also, I'd like to see this woman smack Matt Drudge over the head with her cane.

pft Nobody cares about the politics, they've just turned the election into American Idol: Who wants to be a President Edition. If people fucking cared about issues, Obama would be out by now and Mitt Romney would still be in. Funny how everyone's biggest issue now is the Economy, and the best candidate to fix the economy got knocked out last month. Way to go morons. If people cared about issues, of course the guy who switched almost every one of his positions in the last 2 years in order to appeal to his party's base would still be running. Nothing tells the public you're serious about the issues than changing sides to gain popularity. But, in case you still think Romney was the right guy for the job, I think I might have some insider knowledge on what he planned to do. I proudly unveil Mitt Romney's Economic Plan (a.k.a. the Official Republican Economic Package they've been pushing since 1980): -cut taxes -lift regulations from businesses -claim to cut government spending, but actually increase it -beg the FED to cut interest rates -more corporate subsidies

Let's take a second and take pride in our country. Cynics have been saying for years that Americans--especially young Americans-- were too disengaged, and that we were ignorant about the system. Here in the year 2008, when young people--along with everyone else--is turning out in record numbers. Everyone has an opinion on the internal working of the nomination process. And, of course, understanding the once-incomprehensible electoral college has become commonplace and basic knowledge to citizens. Issues such as foriegn policy and immigration that once were things only a few care about now inspire people to demonstrate and voice there views in huge rallies. America is engaged again, and we're fired up about doing our civic duty.