Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

Will Jean Schmidt finally lose this year?

[Gary Floyd 0]

Hilary is slowly becoming the Ross Perot of the Democratic Party. She just needs to go on Larry King Live and announce she's dropping out then in the same sentence announce she's going to push harder than ever to win.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92blarryking.phtml

[snuffbox 0]

Josh Romney, back home after serving his country in his dad's campaign, is apparently considering a run for a House seat from Utah.

[SuperJerk 0]

Nightwing, thanks for taking the time to go through my post. I read your points, but I'm not persuaded. Here's why...

 

I'm curious if anyone can envision a scenario in which McCain could win a presidential election.

Consider that:

-he's quite old

-he can't publicly speak worth a crap

 

These are fairly minor issues. Issues... but they aren't going to decide an election.

 

McCain certainly isn't going to be able to look like he has the presence of the leader of the free world when standing on stage with Barack Obama, who will project enough charisma and confidence to knock McCain out of the building. It'll be Kennedy/Nixon times 100.

 

-he's hated within his own party

 

I'm not sure I quite buy the "Obama Republican" yet, as it's going to become real clear during the general election where he stands on things. And this isn't even an argument with Hillary. Really, the Republicans who say they aren't going to vote for McCain are fooling themselves

 

How many people will just stay home? If McCain doesn't turn out the GOP base, and Obama multiplies the Democratic base, its not hard to see whose supporters will outnumber the other guy's on election day.

 

-he whole-heartedly supports a war that's about as popular as a heart attack

 

It's become less and less of an issue with the surge "working" and things seemingly moving a little better. Being the architect and main supporter of the surge, he comes out better. Plus, he's actually getting (If I remember correctly) about a third of the Republicans who don't like the war right now. Adding in the "No Torture, Close Gitmo" stance, and he's stronger than he looks. Iraq isn't the juggernaut issue it once was, especially with the surge vindicating

Just because the war isn't in the news, or because the insugency has been repressed thanks to the troop surge, don't think that means continuing the war is going to suddenly be a popular idea.

-he belongs to the same party as the unpopular incumbent president

 

And won't the Democrats replay all footage of McCain praising Bush or Bush's leadership, and include picture of McCain hugging Bush whenever possible?

 

He's always been able to separate himself well enough from the Republican Party despite being a fairly conservative guy. Remember, he's not an actual part of this administration, and he's had enough disagreements with Bush and is reviled by party voices like Limbaugh and Coulter that he can avoid "the next Bush" stigma.

I suspect once the election draws near, the actual prospect of a Obama or Clinton presidency will cause the far right to tone down their rhetoric and not say anything negative.

 

I think you are seriously underestimating the candidate here. He does have some advantages, even on Obama, as he actually has the record of working across the aisle, and not just with Liebermens. He's a massive draw with Independents, and I'd argue that with his stance on immigration, he's probably going to do better in the Latino vote than Obama will, as he's seriously struggled with it.

 

And I suspect McCain winning the Latino vote in any state but Arizona just isn't going to happen. Obama does have a record of working across the aisle. The difference is that McCain's been doing it longer, because McCain's been in Washington since 1983. And that should be another point...in a year when Politics-as-usual and Washington's way of doing business is increasingly unpopular, fairtly or unfairly, how can someone with 25 years in Congress convince most Americans he is something different?

 

 

 

 

I also have a question about Hillary Clinton: what is this alledged wealth of experience on national security matters that Hillary Clinton speaks of? What are these examples she constantly alludes to that she should be put in charge of the military? Did she have a term as Secretary of Defense somewhere between Aspin, Perry, or Cohen? Did she serve a tour of duty in Iraq while no one was looking? Or is this an example of "if you repeat something often enough, people will begin to beleive it"?

[At Home 0]

I didn't really know that being first lady constituted political experience. Obama was a professor of constitutional law, I think that is wayyyyyyyyy better than being married to the president.

[EricMM 0]

I hate Martin O'Malley

 

If he manages to get away with this, I am moving to Delaware or some other non retarded state that doesnt believe they can stop global warming on a state level.

Hey Marvin.

 

If all goes according to plan you're going to be very hateful little Delawarian in like eight days...

 

We're going after Schwartzenegger on this one; we're coming for his title and his credentials as Greenest Governater ever.

