Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

 

John McCain, honorary Wilson in '08!

[Guest Richard McBeef]

I guess you could say he's just not made for these times.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Huckabee's finally getting some press coverage.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c...poll/index.html

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Rassmussen Poll Today (national) Dem Primary

 

Obama: 32%

Clinton: 32%

Edwards: 17%

Richardson: 3%

Biden: 1%

Dodd: 1%

Clark: 1%

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Good to see the Dems attacking Rudy after his comments about how the terrorists want the Dems to win, or some such nonsense.

[snuffbox 0]

Rudy napped through November '06 and nobody has told him that the Down's strategy no longer carries as much weight.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Rassmussen Poll Today (national) Dem Primary

 

Obama: 32%

Clinton: 32%

Edwards: 17%

Richardson: 3%

Biden: 1%

Dodd: 1%

Clark: 1%

 

I wonder how this poll changes if Gore is listed as a choice. It'd probably put Obama in the lead and put Clinton in 2nd place. Sad to see that Richardson isn't polling anywhere near the top but I think he's more VP material anyway.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Rassmussen Poll Today (national) Dem Primary

 

Obama: 32%

Clinton: 32%

Edwards: 17%

Richardson: 3%

Biden: 1%

Dodd: 1%

Clark: 1%

 

I wonder how this poll changes if Gore is listed as a choice. It'd probably put Obama in the lead and put Clinton in 2nd place.

 

Usually, from what I've seen, having Gore as a choice takes support away from Hillary, so you're probably right about Obama taking the lead.

 

Sad to see that Richardson isn't polling anywhere near the top but I think he's more VP material anyway.

 

I kind of agree that it's sad. It seems like you almost have to be a celebrity/"rockstar" to run for president in the 21st century. That leaves someone like Richardson, who is probably more qualified than anyone else on that list, out in the cold. But then again I'm a tentative Obama supporter at this point so maybe it's the fault of people like me that this is the case.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Good to see the Dems attacking Rudy after his comments about how the terrorists want the Dems to win, or some such nonsense.

 

Here's what Rudy said:

MANCHESTER, N.H. Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

 

"If any Republican is elected president -- and I think obviously I would be the best at this -- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it," Giuliani said.

[NoCalMike 0]

I still don't understand why the Democrats stay silent on facts regarding this entire "terrorism" situation such as Iraq/Iraqis not being the ones who attacked us on 9/11 and/or the fact that foreign fighters in Iraq is such a small percentage of the problem there rather it is the Iraqis themselves who wants us out of there and are the cause for the majority of our casualties. Al Qaeda is not killing our soldiers in Iraq, it is Iraqi militias from all sects. I am not talking about "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" stuff, because Saddam was dealt with three years ago, more importantly I want the Democrat candidates to talk about the Iraqi PEOPLE specifically and how they basically want an occupying force out of their country, they want to rebuild it themselves, ya know because it would create a hell of a lot of jobs there, they would rather do it their way then have haliburton and other american contractors over there doing it, leaving the Iraqi people out of work, in poverty and facing desperation. Why the democrats don't bring up these types of issues when talking about the way is beyond me. Maybe they think the issue of war is too complicated for the masses, and the debate is ALWAYS going to have to be either Pro or Anti War and just leave it in simple terms....!?!

 

Fighting in Iraq is cripping our efforts to fight terrorism abroad because Iraq was never a friendly terrorist haven to begin with. And I would imagine that if U.S. forces left Iraq, all of these armed Iraqi militias would be very happy to turn their weapons and shoot at any remanining Al Qaeda terrorists. It's not like the Iraqis invited them in, our poor military planning kind of allowed it to happen by destablilizing a country and it's borders, making it a free-for-all for whoever wanted to come in, of course some speculate that, that was the intention all along because it would sound off the beginning of a situation that could/would justify endless war in the oil-rich middle east region, but that in itself is a debate for another time.

[snuffbox 0]

"We couldn't stop terrorism before, and we still ignore it in favor of other stuff now, but trust is 2008!"

 

-Rudy & the GOP

[Guest Richard McBeef]

Here's what Rudy said:

MANCHESTER, N.H. Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

 

"If any Republican is elected president -- and I think obviously I would be the best at this -- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it," Giuliani said.

Yikes. Still waiting for that candidate to ride in on the white horse. Come on, guy. Save this field.

[snuffbox 0]

Anyone else watching the debate tonight?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I may try to catch some of it. I'm sure a lot of it is going to be directed at President Bush, more than any discussion on policy differences between the candidates.

[Guest Richard McBeef]

I didn't make it to MSNBC at 6.30, got stuck on a Scrubs rerun.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Hillary came off pretty bad, and that's being nice. Her "shadow Mexicans" comment is going to get a lot of shit (unless your name is Invader3K.)

 

I think Richardson did best. I really like this guy. Dodd did pretty good as well.

 

Obama didn't do as good as I thought he would. Looks like my support is drifting more to Richardson and Dodd. Edwards didn't do too good either.

 

Kucinich I still can't take seriously. Dudes got balls though.

 

Biden came off as a crazy old man, which was amusing. I think I'm starting to love him for his insanity alone.

