Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

I was all set to argue this has nothing to do with his ability to be president, but then I remember that (a) he's not the president, and (b) he's not running for president.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I was all set to argue this has nothing to do with his ability to be president, but then I remember that (a) he's not the president, and (b) he's not running for president.

But he's a major player in the Democratic Party. What he's done reflects poorly on them, and on Obama's chances. Do we need to spell it out for you?

[snuffbox 0]

The only thing that needs to be spelled out for him is one letter, D. It's all cool with that appendage to Edwards' name.

[Guest Cal Moriarty]

I don't think one man's infidelity reflects poorly on the entire Democratic Party. That's a bit of a stretch. He's kind of on the peripheries of ObamaWorld, seeing as his younger supporters migrated to Obama and Edwards went on to endorse Obama, so it might upset a few undecideds that the other smiling idealist is kind of a prick, but I don't think it puts any significant dent in Obama's support. This isn't about him, after all.

[snuffbox 0]

I agree. I don't think this will hurt Obama or help McCain. But, contrary to Jerk's wishful thinking, it does warrant disgust and discussion. He played a major role in this election and was far from done with politics before this.

 

Howard Wolfson has claimed that if this were known before Iowa, Hillary would have won there and, subsequently, the nomination. He apparently didn't notice that Edwards' support went largely to Obama when he left. No wonder she didn't win with that kind of idiocy running her campaign.

[SuperJerk 0]

I was all set to argue this has nothing to do with his ability to be president, but then I remember that (a) he's not the president, and (b) he's not running for president.

But he's a major player in the Democratic Party. What he's done reflects poorly on them, and on Obama's chances. Do we need to spell it out for you?

 

 

(Congratulations, you've earned it.)

[SuperJerk 0]

Memos show Clinton camp lines of attack, disarray

Story Highlights

• Mark Penn was Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief strategist until April
• Penn wanted to highlight Obama's lack of "American roots," memo says
• Magazine says documents show staff infighting, Clinton's indecisiveness
• Clinton didn't pursue Penn strategy, The Atlantic magazine says

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's one-time chief strategist wanted to attack Sen. Barack Obama for lacking "American roots" during the Democratic primary battle, according to a magazine article set to be published online Monday evening.

 

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light. Save it for 2050," Mark Penn, then Clinton's chief strategist, wrote in a March 2007 memo, according to an article to be published in the September edition of The Atlantic magazine.

 

"It also exposes a very strong weakness for him -- his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values," Penn wrote, according to the article by Joshua Green.

 

The article is expected to be available on the magazine's Web site Monday evening, The Atlantic said. The print version of the magazine is expected to hit newsstands August 19.

 

Green noted that Clinton did not pursue the strategy Penn suggested during the contentious Democratic primary battle, which resulted in Obama defeating the former first lady and locking up their party's presidential nomination.

 

In April, Penn was forced out of his position as chief strategist after revelations that he lobbied for a U.S.-Colombia trade deal on behalf of the Colombian government despite Clinton's opposition to the measure. Penn, however, never left the campaign entirely.

 

In the Atlantic article, which is based on internal Clinton campaign memos and e-mail messages, Green highlighted bitter fighting among Clinton's staff, writing that her advisers "couldn't execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other and Clinton never forced a resolution."

 

The internal communication also suggests that the lack of clear lines of authority within the campaign meant that issues that ultimately led to Clinton's defeat -- her lack of support in the Iowa caucuses, the absence of a strategy to capture delegates after the Super Tuesday primaries and her failure to prepare for a protracted primary fight -- went unaddressed for months, Green wrote.

 

"What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton's loss derived not from specific decisions she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make," Green wrote. "Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency."

 

The documents also suggest the Clinton staff remained divided throughout the campaign on whether she should run a positive campaign or attack Obama and her other rivals for the Democratic nomination as being untrustworthy and underqualified, Green wrote.

 

"Clinton's top advisers never agreed on the answer. Over the course of the campaign, they split into competing factions that drifted in and out of Clinton's favor but always seemed to work at cross purposes. And Clinton herself could never quite decide who was right," he wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/11/atl...taff/index.html

 

So, to sum up...Hillary Clinton is indecisive and Mark Penn is a racist. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about either any more.