[snuffbox 0]

I still haven't been able to wrap my head around O'Malley endorsing Hillary.

[cbacon 0]

Not that it would ever happen, but I'd be elated if Kucinich got to be Obama's running mate.

 

Absoultely. Even better would be Gravel, but he pretty much alienated himself with his scathing attacks on most of the candidates during the early debates (and rightly so)

 

Although that would probably make it way too liberal of a ticket for most people.

 

I don't think there's such thing as being "too liberal" when dealing with the narrow spectrum between the Democrats and Republicans.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I love how being labelled a 'liberal' is apparently worse than being called a child molester to most politicians nowadays. Honestly, after eight years of Bush most people are moving away from the Christian right, anyway. Who really cares if Obama is strongly pro choice? It would only matter to the evangelicals who probably weren't going to vote for him.

 

Part of Hillary's problem was she was always terrified of being called a liberal, so she moved more to the centre and didn't attack Bush as much as she could have, which pissed of a lot of democrats. I credit Obama for not making decisions with his poltical calculater.

 

Anyway, Hillary's recent behaviour is pretty appalling. Before, I liked Obama more, but thought Hillary was more qualified. But, now looking at how much honour and dignity he's handled every single one of her petty and outright offensive attacks, he's a lot more presidential than she is.

 

The only mildly good thing that's come out of it, is that her and bill have basically said everything the republicans were likely to say in the fall election (he's a secret Muslim, his followers are deluded, only blacks will vote for him) so they'll have to come up with something new.

[EricMM 0]

O'Malley endorsed Hil-Dawg months and months ago...

[snuffbox 0]

But why?

[EricMM 0]

Because she was "going" to win.

[snuffbox 0]

That was the only reason I could ever think of. I honestly thought he was a smarter politician than that. People are dumb sometimes.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I don't think there's such thing as being "too liberal" when dealing with the narrow spectrum between the Democrats and Republicans.

 

Anyone who's lived through the past 7 years and still thinks there's only a "narrow spectrum" separating Democrats and Republicans is pretty much a straight-up retard.

[ZGangsta 0]

I don't think there's such thing as being "too liberal" when dealing with the narrow spectrum between the Democrats and Republicans.

 

Anyone who's lived through the past 7 years and still thinks there's only a "narrow spectrum" separating Democrats and Republicans is pretty much a straight-up retard.

Yeah that's going for that whole attitude of "duh, well Al Gore is teh same as W Bush" and boy oh boy did that turn out great.

 

Whenever I think of that sentiment I flash back to that fucking stupid Rage Against the Machine music video from 2000 that had stuff like Bush and Gore's faces morphing together and "Billionares for Bush (or Gore)."

And the ironic thing about all that is that most of the people who bought into that shit at the time now hold up Al Gore as their fucking messiah.

 

But hey, Nader's kicking around still...

[Kinetic 0]

Do you know what would have happened if the Supreme Court had elected Al Gore back in 2000? Gore has this reputation as being a staunch environmentalist, but the liberal media fails to report major advancements being made by Bush. For instance, did you know that there are more trees now than there have ever been at any point in human history? It's true. I know because I read it on a message board. Also, 9/11 almost certainly still would have happened under Gore. Liberals being notoriously soft on 9/11s probably would have emboldened the terrorists, so it's hardly a stretch to suggest that Gore being elected in 2000 would have been the beginning of the end for the American skyscraper.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the problem is that the Democrats not having a backbone feeds into people thinking they are the same as republicans.

 

Democrats might make great speeches about being against the current administrations policies, but lets see how the MAJORITY of them voted.

 

They helped pass the Patriot Act and renwed, Bush's Tax Cuts, Voted for the war in the first place, keep voting for more funding, Domestic spying. They try and get a bill passed, Bush calls them obstructionists, and then they roll over like pigs in shit.

 

Even since the whooping they put on conservatives in 2006, they are still rolling over afraid of how a vote will hurt their political career. I still can't figure out why the conservative talking heads complain about them so much because they pretty much go along with whatever Bush wants. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low.

 

About the only thing they have put their money where their mouth is has been torture.

 

Now, I don't agree with and will defend the Democrats on a lot of things, especially the "socialist, communist, terrorist-loving" accusations from the right, but the one thing I can't defend most of the time is the accusation that they don't have a backbone, and I think the past eight years if anything have supported that position.

