Campaign 2008

[snuffbox 0]

How will the news that Iran's war games display was the equivalent of a podunk backyard on the 4th of July play out for John McCain's candidacy?

[SuperJerk 0]

I fear it'll reawaken our shoot-first, ask-questions-later mentality that dominated public opinion most of the time since 9/11.

 

Then again, I don't think the public necessarily shares our government's hard-on for going to war over Israel. Yes, its an ally and the only democracy in the region, but politicians talk about it like its the 51st state instead of a soveriegn nation with its own well-equipped military and nuclear capabilities.

 

 

Anyhow...I was talking to my friend today and I mentioned how there was a concerted effort to paint Obama as a snob. He thought the idea of a bunch of rich white people hanging their strategy for winning on making a black guy look like a snob was pretty fucking funny. I replied, "Yeah, I guess they already gave up on make him look like a black militant."

[Gary Floyd 0]

Dear Green Party: You are Idiots

[EricMM 0]

Yow.

 

Maybe they're trying to help Obama...

[SuperJerk 0]

Dear Green Party: You are Idiots

The Greens would have been a much better fit for Mike Gravel than the Libertarians.

[SuperJerk 0]

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's Foreign Ministry has condemned remarks by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that exporting cigarettes could be a way of killing Iranians.

 

The state-owned English language IRAN daily has quoted ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini denouncing the remarks as "inappropriate" and describing McCain's attitude as "regretful."

 

Last week, McCain was asked about an Associated Press report that the U.S. exported $158 million worth of cigarettes to Iran during the Bush administration in spite of restrictions on U.S. imports.

 

"Maybe that's a way of killing them," McCain said. He then said that he was joking.

 

Iran has officially announced that it supports neither U.S. presidential campaign but does hope the election will bring a change in U.S. foreign policy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...out-cigarettes/

 

I may not be favor of starting a war with Iran, but I also couldn't care less about their feelings. McCain's comment was hillarious.

 

[snuffbox 0]

It is crucial that we rally the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad.

[cabbageboy 0]

Gotta love a headline I saw today on AOL discussing a new Newsweek poll saying basically "OMG McCain gains on Obama!" The last Newsweek poll had Obama up a ridiculous 15% and now they have him up 44-41. This stuff is so laughable and I can't believe anyone in the media would take these Newsweek polls seriously. I mean what exactly has McCain done to seize the momentum to the tune of 12 points? If anything his campaign has actively gotten worse.

[SuperJerk 0]

It is crucial that we rally the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad.

But, as you've noted many times I'm sure, Iran it isn't really a democracy. Besides, since both McCain and a certain former candidate/former First Lady have been talking pretty openly about nuking the shit out them, this is actually a step down from that. And I can't help but appreciate the irony that this comment would both simultaneously appeal to and alienate the key conservative demographic of tobacco farmers.

 

 

And in other news...

 

This is a parody, but...damn.

 

 

The cover, published Sunday, shows Obama in the Oval Office dressed in traditional Muslim attire. His wife, Michelle, wears an Afro hairstyle and has a machine gun slung over her back. An American flag can be seen burning in the fireplace, and a picture of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall.

 

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

 

An e-mail from the New Yorker to CNN on Friday with an advance copy of the cover said, "Please note that it is satire -- we are poking fun at the scare tactics and misinformation that some have employed to derail Obama's campaign."

 

 

A Newsweek poll released Friday showed that 12 percent of those polled believed Obama was sworn in as a U.S. senator on a Quran, and 26 percent believed that he was raised as a Muslim. Neither is true.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/oba...over/index.html

[snuffbox 0]

Those 12 & 26 percents will all vote.

[SuperJerk 0]

The next few months will alternate between calling Obama a radical and calling him an oreo, apparently.

