Atticus Chaos

Unless Bush suddenly finds the cure for cancer in the time he has left , he'll be remember as one of, if not the, worst president in history.

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html History News Network’s poll of 109 historians found that 61 percent of them rank Bush as “worst ever” among U.S. presidents. Bush’s key competition comes from Buchanan, apparently, and a further 2 percent of the sample puts Bush right behind Buchanan as runner-up for “worst ever.” 96 percent of the respondents place the Bush presidency in the bottom tier of American presidencies. And was his presidency (it’s a bit wishful to speak of his presidency in the past tense–after all there are several more months left to go) a success or failure? On that score the numbers are still more resounding: 98 percent label it a “failure" Only 61%?

I'm pretty sure he made it clear early on he wasn't an isolationist. He said he'd still trade and be friends with other countries, he just wanted to stop policing the world. He didn't want to get rid of the military, either. Which is another thing he's been accused of.

What is so loony about saying 'let's get out of the places we aren't wanted?' I can't fully support a non interventional foreign policy, or at least right away, but he was absolutely right in saying policing the world isn't working either.

Body count's up to 4018 now.

I agree Paul wasn't drawing in the traditional republican voters, but it was interesting to hear most of the people cheer him, whenever he would talk about non intervention or how far the party has fallen. People agreed with the basics of his arguement: get out of the places we aren't wanted, and get back to a smaller government. I don't think he could ever get their votes because he seemed a little too out there, and yes, with him in power it would be such a drastic change which might have scared some people off. I can see a republican coming along in the future with a slightly watered down version of his rhetoric, and they could maybe have more success with voters.

typical republican debate romney: they hate our freedom! Guiliani: they hate our freedom! Mccain: More war! Because they hate our freedom! Paul: Actually, they hate us because we're over there. Not because we're rich and free. This is all in the 9/11 report. Guilini: How dare you blame us for 9/11! They hate our freedom! or Mccain: we represent small government!! Paul: then why are we bugging phones and checking people's emails?

In those republican debates he was the sanest person there.

I think Paul's endorsement might make a big difference. I mean, if your a ron paul guy, do you vote for Mccain, the man who laughed at Paul during debates and is everything Ron Paul is fighting against? Or do you go for the guy he tells you to vote for?

Bob Barr is running for the libetarians. This is possibly bad new for Mccain since he is very conservative and might get some of his voters. Paul's endorsed him. Oddly,I thought Ron Paul running for the libetarians would have been worse for Obama, rather than the republicans since they have similar appeal (despite being at opposite ends of the politcal spectrum). It's the whole anti establishment thing.

who wants to get on a sinking ship?

The scary thing is Clinton paid Penn $6 million....and for what? The problem with Penn is outwardly he may have looked expereinced but only at a certain type of campaign. He worked for Clinton in 1996 when he was seeking election, and then for Hillary when she was running for the senate and both were against weak opponents. So, when he was up against a strong challager he went to peices. He was good at projecting inevitibility for a candidate, but unfortunatly Hillay wasn't inevitable this time.

I'm fairly sure the creative team have went on record as saying it was someone who wasn't a stranger to us. I mean, I think the whole point is a OMG! He/She was a cylon all along! moment. You can't have that with some random person showing up. I also heard the final five are different from the other cylons in that they can't resurrect, which if true, rules out Cain.

RDM has went on record as saying roslin, adama, lee, Baltar and starbucks are not cylons. He could be lying I supposebut considering how he said he thought they lost a lot when tigh became one (he was one of the most humans characters and then turned out not to be) I don't think he wants to drastically change one of the main characters of just for a shock ending. It probably is Zarek. I don't think anyone else would be that big a deal. Gaeta's a cylon? So what?

Andrew Sullivan: Bush adminstration officials will 'be indicted for war crimes' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/a...mi_n_95305.html I do think some people will get punished for this, somewhere down the line. But it'll mostly be minor guys. I really can't see rumsfeld indicted.

Dan Senor is saying Condoleeza Rice is very interested in the VP spot, and several of the neo cons are urging Mccain to go with her (Mccain still hasn't won them over since he doesn't appear to be as 'controllable' as Bush). It's an interesting move: But really, they can't think she'll take the black vote from Obama (she won't). Not to mention her fingerprints are all over the Iraq disaster. Also, her status as a happily single, child free woman freaks out a lot of conservatives anyway. What scares me, is that Mccain is 72. So, he's got a higher than avergage chances of dying. President Condi?! The only thing worse would be Jeb Bush as VP (although I like to think even Mccain isn't so stupid to pick another Bush as his running mate)

Mary McDonell is possibly the most under rated actress ever. How she isn't more famous is beyond me.