[Kinetic 0]

Yes. And the period between 1980 and now has pushed the entire conversation so far to the right that what passes for liberalism in a general election is really just a less harsh version of what the Republicans are selling.

[NoCalMike 0]

Do you know what would have happened if the Supreme Court had elected Al Gore back in 2000? Gore has this reputation as being a staunch environmentalist, but the liberal media fails to report major advancements being made by Bush. For instance, did you know that there are more trees now than there have ever been at any point in human history? It's true. I know because I read it on a message board. Also, 9/11 almost certainly still would have happened under Gore. Liberals being notoriously soft on 9/11s probably would have emboldened the terrorists, so it's hardly a stretch to suggest that Gore being elected in 2000 would have been the beginning of the end for the American skyscraper.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I missed the sarcasm.....or not, I dunno but yeah Nevermind.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Well the problem is that the Democrats not having a backbone feeds into people thinking they are the same as republicans.

 

Democrats might make great speeches about being against the current administrations policies, but lets see how the MAJORITY of them voted.

 

They helped pass the Patriot Act and renwed, Bush's Tax Cuts, Voted for the war in the first place, keep voting for more funding, Domestic spying. They try and get a bill passed, Bush calls them obstructionists, and then they roll over like pigs in shit.

 

Even since the whooping they put on conservatives in 2006, they are still rolling over afraid of how a vote will hurt their political career. I still can't figure out why the conservative talking heads complain about them so much because they pretty much go along with whatever Bush wants. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low.

 

About the only thing they have put their money where their mouth is has been torture.

 

Now, I don't agree with and will defend the Democrats on a lot of things, especially the "socialist, communist, terrorist-loving" accusations from the right, but the one thing I can't defend most of the time is the accusation that they don't have a backbone, and I think the past eight years if anything have supported that position.

 

Helping to get another Republican elected President isn't going to fix any of that.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well the problem is that the Democrats not having a backbone feeds into people thinking they are the same as republicans.

 

Democrats might make great speeches about being against the current administrations policies, but lets see how the MAJORITY of them voted.

 

They helped pass the Patriot Act and renwed, Bush's Tax Cuts, Voted for the war in the first place, keep voting for more funding, Domestic spying. They try and get a bill passed, Bush calls them obstructionists, and then they roll over like pigs in shit.

 

Even since the whooping they put on conservatives in 2006, they are still rolling over afraid of how a vote will hurt their political career. I still can't figure out why the conservative talking heads complain about them so much because they pretty much go along with whatever Bush wants. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low.

 

About the only thing they have put their money where their mouth is has been torture.

 

Now, I don't agree with and will defend the Democrats on a lot of things, especially the "socialist, communist, terrorist-loving" accusations from the right, but the one thing I can't defend most of the time is the accusation that they don't have a backbone, and I think the past eight years if anything have supported that position.

 

Helping to get another Republican elected President isn't going to fix any of that.

 

You're right, but neither is whining about Nader. If the Democrats just voted based on what they say in speeches I don't think it would be as big a problem.

[SuperJerk 0]

This shit fucking kills me...

 

Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch

 

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A02

 

 

They are in the last throes, if you will.

 

As Vice President Cheney knows, such predictions can be perilous. Still, there was no mistaking a certain flailing, a lashing-out, as two Clinton advisers sat down for a bacon-and-eggs session yesterday at the St. Regis Hotel.

 

The Christian Science Monitor had assembled the éminences grises of the Washington press corps -- among them David Broder of The Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields -- for what turned out to be a fascinating tour of an alternate universe.

 

First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects that severed all ties with reality. "We're on the way to locking this nomination down," he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction.

 

But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.

 

"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."

 

The brief moment explained everything about the bitter relations between Clinton's campaign and the media: Singer taunting the likes of Broder, who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born, with a comedy sketch that showed debate moderators fawning over Obama.

 

"That's your assignment editor?" responded Post columnist Ruth Marcus.

 

"That's my assignment editor," Singer affirmed.

 

That Clinton's spokesman is taking his cues from late-night comedy is as good an indication as any of where things stand in the onetime front-runner's campaign. To keep the press from declaring the race over before the voters of Ohio and Texas have their say next week, Clinton aides have resorted to a mixture of surreal happy talk and angry accusation.

