Campaign 2008

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll never vote for Obama or Mccain myself.

 

Obama don't treat his granny right!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

 

Yet another instance where the Clinton campaign has to back track on something Hillary said.

[snuffbox 0]

Her "they were shooting at me, don't listen to Sinbad" line until video proved her wrong was comically bad. I'm sure the Barack O'Media will run that weird bullshit all day (like Gore's invented internet) and make sure people realize that pathological lying isn't that good a trait in a presidential candidate. And by "run all day" I mean we've probably seen it for the last time.

[The Niggardly King 0]

This latest development and the media attacking of MY GURL Hil, man this sucks. I feel so bad for her right about now.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Why would you feel bad for her (unless you're being sarcastic...I can't be bothered to tell anymore)? She blatantly lied about it. Just to be clear...NONE OF THE STUFF SHE SAID ABOUT THE INCIDENT HAPPENED!

[snuffbox 0]

Well, it comes down to what makes you feel warmest & safest. Sure, with Obama you will get a guy with a far-more-than-adequate supply of actual experience, intelligence, and judgement BUT with Clinton you will get a veritable mountain of fabricated experience. That mountain, fictional though it may be, feels so much cuddlier at 3 in the morning!

[Atticus Chaos 0]

The thing is, I always thought whatever else she was, Hillary was smart.

 

But, dammit, how could anyone with one ounce of intelligence get caught up in such a blatant lie? Apart from Sinbad and everyone else who was there, didn't she realize the cameras had filmed everything and her claim could easily be proved false?

 

Or has she not realized how The Youtube works yet?

[Coffin Surfer 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.

 

Ok, this isn't cute anymore. Your "dumb act" may not be an act it seems. I never denied the existance of name discrimination and I will glady will kiss your white ass if you can find me a quote, however I certainly object to the assumption of your initial post that most blacks in this country are disadvantaged because of their name. Not only do most blacks have European names but the Fryer and Levitt study showed that the economical outcomes are not any worst for those with ethnic names.

 

As far as many blacks being discriminated from jobs by name goes, you should probably read the full paragraph since it points out the short comings of the study you based that assumption on.

 

"To sum up, Bertrand and Mullainathan suggested that racial discrimination may affect the likelihood of being interviewed by some companies. However, it is unclear whether discrimination in some interviews leads to worse economic outcomes overall. Fryer and Levitt asserted that outcomes, as the authors define them, do not appear to be worse for those with ethnic names after controlling for social background. Only a small percentage of employers in the Bertrand and Mullainathan study seemed to discriminate based on name. Thus, that number of discriminatory employers may not be sufficiently large to affect job market outcomes across the board. Additionally, some employers may be attempting to infer underlying productivity from ethnic names.

 

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."

 

I will certainly quit now, because there is nothing more left to be said. Sorry friend, you have been contradicted. Get over it.

 

 

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I never denied the existance of name discrimination and I will glady will kiss your white ass if you can find me a quote, however I certainly object to the assumption of your initial post that most blacks in this country are disadvantaged because of their name.

 

I never said that most blacks in this country are disadvantaged because of their name, but sarcastically pointed out that it was something that could and did happen.

 

 

I wll post on this subject no more.

 

Please keep your word this time.

[pappajacks 0]

I see a few "3 am" references in this thread. What's behind it? something Barack said?

[Kinetic 0]

A commercial Hillary ran that implied that she would be better prepared to deal with major issues of national security over the phone at 3 a.m.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

There's only one man I want on the telephone with Russia at 3:00 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Red Baron 0]

As a Canadian getting bombarded with this whole election thingy, I just need some clarification.

 

 

What is a Super Delegate, and what is his/her role deciding this election?

[EricMM 0]

 

Oh fuck yeah.

 

Only one man could be better:

 

 

But we'd have to amend the constitution.

[godthedog 0]

As a Canadian getting bombarded with this whole election thingy, I just need some clarification.

 

 

What is a Super Delegate, and what is his/her role deciding this election?

 

regular delegates are required to vote as their area votes. if clinton gets 20 delegates from, say, boston, all those delegates have to vote for clinton at the convention.

 

superdelegates are individuals with some clout in the party, and are allowed to change their minds. if clinton gets enough primary votes from boston to "win" 8 superdelegates, they are still free to vote for obama at the convention if they want to. i believe it's intended to be a check on the popular vote.

 

this is one of the reasons why bill richardson's endorsement of obama is a big deal--because he's a superdelegate, and clinton won his state of new mexico.

 

the republican party doesn't use superdelegates.

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Obama's going after Mccain again. Which is good, since I think the best thing he can do is ignore Hllary Huckabee and pretend that she's insignificant.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/obama-b...

 

March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

 

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Revving up for what his campaign is calling a "major" speech on the economy tomorrow, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., blasted the economic plan of presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

 

At his first campaign event after a short family vacation in the US Virgin Islands, Obama hit at McCain's economic speech Tuesday, and noted, as he often does on the stump, that McCain once joked that the economy is not his strong suit.

