Campaign 2008

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I like Olberman. Just saying.

[Guest]

He is just as bad as his right-wing counterparts. The only reason lefties won't say that is because they're lefties, just like righties won't say that guys like Rush and Hannity are bad.

What? No. And I'm certainly no lefty, but that's just wrong. Olbermann's nowhere near as overbearing as his right-wing opponents. When does he ever get as batshit crazy and confrontational as people like O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, and the like?

I thought it was assumed that I wasn't saying he was as bad as O'Reilly or the others when I didn't mention those guys. Apparently not.

[Jingus 0]

There's a difference? I just kind of imagine them as different heads of the same hydra, talking into separate FNC cameras or AM microphones. I should mention that I generally view most political pundits as being a step below amateur gay porn stars, emo boy bands, and Uwe Boll on the evolutionary ladder.

[BUTT 0]

If all, or any, cable news talking heads were as awesome as Uwe Boll, we'd be very lucky.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Polling seems to indicate that Edwards would be a strong VP pick for Obama:

 

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05...io-vp-matchups/

 

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05...chups-virginia/

 

The numbers look similar in Ohio & Pennsylvania.

[SuperJerk 0]

Back to the Hillary Clinton/Popular vote argument...

 

If you count Michigan in your popular vote total the way Mrs. Clinton is doing, then she's ahead by 54,432 votes.

 

594,984 Democrats voted in Michigan. 328,151 votes were for Clinton and 237,762 votes were "Uncommitted."

 

The last poll conducted in Michigan with Obama's name on it, the Detroit Free Press-Local 4 Michigan Poll, had Obama at 23%. The previous 2 polls prior to that with Obama's name on them had him at 20% and 26%. Of the people who voted, 23% would be 136,846. Therefore, if Barack Obama's name had been on the Michigan ballot, he'd have gotten around 136,846 votes...82,414 more votes than he needs to lead Clinton in the total popular vote.

 

If she wants to count primaries that everyone knew wouldn't count, then she should count ALL the votes, not just the votes for her.

 

numeric sources:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MI

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...vote_count.html

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...NEWS06/80112066

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/12433986.html

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/m...poll_101007.htm

[SuperJerk 0]

Bob Barr wins Libertarian presidential nod

 

Bob Barr has clashed with his former party over policy.

 

(CNN) — Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is now the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee — and a potential headache for John McCain, as he reaches out to conservative voters who might otherwise vote for the GOP nominee in November.

 

The former Georgia congressman — who left the Republican Party two years ago, citing differences over fiscal policy and concerns over civil liberties — was nominated on the sixth ballot at the party’s convention in Denver. The vote on the sixth ballot was 324 for Barr, and 276 for Mary Ruwart, the last remaining candidate out of 14 originally seeking the Libertarian nomination.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...esidential-nod/

 

[NYU 0]

Jerk, let me ask you a question. With the way the political climate is now, you really think Obama is not going to have a difficult time beating McCain in November if he doesn't share the ticket with Hillary Clinton? You don't think her avid supporters right now, who have been polling recently as unlikely to vote for Obama if he obtains the Democratic nomination, will opt to simply sit out in November or vote for McCain instead of giving their support to a man they've been trained to distrust for almost a year now? I still think Obama will have a tremendously difficult time winning the presidential election with the splintered state of the Democratic party, and I think the people who are insisting he not give the Vice Presidency to Hillary are being very short-sighted when it comes to giving him the most electable ticket in November. It is absolutely the only way to unify a party that is essentially, although this fact is often downplayed by Obama supporters, split down the middle. To do otherwise would actually be detrimental to his chances.

[SuperJerk 0]

NYU, here is what I already said about that.

And this, too.

 

In other news...

 

 

Hillary: Why I continue to run

BY HILLARY CLINTON

Sunday, May 25th 2008, 4:00 AM

Presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton vows to fight on despite calls for her to pull out of the race.

 

 

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

 

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

 

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

 

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

 

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

 

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

 

And today, I would like to more fully answer the question I was asked: Why do I continue to run, even in the face of calls from pundits and politicians for me to leave this race?