 

Yesterday, Ickes played the good cop. "We think we are on the verge of our next up cycle," he reported, even suggesting the apparent impossibility that Clinton "may be running even" with Obama when all the contests are over. "This race is very close," he judged. "This is tight as a tick."

 

The reporters were dubious. The Monitor's Dave Cook mused about the consequences of Clinton "battling after there's not much chance."

 

"For the love of God, we can't say there's not much chance here," Ickes maintained.

 

David Chalian of ABC News reminded Ickes that Obama's lead in delegates is now of the size Ickes had said would be "significant."

 

"As we all know in this city, I have a very short memory," Ickes answered.

 

At one point, he warned of "a bitter and potentially very divisive credentials fight" at the Democratic convention. At another point, he compared the race to 1972, when a strong front-runner, Ed Muskie (now played by Clinton), was upended by an antiwar candidate, George McGovern (now played by Obama), who lost to the Republicans. "The fact is, he could not carry his weight in the general election," Ickes argued.

 

But Ickes could suspend reality for only so long. He referred to Clinton's opponent at one point as "Senator Barack," swapped 1992 for 1972 and Michigan for Vermont, and said of the Pennsylvania primary: "Um, what month is it?" Eventually, Carl Leubsdorf of the Dallas Morning News drew a confession out of Ickes: "I think if we lose in Texas and Ohio, Mrs. Clinton will have to make her decisions as to whether she goes forward or not."

 

Ickes's return to Earth seemed only to further outrage Singer.

 

When Amy Chozick of the Wall Street Journal asked about how combative Clinton would be in tonight's debate with Obama, Singer informed her that it was an "absurd" question. "I don't think . . . any of our senior people have the ESP skills that you all ascribe to us," he said.

 

When Time's Jay Newton-Small inquired about the Obama photo on Drudge, Singer used the occasion to complain about the press's failure to examine Obama's ties to violent radicals who were part of the Weathermen of the 1960s. "As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps," he said.

 

Even Broder, asking about why Clinton had abandoned the North American Free Trade Agreement, was informed by Singer that "elections are about the future."

 

Cook, the host, got similar treatment when he asked why Clinton hasn't released her tax returns. "When she's the general-election nominee, she'll release the tax returns," Singer said.

 

After the breakfast, one of the questioners asked Singer whether he could elaborate on the tax-return issue. He dismissed her with more hostility. When the reporter suggested that Singer was being antagonistic, the spokesman explained.

 

"Sixteen months into this," he said, "I'm just angry."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502501_pf.html

[snuffbox 0]

One more fucking debate.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The scenario where Mccain beats Obama is simple - another terrorist attack between the conventions and the election in November.

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Hillary actually used that SNL sketch in the debate.

[cbacon 0]

Yes. And the period between 1980 and now has pushed the entire conversation so far to the right that what passes for liberalism in a general election is really just a less harsh version of what the Republicans are selling.

 

Comparing public opinion to policies and actions taken by modern Democrats illustrates this quite well. Labeling any Democratic in the presidential campaign as "too liberal" is a bit silly. Yeah, there's some important differences between the two parties but at the end of the day the Democrats are still slightly to the right of the political spectrum.

[2GOLD 0]

One more fucking debate.

 

Why? I mean seriously, why another one? We aren't learning anything new and debates are slowly becoming the biggest waste of time if they aren't already the biggest wastes of time.

[RonL21 0]

Who's worse..

 

Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity?

 

LOL @ We destroyed Hillary, now we're gonna destroy Barack...

 

I'm sure Hannity said it cause that's what Reagan would say

 

[RonL21 0]

And who is this Bill Cunningham Asshole?

 

Poor Barack...They're gonna dig up all kinds of

 

stuff on him and his wife...Hell it's already started....

 

He obviously was being a smart ass by saying his whole name like that...

 

insinuating connections to the form Iraqi dictator...

 

But this guy just sounds like an ass on H&C right now...

 

And Hannity is basically applauding him

[SamoaRowe 0]

Of course Hannity is. I can't even believe that Hannity is a real person. He just comes off as being way too cartoonish, like he crawled out of some left wing comic strip making fun of right wing stereotypes.