[snuffbox 0]

I always thought the facepalm thing (dumb to begin with) was supposed to be used when the other person is wrong?

[Gary Floyd 0]

I always thought the facepalm thing (dumb to begin with) was supposed to be used when the other person is wrong?

This is JerkSC. You know how he is. He will never (I mean NEVER) admit he's wrong.

[Guest Cal Moriarty]

The facepalm is a cornerstone of arguments at the Pit, I believe. Aren't we better than that? Well, no, we're not, but can we pretend as if we are?

[SuperJerk 0]

First of all, someone already explained why you two were wrong:

I don't think one man's infidelity reflects poorly on the entire Democratic Party. That's a bit of a stretch. He's kind of on the peripheries of ObamaWorld, seeing as his younger supporters migrated to Obama and Edwards went on to endorse Obama, so it might upset a few undecideds that the other smiling idealist is kind of a prick, but I don't think it puts any significant dent in Obama's support. This isn't about him, after all.

 

Secondly, you have to remember that McCain is essentially guilty of the same thing Edwards did, just decades earlier. He is also probably MARRIED TO one of the women he cheated on his ex-wife with. If anyone's bothered by adultery, are they going to vote for the adulterer over someone who just happens to be in the same party as an adulterer? If adultery bothers you, are you going to vote to make a woman First Lady who probably had an affair with a married man? DOES THAT MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER?

 

Furthermore, if you say guilt-by-association counts, but McCain's ACTUAL adultry does not, you need to recall that McCain is as close to Rudy Guiliani as Obama is to Edwards.

 

 

In other words, your argument is so full of holes, so irrational, and so blatantly ridiculous you should probably just DROP IT before you embarrass yourselves further by continuing to talk about it while everyone else has already moved on to stories with actual substance.

[snuffbox 0]

Your argument there would be stronger if anybody here had just once said that it was ok for McCain.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

John Edwards, a lawyer..is a scumbag in his personal life as well.

 

YOU DONT SAY!

 

The only way this hurts Obama is if he picks Edwards for AG anyway and uses the "thats not the (insert name of person) I know" line when confronted about the adultery and everything. And that wont happen.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Your argument there would be stronger if anybody here had just once said that it was ok for McCain.

 

Ahem.

 

Republicans would be wise not to make a big deal out of this considering John McCain's marital history, though.

To be fair to McCain (who I'm no fan of) 1.) He's crippled too, and 2.) Isn't there a high divorce rate among war vets?

 

Also...

 

But he's a major player in the Democratic Party. What he's done reflects poorly on them, and on Obama's chances.

 

Isn't it safe to assume that anything that HURTS Obama HELPS McCain. But, in order for voters to condemn the Democrats for their sex scandals at the voting booth, they'll have to forgive the Republicans for theirs. Otherwise, its a zero-sum game where neither side is helped or hurt by these sex scandals.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Hahaha

 

Jay McInerney has said in interviews that the character of Alison Poole was based on his former girlfriend Rielle Hunter, then named Lisa Druck.[1][2][3]

 

The character of Alison Poole has also been featured in the novels of Bret Easton Ellis, including American Psycho, in which she is sexually assaulted by the protagonist Patrick Bateman, and plays a major role in Glamorama as the girlfriend of protagonist Victor Ward.[4]

 

This confirms what I've always partly suspected: John Edwards is actually a character from a 1980s novel about decadent rich people.

[NoCalMike 0]

File this one under "OMG Obama's going to raise taxes ahhhhhhhhhh" Cause, yeah if you aren't paying ANY taxes, then having to pay them period, would be considered a tax hike....

 

Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_...ions_income_tax

 

WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

 

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

 

Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

 

"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

 

An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.

 

"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.

 

The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.

 

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

 

The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.

 

Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices — amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.

 

"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

[SuperJerk 0]

And don't forget, deregulation is wonderful for the economy.

[SuperJerk 0]

Obama has learned from Kerry's mistakes...