 

I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher - and the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership.

 

I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination - but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote. As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain. But that has not happened yet.

 

I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

 

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race - the most in presidential primary history.

 

I am running for all those women in their 90s who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

 

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

 

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I'm standing up for them. I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

 

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

 

But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...run.html?page=0

 

Ready. Aim. Fire.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Putting Hillary on the ticket is short-sighted. It'll make Obama look weak after the press has said that he doesn't want Hillary on there and if he can't resist Hillary's demands to be on the ticket how is he going to say he can confront some of the worst dicators in the world? Granted, this is a stretch but its a theoretical argument that could be spun around to some independent voters and we know the Democrats desperately want to look strong on national security [which is going to be one of McCain's talking points in this election]. Also, the most important thing in politics is DELIVERING what voters want, not simply winning elections. I know the Democrats are desperate to get back the White House after 8 years but don't throw away governability for electability.

 

An Obama-Clinton cohabitation in the White House would give us the in-fighting that plagued the Clinton-Gore years when Al Gore's influence was severely dilluted because Hillary thought she was entitled to be Bill's VP and her advice was more important than Gore's. And also, do you really think Hillary is going to be as somber as Cheney and typical VP's who were willing to take bullets for the boss in troubled times? Hell no, she'll be running for cover and blaming the same person she is serving under for the problems because she has ambitions far beyond the second slot.

[godthedog 0]

Hell no, she'll be running for cover and blaming the same person she is serving under for the problems because she has ambitions far beyond the second slot.

i completely agree with this. she just doesn't have the kind of team-first mentality that would make his presidency successful.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I'm not even sure what voters she would carry over as his running mate: if her arguement is 'I've got the racist vote', then those people aren't going to vote for Obama regardless of whether she's on the ticket or not, surely? And he'll probably get most of her female supporters since McCain seems very likely to try and overturn roe vs Wade. I think Ted Strickland (popular governor of Ohio), Joe Biden or Edwards would be smarter choices. He can't pick any other woman than Hillary since it would probably piss her off, and he'll need her if she's going to campaign for him and try to get her voters over to him.

[godthedog 0]

edwards has already publicly said he has no interest in the VP slot again.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

edwards has already publicly said he has no interest in the VP slot again.

 

Yeah, but was that a genuine 'I'm not interested,' or a *wink*wink* 'I'm not interested?'

 

If he was offered it, and thought he could help increase Obama's chances of winning over blue collar voters, I can't see him saying no. Also, I think he still has ambitions of being president himself, and the VP spot is another path to the presidency. He'll still be fairly young in 8 years time, anyway.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Especially since the Democratic party doesn't really nominate people who have lost the primary before... the VP spot would be Edward's best shot at eventually becoming President.

[Jingus 0]

Especially since the Democratic party doesn't really nominate people who have lost the primary before...

They never nominate the same guy for VP candidate twice either.

[snuffbox 0]

Edwards will probably be Attorney General in an Obama administration.

 

The Libertarian Party choices yesterday are incredibly disappointing.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I'm not surprised Barr won it though, considering that more people donated in his name in the run-up to the convention (which was interesting to watch on C-SPAN). I've always felt the Libertarian Party would have a better chance at succeeding if they were to get rid of the "legalize it" part of their platform in regards to drugs. It makes them look too much like an extreme/fringe party to moderates (and I know some people here may argue that legalizing things is okay, not that I would disagree, but the general public they isn't buying it...at least not in this climate). Maybe by nominating Barr they can distance themselves from that position and try to attract more votes.

 

I do think Barr could win a substantial number of conservative voters who are dissatisfied with McCain as the nominee, including myself. However, its ridiculous for him to assume he's going to get the 15% needed to get into the debates (and 15% doesn't even guarantee a debate slot anymore since you also have to be endorsed by some major, reputable newspapers which is absolutley ridiculous).

[SuperJerk 0]

CNN has a profile page for potential VP candidates:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/26/veepstakes/index.html

 

Especially since the Democratic party doesn't really nominate people who have lost the primary before...