Mccain has responded with his own 3 am ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueT9WuzMtNQ No more of these 3 am ads. It's beyond a joke now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpaK-cGO9U Hillary's new 3 am ad. Although at least she's attacking Mccain this time. What is it about phone calls and sleeping children?

I find it quite scary that John Mccain has went on record as saying the US were winning in Vietnam, but public opinion forced them out. Safe to say, he probably views Iraq that way too. How can a war hero know so little about war?

The journalist in question has spent a lot of time with her, and been involved with her campaign, so he has more on an insight than most. And to be honest, looking at the bigger picture, it's been obvious she's been heading towards this argument for a while. Why is she even staying in it, unless she knows she has a very good reason as to why the superdelegates can't give Obama the nomination? I think she's looking at states like Indiana and Pennsylvania, not to win or gain more delegates, but to prove white voters are abandoning Obama, and therefore he can't win the GE.

dude, try to resist the impulse to nullify somebody's every word line-by-line. it sometimes leads to grievous misquoting (as you did taking my hypothetical "any number of reasons" for points themselves to argue, when that wasn't the point), it leads to easily to this excessive chocolate-socket "i will DESTROY YOU!" impulse (really, is there any reason to stop one sentence into my post to say "yes she is"?), and the argument tends to dissolve into a lot of little rivulets instead of staying focused. it's also annoying. just replying to key points or to the gist of a post is fine. the point is, hillary's argument does not list any causes for WHY white voters in these key states support her more. you want to say she's implying "because he's black," and i don't see that implication anywhere. how could white voters possibly be in the process of "turning against" a candidate they knew he was black 12 months ago? if she's arguing that his poll numbers are going down, how could poll numbers go down when he's always been black? i think we can both agree, she wants to prove that she does better in this demographic. you want to say she's trying to prove it by implying it's because he's black. i want to say it's because her platform has more appeal for white voters who might otherwise vote for mccain. since this quote didn't come with any argument or reasons about WHY clinton says she's more popular with whites, we're both speculating. i think your speculation is bad. The journalist says Hillary's main arguement for Barack's unelectability is 'a sensitive issue' that she has to be careful of and she can't just come out and say it. What else can it be, other than skin colour? He's too liberal? She's already said that. Only appeals to middle classes? She's said that too. I really think you need to look over that interview again, because it's very obvious what he's getting at. Why would she assume 'Mccain knows Obama can't beat him?' That's a pretty spectacular claim. What basis could she ever have to think that this young, charismatic man with loads of cash and support couldn't stand a chance against John Mccain? Does she genuinely think Obama can't win because he's black? I don't know. But, from that interview, I think that's the argument she'll take to the superdelgates.

There's a difference between walking into the convetion with more delegates and needing a few more to get you to the magic number, and going in with less delegates than your opponents, and needing a massive amount of superdelegates to surpuss your opponent and get you to 2025.

I don't so much object to her staying in, I didn't have a problem with Huckabee sticking around either. It's more how she's conducting herself. She's not selling herself anymore, she's bashing Obama. and hurting the 90% certain nominee for November. And the thing is, the only way she can win it is by stealing it. She's not going to be able to overtake him in delegates or popular votes, even her campaign admits this. So, she has to convince the superdelagates to over turn the will of the people. Which there's no point in doing because it would anger to many peope and she wouldn't win in Novemeber anyway. You might think any dem would win against Mccain, but no democrat candidate can win without black support. And if Hillary does convince the superdelagtes that he's unelectable because his his race and he loses the nomination because of that, this will surely infuriate most African Americans.

Yes, she is. She's been doing that since South Carolina. Or rather, getting Bill to do her dirty work for her. She ahead with working class whites because they miss Bill Clinton and remember how great it was with him as presidency. I think it's more that, than not voting for Obama because he's black. Again, I don't think that. But that's what she's trying to argue. That's what's unforgivable. Recent polls have indicated that hasn't hurt him much at all. Again, I don't disagree that these voters aren't voting for Obama solely because he's black. But if this makes it to the convention, this is apparently what Hillary will try to argue. You don't have a problem with that? I really think you've missed the point of what that guy was saying: it's not about whether or not Obama can get the white vote. More, that Hillary is perfectly willing to go in front of the convention and say a candidate should not get the nomination, despite having more delegates and the popular vote, because he's black and couldn't possibly win.