Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

It's not a recount, Marv.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It's not a recount, Marv.

I corrected the one to revote, missed the other, its 230..give me a break.

[At Home 0]

The only way the Michigan/Florida debacle doesnt tear the Democrat party right in half is if they do a recount and Hillary wins like she did the first time.

Which she probably will. But lets say they dont hold any more voting, and then Hillary wins, well congratulations Florida and Michigan, you're a bunch of racists now for not giving Obama a fair shot to win.

 

and I bet next election, the rush wont be to have earlier elections..it'll be to have later ones. Probably also fueled by cable news wanting the high ratings push from December to May like they're getting this year instead of it dying off by the end of February.

 

You are blowing the Michigan/Florida question out of proportion. It's not going to tear the Democrat party right in half. We're not THAT polarized.

 

If they don't hold any more voting, how can Hillary win? I don't understand that.

 

And who would be painting anyone as racist? The Obama camp? Have they EVER painted ANYONE as racist?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The only way the Michigan/Florida debacle doesnt tear the Democrat party right in half is if they do a recount and Hillary wins like she did the first time.

Which she probably will. But lets say they dont hold any more voting, and then Hillary wins, well congratulations Florida and Michigan, you're a bunch of racists now for not giving Obama a fair shot to win.

 

and I bet next election, the rush wont be to have earlier elections..it'll be to have later ones. Probably also fueled by cable news wanting the high ratings push from December to May like they're getting this year instead of it dying off by the end of February.

 

You are blowing the Michigan/Florida question out of proportion. It's not going to tear the Democrat party right in half. We're not THAT polarized.

 

If they don't hold any more voting, how can Hillary win? I don't understand that.

 

And who would be painting anyone as racist? The Obama camp? Have they EVER painted ANYONE as racist?

 

#1 - If they dont redo the Michigan/Florida votes than Its almost impossible for either to win outright and it will come down to the dreaded super delegates (or maybe even the secretive Add On Delegates?)

#2 - I doubt the Obama camp officially would be calling anyone a racist, but you know your average Obama "supporter" would.

 

I put it "supporter" to make the difference between someone who supports a candidate and their policies and plans for the country and knows a majority of them and one who "supports" a candidate based on how cool and popular they are but have no idea what their policies are.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I corrected the one to revote, missed the other, its 230..give me a break.

That's still no excuse for the utter idiocy and moronic bile you've spewed out of Glenn Beck's ass in every other post you've made in this thread.

[Guest Beastalentier]

Democrat party

You do know this doesn't make you sound clever, right?

[At Home 0]

#2 - I doubt the Obama camp officially would be calling anyone a racist, but you know your average Obama "supporter" would.

 

I put it "supporter" to make the difference between someone who supports a candidate and their policies and plans for the country and knows a majority of them and one who "supports" a candidate based on how cool and popular they are but have no idea what their policies are.

 

Yeah, the average "supporter" as you call it is going to fucking be up in arms over a small handful of delegates. Sorry we can't be as informed as you. I guess some parts of the country just don't get Glenn Beck. We could probably fix it up so we do get it, but we're too busy burning Hillary Clinton effigies and skateboarding to do that.

 

“I’ll leave it up to the Democratic National Committee to make a decision about how to resolve it,” Mr. Obama told ABC News on Thursday night. “But I certainly want to make sure that we’ve got Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention in some fashion.”

 

That seems like shit to rally behind.

[Bruiser_Brody_ 0]

So how the hell is Micheal Savage like the 3rd highest rated Political talk show host, I listen semi frequently mostly cause he's just a bag of wind. Some recent highlights: (He yell's loudly for most of these quotes)

 

"If Obama HUSSIEN or Hillary win the election pedophilia will be legalized within 4 years!"

 

"I feel all teachers should be armed, we can't arm the children because the government has them all drugged by their pediatricians!!"

 

Rush Limbaugh isn't much better, as he actually took credit for Hillary's recent victories

[King Kamala 0]

Michael Savage is the worst. Other crappy conservative talk radio show hosts just seem really really dumb. Michael Savage is just batshit insane.

 

 

[NoCalMike 0]

I flip between Michael "Savage" Weiner and Peter B. Collins on the drive home from work. Complete polar opposites, so it is quite hilarious to listen to the contrast.

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

Allen Ginsberg must have raped that twirp or something.

[NoCalMike 0]

Michael Savage is the worst. Other crappy conservative talk radio show hosts just seem really really dumb. Michael Savage is just batshit insane.

 

Ermm.....Savage is probably the most batshit of the group, but Sean Hannity's radio show is the most gawd awful. I mean it contains absolutely zero substance to it, and is filled with the "I'm a good american because....." rhetoric.

 

Maybe I am biased because I tend to like more policy-driven political talk shows such as Thom Hartmann.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

More fun polling maps.