 

“John McCain has admitted he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should. Yesterday he proved it in a speech he gave on the housing crisis.” Obama told a town hall audience Wednesday in Greensboro, North Carolina.

 

"According to John McCain he said the best way for us to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen. In his entire speech yesterday he offered not one policy, not one idea, not one bit of relief for the nearly thirty five thousand north Carolinians who were forced to foreclose on their dream in the last few months. Not one, not one single idea or a single policy prescription.”

 

Obama cast McCain as more of the same, arguing Americans don’t need a third terms of the Bush administration.

 

As president, Obama said he will address the situation by reworking existing subprime loans into affordable long-term fixed loans, creating a foreclosure prevention fund, and cracking down on mortgage fraud and predatory lenders.

 

“John McCain may call helping struggling homeowners pandering, but I don’t think the families in North Carolina who are losing their homes would see it that way,” Obama said, referring to McCain's comment yesterday that he "will not play election year politics with the housing crisis."

 

Differing with his Democratic opponents, McCain yesterday argued against widespread government intervention in dealing with the home mortgage and foreclosure crisis.

 

Obama is set to give a major economic speech on Thursday in New York City at Cooper Union, where he’s expected to outline more differences with McCain on their economic agendas.

[snuffbox 0]

Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party.

 

*crickets chirp*

[snuffbox 0]

Hey, buddy, I care!

[The Niggardly King 0]

call me when it's Ron Paul

[snuffbox 0]

I'll give 1988 your number.

[SuperJerk 0]

Carl Bernstein weighs in on the Hillary's trip to Kosovo controversy.

 

Bernstein: Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

Posted: 10:14 AM ET

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:

 

 

“Since her Arkansas years [i wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ”

 

As I noted:

 

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

 

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…

 

 

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

 

Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

 

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

 

The book concludes with this paragraph:

 

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

 

The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/hill...r-consequences/

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

"I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor," Clinton said at a news conference after being asked if Obama should have left the church.

 

Im sure the "Hillary aint never been called a n-word" would have gone over well with her if she was in attendence.

 

Also:

 

 

Upper Deck had to pull the card though, but some got out and are worth as much as $1000 even though UD wont be honoring the contest (enter code on card, if Hillary wins you could win a shot to throw out the first pitch at a game)

 

Other cards

 

Rudy = Jeffrey Meier!!! Obama = Steve Bartman!! lol

[SuperJerk 0]

"I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor," Clinton said at a news conference after being asked if Obama should have left the church.

 

Im sure the "Hillary aint never been called a n-word" would have gone over well with her if she was in attendence.

 

In light of that particular comment by Wright, Mrs. Clinton's response does seem particularly disconnected from reality.

 

Speaking of disconnected from reality...

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_al...will_be_sto.htm

 

As such, the Clintons will be stopped when a succession of high profile Democratic leaders ( all superdelegates ) endorse Obama, one by one, right up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd.

 

Chris Dodd was the first and Bill Richardson was the second. They will soon be followed by John Edwards, Jimmy Carter and finally Al Gore.

 

When it becomes obvious that the vast majority of the super delegates are going for Obama and with the probability of a looming and embarrassing defeat Hillary will bow out and the Democratic party leadership will heave a sigh of relief. If she doesn't the Clintons could selfishly take the Democratic party down with them ensuring that neither herself or Obama will win in November .

 

One thing I'll say about the republicans, is that if they had a situtation like this, you know they would have basically ordered the lesser candidate out weeks ago because it was damaging their chances in the GE. Especially if the candidate in question had endorsed a rival opponent like Hillary did. The democrats are being way too nice about this.

[At Home 0]

It's not that cut and dried. I mean, there are lots of reasons to support Clinton, and she has money invested into a lot of places, especially high up.

[godthedog 0]

pennsylvania may get very interesting now, with conflicting endorsements from its governor and dem. senator.

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_al...will_be_sto.htm

 

As such, the Clintons will be stopped when a succession of high profile Democratic leaders ( all superdelegates ) endorse Obama, one by one, right up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd.

 

Chris Dodd was the first and Bill Richardson was the second. They will soon be followed by John Edwards, Jimmy Carter and finally Al Gore.

 

When it becomes obvious that the vast majority of the super delegates are going for Obama and with the probability of a looming and embarrassing defeat Hillary will bow out and the Democratic party leadership will heave a sigh of relief. If she doesn't the Clintons could selfishly take the Democratic party down with them ensuring that neither herself or Obama will win in November .

 

One thing I'll say about the republicans, is that if they had a situtation like this, you know they would have basically ordered the lesser candidate out weeks ago because it was damaging their chances in the GE. Especially if the candidate in question had endorsed a rival opponent like Hillary did. The democrats are being way too nice about this.

Yes, the GOP is much more lock-step and regimented than the Democrats. They may be a bunch of uptight, homophobic, xenophobic robber-barons...but they are definitely well-organized.

[SuperJerk 0]

I dn't know if anyone already posted this...

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/whitehousewar/candidates

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Damn you Barack Obama, You Pretty Motherfucker