Campaign 2008

[EricMM 0]

Excuse me, pbone, but aren't you 17? Were you then not 13 in 04, and 9 in 00?

 

For those of us who have seen these things happen before, it's impossible not to be afraid.

 

It just feels like Americans don't trust the person who's reasonable and direct. They don't LIKE being told that, gosh, black churches are sometimes loud and fiery places. They want to be told that they're going to be taxed less and America is doing okay.

 

Because, for some reason, a lot of Americans think that that's true, that even under Bush, all we needed was a president who was going to tax less and protect us. Even though it has meant that we ended up poorer and less safe as a nation, some people, especially people of a certain generation, still believe Reagan's lies. It's unfortunate.

[godthedog 0]

mccain doesn't really have much to worry about with the republican base. he can say pretty much whatever he wants to at this point, and republicans will vote for him anyway just to keep someone as liberal as obama or clinton from getting in the white house (similar to the "anyone but bush" mentality of hardcore dems in '04). mccain needs to concern himself more with independents and moderate-to-conservative democrats that he's still a maverick.

 

the tight democratic struggle might end up creating NEW democrats among young and/or apathetic people, but i don't know if that will really affect the electoral college in relevant ways. it's working right now for voters in all states because they're alloting delegates proportionally, but i don't think there's a battleground state you can really point to and say "the youth vote can put us over the edge here."

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

 

"I dont think we can trust him to answer the phone at 3am much less 3pm"

 

and yeah, I know its an old faked photo, its still funny since whoever photoshopped it added a clock (at 3:00 no less) to the original photo.

[SuperJerk 0]

"In the end, ethnic names appear to serve as a hindrance in the labor market, but the exact extent has yet to be conclusively determined."

EXACTLY!

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I thought this was an intesting note...from the huffington post

 

On Chris Matthews' show, panelists Norah O'Donnell, Clarence Page, and Elisabeth Bumiller all basically agreed that Clinton was nowhere near the point where she'd be thinking about leaving the race. But there was one outlier: New York Magazine's John Heilemann, who echoed some of the things Noonan would say on Meet The Press:

 

HEILEMANN: I think that one thing that's happening internally is that some of her top people are starting to say to her, "We won't stick with you. We won't keep working for this campaign if it's going to destroy Barack Obama." She's starting to hear that from her people and she's starting to kind of see it.

 

 

I'm very glad Hillary isn't surrounded by yes men and there are at least people thinking of the future of the party..

[Guest Bullshiterica]

And I'm sure she's tickled pink that she has employees more concerned with The Party than doing their jobs.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

"In the end, ethnic names appear to serve as a hindrance in the labor market, but the exact extent has yet to be conclusively determined."

EXACTLY!

 

So maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't name their son D'Qon.

 

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

And I'm sure she's tickled pink that she has employees more concerned with The Party than doing their jobs.

 

I'm curious to know when exactly you went from this:

 

Hillary couldn't produce change if she worked a fucking cash register. What a sad desperate grab from the gnarled claw of the Democratic establishment.

 

Oh and how about that "Republicans who have seen the light" crack last night? As if that was funny? Shut up, you stupid cunt.

 

to being so empathetic toward her. I mean, is she not still the same stupid cunt she was 3 1/2 months ago?

[godthedog 0]

obama's plan for iraq and foreign policy is kind of unnerving and frightening to me.

[Guest Bullshiterica]

I've really had a Damascene conversion when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I'll feel safest in that gnarled old claw of the Democratic establishment, I've realized. She's really not as bad as RIGHT-WING RADIO (where have you gone, sek69, The Smart Marks turns its lonely eyes to you) has made her out to be. She'd just turn out to be an agreeable centrist, I feel. Also, why, I don't know, but I've really begun to feel bad for how she's been treated by everyone from all sides. Is she shrill? Sure, but that's because she's being forced out of using her inside voice, which is more suited to her, and others. Is she willing to do anything to win? Yes, and this approach was embraced the last two times the Clintons did it, but now it's "Rovian"? Come on. We expect our favorite teams' linebackers to do anything it takes to win; why do we expect people engaged in more important pursuits to be deferential and aloof? I just feel like right now, putting my support behind her is the right thing to do.

 

But yeah, things were comparatively peachy last time we had a Clinton around. The second Bush term has comprised the worst years of my life. Causal relationship? Highly doubtful. Enough to sway me, a dumb American? Sure. Moreover, I'll never be able to take a Chicago Democrat at face value when he or his handlers claim he's "above the fray," and I'm not unconfident that there isn't some knockout blow to his vaunted integrity still waiting to be used. One day we woke up and the governor of New York was launched for taking high-priced whores over state lines. We never know what tomorrow shall bring.