 

Obama campaign issues rebuttal to book's claims

 

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama hit back Thursday with a 40-page rebuttal to the best-selling book "The Obama Nation," arguing the author is a fringe bigot pedaling rehashed lies.

 

Jerome Corsi's anti-Obama book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," argues that the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president. The book is a compilation of all the allegations and innuendo against Obama — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a black rage hidden beneath the surface.

 

The Obama campaign picked apart the book's claims in a rebuttal titled "Unfit For Publication," to be posted on the Obama campaign's rumor-fighting Web site, FightTheSmears.com. The title is a play on the book Corsi co-authored against 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military service called "Unfit For Command."

 

"Jerome Corsi is a discredited liar who is pedaling another piece of garbage to continue the Bush-Cheney politics he helped perpetuate four years ago," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "His is just one of what will likely be many more lie-filled books rushed to print this election cycle, which are cobbled together from debunked Internet sources to make money and advance a partisan agenda. We will respond to these smears forcefully with all means at our disposal."

 

Corsi's book is off to a swift start and will debut at No. 1 Sunday on The New York Times' hardcover nonfiction best-seller list. The book's prominence gave the Obama campaign reason to fight back so aggressively.

 

Obama's campaign says the book is full of factual inaccuracies that include the wrong date for the Obamas' marriage. Corsi also writes that Obama left much of his family background out of his autobiographies — his father's polygamy and alcoholism, his sister's birth in Indonesia and that his then-fiance Michelle accompanied him on a visit to Kenya — but the campaign points out page numbers from "Dreams From My Father" where Obama discussed all those things.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_...anti_obama_book

 

 

 

 

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Did anyone know it was McCain Nation Day today?

 

...

 

Neither did I until about 15 minutes ago. Supposedly everyones having these fun meetup parties to show their support for him, but dang it I cant find one anywhere near here, not that Id want to show up to support him...Id just be curious if anyone else showed up.

 

 

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Did you check the local nursing homes and truck stops?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Did you check the local nursing homes and truck stops?

 

Nothing where I work anyway..

[BUTT 0]

Marv, did you make that sig pic yourself.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marv, did you make that sig pic yourself.

I took it at the house show I went to. All I did was add the text, his eyes came out like that due to my crappy camera and poor lighting.

[SuperJerk 0]

McCain and Obama face questions about their faith

 

The Rev. Rick Warren is so prominent and respected that just being seen with him is a boon for any presidential candidate. For Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, their appearances at a forum Saturday night at Warren's evangelical California megachurch bring risks along with rewards.

 

 

The event will play to one of Obama's strengths, talking about his Christian faith, but it will also underscore the gulf between his views and those of the most conservative Christian voters.

 

Many of McCain's positions are more in line with the evangelical worldview, but he is uncomfortable — and some critics say unconvincing — while talking about his personal beliefs.

 

The candidates will appear separately, spending one hour each with Warren, before coming together on stage for a handshake. The pastor, who does not endorse candidates, will be the only one asking questions.

 

Warren is an anti-abortion Southern Baptist who is nonetheless part of a shift away from the religious right's strict focus on abortion and marriage. The environment, poverty and education have also become pressing concerns, especially for younger evangelicals.

 

Warren is best known for building Saddleback Church into a 23,000-member megachurch in Lake Forest, Calif., and for writing the multimillion-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life."

 

But he and his wife, Kay, are also leading advocates for HIV/AIDS victims worldwide. They have invested enormous resources in their PEACE Plan, now under way in Rwanda, which aims to combat corruption, illiteracy and other social problems through church partnerships with government and business.

 

Older-guard evangelical leaders who oppose broadening the agenda have been leaning on Warren. In a stream of statements in the days leading up to the forum, they implored him to press the candidates about their positions on abortion.

 

Larry Ross, who represents Warren, said the pastor has been consulting with other clergy and with experts in different fields to develop questions for the candidates about leadership, the Constitution, human rights and "sin and righteousness issues."