They never nominate the same guy for VP candidate twice either.

 

Three people come to mind that have lost in the Democratic primaries (LBJ, Humphrey, and Al Gore) and later went on to be the nominee, but they weren't nominated until they had been elected Vice President. George McGovern tried to win the nomination at the convention in 1968, but didn't compete in the primaries. FDR had been a loosing VP nominee before being elected president, and Al Smith sought the nomination in 1924 before being nominated in 1928, but that was a completely different nominating system back then.

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

This has to be the funniest thing I've read today

 

The race issue is complicated by false, but rampant, rumors that Obama is Muslim. In Leslie County, a Republican county where Obama won 5 percent of the Democratic vote, the county judge-executive doesn't hesitate before mischaracterizing Obama's religion.

"I think one of the big problems for him is he's Muslim," said Jimmy Sizemore, the highest elected official in the county. "It's his religion, plus when his pastor came out and started talking, that was a problem, but that's just my opinion."I don't think it's because he's black, what everybody says is he is a Muslim."

 

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/414800.html

 

 

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Bill Clinton, being his usual self...

 

 

This is all about Michigan.

 

The Clintons want to punish Obama for following the rules and taking his name off of the Michigan ballot. Hillary Clinton wants credit for winning a primary nobody was competing in, and nobody knew would count.

 

Where I'm from, that's called CHEATING. And if there's one man that knows about cheating, then lying about it, it's Bill Clinton.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Poor Bill.

 

 

He's just really desperate for Hillary to win. Which is quite sweet. I think he knows its over but he can't bring himself to tell her.

[2GOLD 0]

Poor Bill.

 

 

He's just really desperate for Hillary to win. Which is quite sweet. I think he knows its over but he can't bring himself to tell her.

 

Would YOU be able to? Seems like no one wants to tell her.

[SuperJerk 0]

How many Clinton supporters does it take to change a light bulb?

 

First they have to admit bulb's burnt out.

 

 

 

Here's an excellent editorial on the matter.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Where I'm from, that's called CHEATING. And if there's one man that knows about cheating, then lying about it, it's Bill Clinton.

 

It's really nice to see Democrats adopting Rush Limbaugh rhetoric.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rush Limbaugh didn't invent the ad hominem.

 

Though to be fair, I did destroy his argument BEFORE resorting to name-calling.

[snuffbox 0]

I dont think that Rush Limbaugh has the monopoly on knowledge that Bill Clinton is a pathological liar.

[godthedog 0]

hillary HAS been the victim of sexism to the extent that all the bad adjectives the republicans used to describe clinton politics have been transferred to her, while bill's presidency hasn't really suffered in the eyes of democrats (at least the ones i know).

 

it's more than a little strange to demonize her for doing exactly the same things (i.e., twisting the letter of rules & law to individual advantage) he did, while still getting that warm fuzzy feeling inside about bill clinton being a good democratic president.

[SuperJerk 0]

The thing about Bill is that he looks like a good president when being compared to people like George W. Bush. Hillary is being called a bad candidate when compared to other candidates. Democrats were also a lot more forgiving in 1992, because they'd been losing for 12 years and none of their first-string players bothered to show up to run. This year we actually had choices. And the press was ALL OVER Clinton when he ran too, its just the voters were more forgiving because there weren't any other electable options (excluding Bob Kerrey, who just ran a horrible campaign and dropped out early in the process).

[spiny norman 0]

The thing about Bill is that he looks like a good president when being compared to people like George W. Bush. Hillary is being called a bad candidate when compared to other candidates. Democrats were also a lot more forgiving in 1992, because they'd been losing for 12 years and none of their first-string players bothered to show up to run. This year we actually had choices. And the press was ALL OVER Clinton when he ran too, its just the voters were more forgiving because there weren't any other electable options (excluding Bob Kerrey, who just ran a horrible campaign and dropped out early in the process).

 

Realistically, though, when was the last time we had a president better than Clinton? It's not just W Bush who makes him look good.

 

He'd probably make a top five presidents of the 20th century list.