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

As much as I support Obama, I'd like to be wary of the "Obama will be stronger against McCain, therefore he should be the Democratic nominee no matter what" camp, mostly because that's one of the things that led to the Party nominating John Kerry over some better candidates back in 2004.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/07/...in3916817.shtml

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

 

The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

 

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

 

Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

 

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

 

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

 

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

 

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

 

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

 

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

By Jonathan Chait

 

The point about Pennsylvania is why I really think senior officials need to stage an intervention now. Or wait till after Mississippi and Wyoming. She could do a lot damage to Barack there and it will last till November.

 

How that would possibly go....

 

senior official 1: Hillary, thank you for all you've done for the party, but you have to quit now so Barack has more of a chance of winning in the election

 

senior official 2: You can't make up the delegate count, at all. And overturning that decision would cause an outcry and rip the party apart.

 

Hillary: NEVER! I will win!! Those damn voters! What do they know anyway?

 

Senior official 1: okay, switch to plan B (throws a bucket of water over her and watches her melt)

[snuffbox 0]

Agreed. It's been a problem in that party for a long, long time. Just put forth the best candidate and you'll have a chance just about every time out. I'll never understand why the party has always been so admament dying a painful death upon the hill of "better chance to win in November"

 

At least that thinking didn't puke up Evan Bayh this time around.

[Guest Beastalentier]

senior official 1: Hillary, thank you for all you've done for the party, but you have to quit now so Barack has more of a chance of winning in the election

 

senior official 2: You can't make up the delegate count, at all. And overturning that decision would cause an outcry and rip the party apart.

 

Hillary: NEVER! I will win!! Those damn voters! What do they know anyway?

 

Senior official 1: okay, switch to plan B (throws a bucket of water over her and watches her melt)

 

......

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

At least that thinking didn't puke up Evan Bayh this time around.

 

If Hillary does wind up somehow stealing the nomination I'll console myself by repeating "Hey, it could have been Evan Bayh" as I mark my ballot this November. Then I'll drive off a bridge.

[Guest Beastalentier]

As God is my witness, I swear Democrats liked Hillary Clinton once.

[snuffbox 0]

Brownback will have a better shot than McCain if the Irag Escalation continues.

 

Oops!

[Atticus Chaos 0]

As God is my witness, I swear Democrats liked Hillary Clinton once.

 

 

Even Steve Soto has had enough of her now. That's really saying something, since his blog was practically a shrine to the Clintons.

 

I don't hate Hillary, by any means. And it's no wonder she's gotten so nasty: obssesed with being president, she plans this for years, raises a fortune, and is then built up as the inevitable nominee. Only it comes crashing down when a younger, more charismatic (though not particulalrly qualified) guy comes out of nowhere, makes more money than her, out organises her and takes all her dreams away solely because he does good speeches and has a cool catchphrase .

 

 

But, jeez, she should have never put herself in the position where she expected the presidency. Every other nominee, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney..etc sure they wanted to be president but you got the feeling they'd be fine if they didn't win and move on with their lives. Even Obama said he'd be fine with not winning. But Hillary? I think she's headed for a mental breakdown of sorts if she doesn't win. It's got the point where she's sabotaging her own party for God's sake.

[snuffbox 0]

How different would our country be today if the drooling masses had required years of DC residence to be president in 1860?

[Guest Beastalentier]

Give me a break. She's beholden to herself, not The Party. I don't understand why wanting the job for which she's applying more than her competition does is being framed as a character flaw.

 

Obama has three years of "DC residence," and the drooling masses are all over him, massively drooling indeed.

[snuffbox 0]

In my case, they are 'drooling masses' because what they are saying is completely wrong. Experience is NOT the end-all/be-all of American presidential politics. And, Hillary is hardly more experienced anyway.

 

In your case, they are 'drooling masses' because they are supporting a candidate you dont like. For reasons you have struggled to actually come up with for over a year.

 

So, I'll ask a simple question (and add a qualifier that "I dont like all them people cheering for him" does not count)- Why is Hillary Clinton a better candidate than Barack Obama?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Root for America!

 

"*I love the smell of vetoes in the morning- I will pledge to sign more VETOES than any President in history!"

 

Im looking forward to hear more about him on Glenn Beck's show. I think its funny he graduated from Law School with Obama.

[snuffbox 0]

So, Hillary is in to win. Faaaaaaaantastic.

 

Seriously, Czech, what has Obama done/said that was so incredibly bad that you went from posts like this to voting for her?

[snuffbox 0]

The Libertarian Party is for small govt, Marvin. Not what you & Beck are looking for.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The Libertarian Party is for small govt, Marvin. Not what you & Beck are looking for.

2x

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The Libertarian Party is for small govt, Marvin. Not what you & Beck are looking for.

Shows what you know about Glenn Beck..

 

However, at the same time, I wonder, do we have a guy who will tell me the truth who is well spoken, who has the fire in the belly to do a couple of things: one, shoot the bad guys in the head, and, two, shrink the size of government?

 

Transcript

[snuffbox 0]

Saying something doesn't make it so.

 

 

Iraq War/nation building (1 trillion dollars and counting)

Border Wall (Who knows how many billions)

 

I really, really, don't like people who call themselves conservatives when they support the biggest government policies in history.