 

Here's the attack run-down I compiled to illustrate how INCOHERENT the criticism of Obama has been:

• Obama is a militant black because he knows ex-Weather Underground member Bill Ayers and was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church congregation, BUT is an elitist because he thinks people cling to guns and religion.
• Obama is a Muslim because there are Muslims in his family, BUT is also wrong for belonging to Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
• Obama doesn't know enough about foriegn policy because he's only been a Senator for 3 years, BUT isn't a real American because his father is from Africa and lived overseas for several years as a child.
• Obama is not liberal enough because he supports the death penality for pedophile rapists and voted for the FISA bill, BUT is too liberal because he had the most liberal voting record of any U.S. senator last year.
• Obama is wrong for not denouncing Jeremiah Wright sooner, BUT is disloyal for denouncing Jeremiah Wright.
• Obama is too politically inexperienced because of how long he's been a Senator, BUT is too much of a politician because he declined public financing after saying he'd accept it.
• Obama is not black enough because he doesn't spend enough time talking about urban poverty and he is critical of blacks who don't take responsibility for themselves, BUT is too racially divisive because he gave a speech critical of white priviledge and only became the presumptive Democratic nominee because he is black.

 

Did I forget anything?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It is crucial that we rally the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad.

 

I hope thats some sort of dumb joke.

[snuffbox 0]

I'll use some kind of crayon font next time.

[SuperJerk 0]

Like this one?

[At Home 0]

So are the Democrats gonna play hardball this year, or just kinda roll over and let it be the tight-ish race that it shouldn't be by any means?

[snuffbox 0]

It's going to be close. And Obama can easily lose.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I cant see McCain winning. Everyone saying "Oh..Obama might lose" are just not being obnoxious about his chances of winning.

 

 

[Gary Floyd 0]

Jonathan the Impaler is going to win. Well, I wish that was the case.

[SuperJerk 0]

It's going to be close. And Obama can easily lose.

On what grounds?

 

Obama's got the issues on his side. He's got the momentum. He's running against an incompentent campaign and a candidate who is widely hated within his own party. None of the allegations about him being "un-American" or too inexperienced have given his opponents much traction so far. Most people under 30 and every African-American in the country can't wait to vote for him. And, let's not forget, he is possibly the best campaigner anyone has seen in the last 20 years.

 

Unless he gets caught having an extramarital affair with a homosexual Taliban spy on top of a pile of heroin, he's probably going to be the next president.

[SuperJerk 0]

Just to illustrate how incompetent the McCain campiagn is...

 

"Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try and make it one," Obama said in a speech in which he also said the United States must shift its focus to defeating the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

 

Rebutting swiftly, McCain said Obama "will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_...candidates_iraq

 

So, according to McCain, we can't win in Iraq without losing in Afghanistan? Or did he mean that we can't lose in Afghanistan without winning in Iraq?

[snuffbox 0]

On what grounds? The American People are the ones that vote. The same people who thought Barry Goldwater would blow up the world and LBJ would ensure peace in 1964, the people who decided that Richard Nixon would bring law-and-order to the country in 1968, the same people who deemed WW2 hero George McGovern to be a dope-smoking pacifist hippie in 1972, the same people who were led to believe that another WW2 hero was a wimp in 1988, the people who in 2002 AND 2004 decided that a political party was actually in cahoots with al Qaeda. There is no gurantee that this country will not decide that Obama is a Muslim, or will enslave all white people, or some other bullshit because we've already proven ourselves quite capable of voting with all the intelligence of a sack of dry cement.

 

Polls already indicate that the American Voter believes that McCain will be the better commander in chief & will be better in Iraq, despite his not knowing a goddam thing about the situation there, the history, or the people involved. Basically, this country is indicating that they would go with the political/military equivalent of depositing their gambling money with a bookie that doesn't know the difference between the Green Bay Packers & the Chicago Bears.

[NoCalMike 0]

So are the Democrats gonna play hardball this year, or just kinda roll over and let it be the tight-ish race that it shouldn't be by any means?

 

Considering last week they gave in and took it in the ass for Bush's immunity act for the telecom companies.....it isn't looking good.

[EricMM 0]

They don't know the meaning of the phrase "hardball"

[SuperJerk 0]

Polls already indicate that the American Voter believes that McCain will be the better commander in chief & will be better in Iraq, despite his not knowing a goddam thing about the situation there, the history, or the people involved.