 

"The more liberal camp just assumes that Pastor Warren is going to make this a Christian litmus test of the presidency. Others, who are more conservative, fear he is going to wimp out on some of the issues," Ross said. "He says, 'Neither group understands or knows me.' He's going to ask tough questions, fair questions, not gotcha questions."

 

Obama has proven adept at explaining how his Christian faith has shaped his policies. The church forum also gives him a perfect setting to counter the misperception that he is Muslim. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 12 percent of respondents believe the Illinois senator is Muslim.

 

"It's a great way for him to do what he can to make connections with not only moderate evangelicals, but also the many people out there who read 'The Purpose-Driven Life,'" said Mark Silk, who specializes in religion and public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

 

However, Obama will inevitably be asked to explain his support for abortion rights and other issues that clash with conservative Christian theology.

 

The Obama campaign has been diligently courting religious voters with a presence on Christian radio and blogs, and through "American Values Forums" and other events.

 

In June, Obama took the bold step of holding a private meeting with a large group of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Franklin Graham, who challenged him on his beliefs in salvation, his support for abortion rights and other issues.

 

The benefit of the forum to McCain, who attends a Baptist church, is less clear.

 

While many of his views, including opposition to abortion, match the outlook of conservative Christians, he is far less comfortable than Obama discussing his faith. McCain did not participate in a spring forum at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Pa., where Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton discussed religion and their personal lives.

 

McCain supporters have taken to circulating excerpts from his memoir "Faith of Our Fathers," that explain his beliefs. He recently met privately with Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, one of the most vocal U.S. bishops on the duty of Catholics to make the abortion issue a priority in choosing public leaders.

 

Yet, many evangelical leaders have backed him only reluctantly. And he put conservative Christians on edge Thursday by floating the prospect of picking a running mate who supports abortion rights. Conservative Christians comprise about one-quarter of the electorate.

 

"You just wonder, is he trying to shoot himself in the foot?" said David Domke, author of "The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America."

 

No one expects Obama to lure the most traditional Christian voters from the GOP. Polls consistently show McCain winning frequent churchgoers by large margins. But in a close general election, Obama could win by taking a small percentage of the evangelical vote away from the GOP.

 

"Obama is going to make real inroads for people who want to be satisfied that this is a pretty religious guy but that he's not a lunatic," Silk said.

 

The person with the most at stake may be Warren himself. The impression he makes Saturday will shape his reputation, the public view of his church and his position among evangelicals for a long time to come.

 

"I think Rick is in an unenviable position in that he stands to get attacked from the right and the left, based on what direction he takes," said Mark DeMoss, an evangelical public relations specialist who had supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the GOP primary. "As an evangelical, I am much more interested in his list of questions than in either of their answers."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_...idates_religion

 

It will interesting to see if the religious right has moved away from trying to make every election a referendum on abortion and gay rights.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If I wasnt goin to the Ravens game tomorrow night Id watch it live, but Im DVRing it and its even gonna be in HD on CNN...

[snuffbox 0]

Drudge is currently headlining with a rumor that John Kerry could be Obama's VP nominee.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

that would be dumb

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Like always, you're wrong.

 

Kerry has clearly learned his lesson about playing nice with the opposition after 2004. He felt that the American people were too smart to believe that a man on the national stage could actually make up a fake military record. The voters of this country are plenty stupid to fall for something like that and they proved it. With that lesson learned, Kerry would now make a strong 'attack-dog' veep candidate. His experience, both in Congress and in Vietnam, would balance all that Obama lacks. He proved himself to be very popular with voters, as well. He received more votes than any Democrat in history in 2004. While I dont think it will actually happen (still sticking with Sam Nunn), it would be a very good pick.

 

But, since I don't think Glen Beck has had time to drool about this one, why do you think it's dumb, Marvin? Here's your big chance to 'prove' a point all on your own!

[SuperJerk 0]

I agree Kerry screwed up by not directly addressing the rumors against him, but I don't think the people who were dumb enough to believe the Swift Boat crap were going to vote for Kerry anyways. In the end he lost by only 3 points to a president who, at the time, still had a thin majority of popular support for his post-9/11 leadership and the Iraq War.