 

My voting preferences are Hillary, then McCain in the event of The Party's failure to nominate her, then an independent in the event of McCain's premature death. I'll never vote for Barack Obama.

[Coffin Surfer 0]

"In the end, ethnic names appear to serve as a hindrance in the labor market, but the exact extent has yet to be conclusively determined."

EXACTLY!

 

Well, that was disappointing. I know you have yet to make a convincing argument or support any of your claims with anything resembling evidence or facts but damn..... You must be one hell of a teacher, your 70% black class is lucky to have you.

 

Bertrand and Mullainathan themselves admited to their findings being inconclusive with unexplained variables. I personally find it interesting that the obviouisly ethnic but sexy named "Ebony" got more callbacks than some of the more qualified "white sounding" names. Hmmm, maybe "ethnic vs. white" is the wrong study for name discrimination.

[Coffin Surfer 0]

"So maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't name their son D'Qon."

 

 

 

Damn straight. There's a chance he might to have to post 5 more applications than Brad on the internet before a firm responds to his resume...maybe.

[SuperJerk 0]

"In the end, ethnic names appear to serve as a hindrance in the labor market, but the exact extent has yet to be conclusively determined."

EXACTLY!

 

Well, that was disappointing. I know you have yet to make a convincing argument or support any of your claims with anything resembling evidence or facts but damn..... You must be one hell of a teacher, your 70% black class is lucky to have you.

Most of the time I don't have kids in my class who claim they are arguing with me, but are actually proving my point for me.

 

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Much of that post was goofy, but not supporting Obama for being a Chicago Dem is as good a reason as any with it coming from somebody from that area.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bill is coming to my town tomorrow.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Much of that post was goofy, but not supporting Obama for being a Chicago Dem is as good a reason as any with it coming from somebody from that area.

I've always thought Chicago was a fairly nice place. I wouldn't mind living there. Though it's always possible the politicians in Illinois are even worse than California.

[Guest Bullshiterica]

Given the demises of other large cities on Great Lakes, it could be much worse, but the Democratic political machine is wearing thin with a lot of people, it seems. Todd Stroger and the destined-for-conviction Rod Blagojevich were the last straws. (He's the governor of, yes, the whole state, but has been known to keep an office in Chicago and take a chopper back and forth between the city and Springfield. Cash well spent. He's in trouble for much more than John Sununuing it up, though) I need to buy a book on Chicago politics. So much fascinating stuff, and so many fascinating names: Dan Rostenkowski, Eddie Vrdolyak, just their names make them sound like they're up to no good.

[snuffbox 0]

At least Mike Bloomberg pays for his own helicopter rides. I think.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

We just can't get rid of Evan Bayh

 

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

 

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

 

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

 

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

 

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.

 

Asked how she could win the nomination, Mr. Bayh said: “Well, I do think the popular vote is important. But that’s a circular argument. It brings us back to Florida and Michigan.”

 

He said he would also factor in electability and momentum, then added: “But ultimately, you know, if you look at the aggregate popular vote, and as we all recall in 2000, to our, as Democrats, great sorrow, we do elect presidents based upon the Electoral College.”

[...]

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Is Hillary Positioning for 2012?

 

...There is one possibility as to why Senator Clinton might still be in this race, inflicting heavy damage on the presumptive Democratic nominee. That reason is Hillary 2012.

 

...In fact, every day that Senator Clinton stays in the race is another day she spends money damaging Senator Obama. And every dollar she spends is a dollar in John McCain's pocket.

 

It almost makes you ask - does she want him to lose?

 

If Obama wins, then Senator Clinton couldn't run again until at least 2016 (unless something goes terribly wrong). At which point, she would be almost as old as John McCain is now. If she's ever going to become president, she has this narrow window.

 

On the other hand, if Senator Obama sustains serious political wounds going into the general election and winds up losing, then Hillary Clinton is sitting pretty in 2012.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i...fo_b_92904.html

 

 

Oh, and Barack got the much sought after Elijah Burke endorsement today.

[snuffbox 0]

I wanna sock Evan Bayh in his goddam face.

[SuperJerk 0]

The whole "Hillary should be the nominee because she'll when the big states" argument is just one more reason to hate the electoral college.

[The Robfather 0]

I remember some crazy theories in 2004 that some people in the Kerry campaign were moles to make sure he lost to clear the way for Hillary in 08.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The Hillary planning for 2012 theory just sounds a little too out there. Fact is, who knows what new stars in the democrat party could emerge in four years. Four years ago no one knew who Barack Obama was, now look at him. Hillary has to know that even if she did somehow sabotage Barack for the election, her pathway to 2012 would be less than clear anyway.

[snuffbox 0]

Bill is coming to my town tomorrow.