[snuffbox 0]

You must've confused Biden for Mike Gravel.

[Gary Floyd 0]

You must've confused Biden for Mike Gravel.

Oh yeah, sorry about that. Thanks though.

 

Seiously though, I love that guy.

[gWIL 0]

As someone not 100% behind any canidate, tonight was great. Joe Biden surprised me and was the clear winner of the debate. Mike Gravel had the biggest balls of any of them and I just donated to his campaign in support of that fact. Obama was pretty good, seemed a little uncomfortable but got better as it went. With one under his belt, he'll be a force to be reckoned with at these debates. Clinton seemed awfully scripted. Richardson I like but he underwhelmed me tonight. Dodd and Edwards just kind of seemed there.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I don't get MSNBC

 

I did meet some Kentucky governor and lt. governor candidates tonight at a local event. I'm becoming quite the player in local politics.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Kucinich is the kind of American President that the founding fathers had in mind, but modern America will never elect.

[EricMM 0]

How do you figure that? (genuine)

[snuffbox 0]

Yeah, I'm awaiting an explanation for that gem as well.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Drudge has some poll results up from South Carolina where those polled said Obama won the debate.

 

I didn't actually get a chance to see it last night.

[snuffbox 0]

I would agree that Barack won last night's debate. He looked very comfortable up there, probably equaled only by Hillary in terms of 'fitting in'.

 

Biden's answer of 'yes' and nothing more to the question of his ability to curb inclination towards rambling and gaffes as President was perfect.

 

I was watching most closely to see if Richardson could use last night as a starting point for a Dean-eque ascendency. Didn't happen. The Governor looked very uncomfortable at times and his inability to answer questions correctly or within time limits wont endear him to anyone.

 

Edwards stared blankly at the camera for about ten seconds before clumsily answering who his 'moral authority' is. He also struggled with hair-cuts and hedge-funds.

 

How people could think Mike Gravel 'won' the debate is beyond me. He was funny, though.

 

And I'm still waiting for an explanation on this 'Kucinish as a Founding Father ideal' thing.

[Art Sandusky 0]

How do you figure that? (genuine)

Because the dude doesn't give a fuck, and as a result I believe what he says no matter how many times I'm told he doesn't have a chance. It's really that simple. It pissed me off all night as our local ETV Radio was in Orangeburg making every other candidate sound great except him, whose insignificant poll numbers are apparently more laughable than the others onstage who have been pulling low single digits all campaign. I also doubt any other candidate keeps the Constitution on him. It's maddening to see a candidate of principle get crapped on instead of one that has "celebrity" or "principles" that change with the political winds. But no matter what, HE DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE SO DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO HIM. Not a single current lawmaker that was up there has had the balls to even suggest impeachment of the President or Vice President because they care way too goddamn much about being the usual BS candidate that I'll love now and despise by the time election day rolls around due to their spine disappearing when they had the nomination locked up.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Kucinich is like the new Ralph Nader...principled guy who is likeable, but everyone knows has zero chance in heck to win the Presidency, but still feels compelled to repeatedly run anyway. He also has that weird appearance factor going like Nader.

[snuffbox 0]

While everything Kotz said about Kucinich was true, especially him being forced to take a backseat in the media due to a lack of celebrity apeeal, none of it equates to the early Presidents. All the early Presidents were highly qualified (there has never ben a more credentialed 6 Presidents in our history than the first 6) and had the aristocratic/dandy appearances going for them. All of the first 6 were also quite popular/well-known and had laregly been groomed for the job via their prior experience.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yes, let's be historical literalists and spit bull about "qualifications" (one of the frontrunners has been a US Senator for all of two years as much as I love 'im) and appearances of men in the 18th and 19th centuries versus those today.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Kucinich is an okay rep, but an absolute joke as a presidential candidate.

 

Did you know he magically became pro-choice before the 2004 election?

 

One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. In his two terms in Congress, he has quietly amassed an anti-choice voting record of Henry Hyde-like proportions. He supported Bush's reinstatement of the gag rule for recipients of US family planning funds abroad. He supported the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits anyone but a parent from taking a teenage girl across state lines for an abortion. He voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes it a crime, distinct from assault on a pregnant woman, to cause the injury or death of a fetus. He voted against funding research on RU-486. He voted for a ban on dilation and extraction (so-called partial-birth) abortions without a maternal health exception. He even voted against contraception coverage in health insurance plans for federal workers--a huge work force of some 2.6 million people (and yes, for many of them, Viagra is covered). Where reasonable constitutional objections could be raised--the lack of a health exception in partial-birth bans clearly violates Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart--Kucinich did not raise them; where competing principles could be invoked--freedom of speech for foreign health organizations--he did not bring them up. He was a co-sponsor of the House bill outlawing all forms of human cloning, even for research purposes, and he opposes embryonic stem cell research. His anti-choice dedication has earned him a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL.

The Nation

 

Kucinich's speech to the "Dubrovnik Conference on the Alchemy of Peacebuilding":

 

Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling.

 

What the fuck?

 

Out of office, he dabbled in a Hollywoodesque spirit world and once believed that he had met Shirley MacLaine in a previous life