 

Are you going?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bill is coming to my town tomorrow.

 

Are you going?

 

Yeah. Field trip!

[Coffin Surfer 0]

"In the end, ethnic names appear to serve as a hindrance in the labor market, but the exact extent has yet to be conclusively determined."

EXACTLY!

 

Well, that was disappointing. I know you have yet to make a convincing argument or support any of your claims with anything resembling evidence or facts but damn..... You must be one hell of a teacher, your 70% black class is lucky to have you.

Most of the time I don't have kids in my class who claim they are arguing with me, but are actually proving my point for me.

 

 

Did you even read the full article? Wow.

 

So your point was that a small percentage of employers may be discriminating against a small percentage of black people with ethnic names but not nearly enough to inflict lasting damage on their economic situation? Sorry, somehow I got the impression your point was that name discrimination was having some sort of significant impact on "many black people."

 

Sure, the mere existance of any form of discrimination is troubling and in a perfect world none of it should exist but if we're talking minimal if any overall impact than what is the fucking point?

[SuperJerk 0]

*YAWN*

 

Despite your posturing, you never actually said anything that contradicted me, you merely wasted the last two pages splitting hairs over what constitutes a European name and claiming the amount of the discrimination you originally denied existed actually exists (just in an unknown degree). That's what we like to call a "pointless internet argument" if there every was one. To be honest, I liked you better when you were accusing me of not being American.

 

In other words, maybe you should just drop it.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Lets break this down!

 

I've really had a Damascene conversion when it comes to Hillary Clinton. I'll feel safest in that gnarled old claw of the Democratic establishment, I've realized. She's really not as bad as RIGHT-WING RADIO (where have you gone, sek69, The Smart Marks turns its lonely eyes to you) has made her out to be.

Compared to Obama shes great. Compared to Mccain shes about even.

 

She'd just turn out to be an agreeable centrist, I feel. Also, why, I don't know, but I've really begun to feel bad for how she's been treated by everyone from all sides. Is she shrill? Sure, but that's because she's being forced out of using her inside voice, which is more suited to her, and others.

I couldnt feel sorry for a politician no matter how hard I tried. The fact that you feel sorry for is a sad commentary on you. she was supposed to be the destined candidate and got run over by the Obama freight train to hell...man, I feel so sorry for her.

 

Is she willing to do anything to win? Yes, and this approach was embraced the last two times the Clintons did it, but now it's "Rovian"? Come on. We expect our favorite teams' linebackers to do anything it takes to win; why do we expect people engaged in more important pursuits to be deferential and aloof? I just feel like right now, putting my support behind her is the right thing to do.

Supporting Hillary Clinton or any other politician is only the right thing to do if you actually believe in their policies. Supporting her because she's not being treated fairly is dumb.

 

But yeah, things were comparatively peachy last time we had a Clinton around. The second Bush term has comprised the worst years of my life. Causal relationship? Highly doubtful. Enough to sway me, a dumb American? Sure.

The best years of Bill Clintons presidency were the result of Republicans gaining control of congress.

He was absolutely horrible in the first two years of his presidency with Congress controlled by Democrats, which is what will happen if Hillary (or for that matter Obama) wins (I could digress into an argument here about all of the things the Democrats promised they'd do in 06 to win control of Congress that havent happened but thats a matter for another post sometime).

 

Moreover, I'll never be able to take a Chicago Democrat at face value when he or his handlers claim he's "above the fray," and I'm not unconfident that there isn't some knockout blow to his vaunted integrity still waiting to be used. One day we woke up and the governor of New York was launched for taking high-priced whores over state lines. We never know what tomorrow shall bring.

In the game of politics, theres not one person that could run without having something dug up on them that would make them look like the biggest scumbag on the planet at that given time. To this extent it becomes how much of a scumbag are we willing to deal with for 4 years?

People want to believe that theres a politician who isnt as dirty as Pig Pen, but the fact is no one is successful in politics without some level of dirtiness and alarms should be going off left and right because Obama shot out of nowhere in such short time to become such a huge prominent political figure..

 

My voting preferences are Hillary, then McCain in the event of The Party's failure to nominate her, then an independent in the event of McCain's premature death. I'll never vote for Barack Obama.

Id go with an Independent before Hillary but if someone told me I had to vote for one of the big 3 Id probably go with Hillary but only because I dont think she'll accomplish anything if she gets elected because of the huge party rift her even getting nominated will cause. Essentially meaning that even with a Democrat controlled congress, some of them would be pissed off at her and wouldnt just automatically pass everything she throws out there.

 

I'll never vote for Obama or Mccain myself.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Holy fuck you just got owned by Marvin in the Current Events folder, time to call it a career.