 

You mean the poll that said was quoted in the article I was referring to earlier said only 39% thought McCain would handle Iraq better, and 33% said Obama would. In others words, 28% don't know. That's a hell of an undecided vote for Obama to exploit by educating the public on the differences between himself and McCain. I'm confident that anyone who is going to support McCain is already doing so, given McCain's repeated embrace of failed and unpopular policies. Obama still has over 3 months to expand on the lead he's already established.

 

The American People are the ones that vote. The same people who thought Barry Goldwater would blow up the world and LBJ would ensure peace in 1964, the people who decided that Richard Nixon would bring law-and-order to the country in 1968, the same people who deemed WW2 hero George McGovern to be a dope-smoking pacifist hippie in 1972, the same people who were led to believe that another WW2 hero was a wimp in 1988, the people who in 2002 AND 2004 decided that a political party was actually in cahoots with al Qaeda. There is no gurantee that this country will not decide that Obama is a Muslim, or will enslave all white people, or some other bullshit because we've already proven ourselves quite capable of voting with all the intelligence of a sack of dry cement.

 

I was watching the returns on election day in 2006, so I have more faith in the American people than that.

 

I'm also a firm believer that issues, not personalities, decide general elections. Personality wins you the nomination, issues win you the election. If people think the country is on the right track, the incumbent party gets re-elected. If people think the country is on the wrong track, the incumbent party loses. No amount of personality stereotyping and scandal-mongering is going to change that fundamental principle.

 

Many of the negative images did nothing to prevent the person from getting elected, so I think the average person either never bought into them or more likely just didn't care. The negative caricatures assigned to Nixon, Clinton, and both Bushes did not stop them from winning. Goldwater lost on the issues...he was running against civil rights movement at the pinnacle of that movement's popularity. Goldwater favored the use of nuclear weapons just 2 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Democrats lost in 1968 and 1972 because of Vietnam. Bush still had the majority of the country supporting the Iraq War when he ran for reelection in 2004 (compare that to how the Republicans did in 2006). The centerpiece of Bush Sr.'s campaign was the robust Reagan economy and his promise not to raise taxes. And don't forget about the 1992 campaign. Bill Clinton used a recession to get elected, despite the huge negative stories about his past that were coming out and his opponent's reputation as a foriegn policy genius.

 

If that doesn't convince you, let's look at numbers and the horse race. Right now the polls stand at 47% for Obama, 44% for McCain, and 9% either for someone else or is undecided. If that trend holds until the general election and they split the undecideds 50-50, Obama will win over 51%. And don't forget McCain has Bob Barr to deal with. The people challenging Obama on the left are Ralph Nader (people learned their lesson about him in 2000) and Cynthia McKinney, who is a black woman who at her best appeal to no constituency beyond a few African-Americans that might live in her old Congressional district. Since she is running against the most popular black politician of all time....well, you saw what that did to Bill Clinton's reputation. So, based on current trends, we're basically we're looking at a final day election popular vote tally of 50.5% for Obama, 47% for McCain, 2% for Barr, .5% for Nader, McKinney and various cartoon characters. That's not a mathematically close enough margin for the electoral college and popular vote to be contradictory.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm glad you're so optimistic but, with this country inside the pollbooth, I'll believe itwhen I see it.

 

Anyway, as of now I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not a big fan of the FISA thing.

[EricMM 0]

You're voting for McCain?

[Gary Floyd 0]

They don't know the meaning of the phrase "hardball"

Huh huh, you said "hardball"

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im glad that the biggest news of the day was that Obama will buy his daughters a puppy when he's elected.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm glad you're so optimistic but, with this country inside the pollbooth, I'll believe itwhen I see it.

 

Anyway, as of now I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not a big fan of the FISA thing.

 

Before I waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, I have to ask...is Wisconsin considered a battle ground state? Oh, shit it is, isn't.

 

Alright, here's the sales pitch about voting against a candidate you generally agree with over a single issue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[snuffbox 0]

No, I'm not going to vote for McCain.

 

If Obama wants votes, he should act like it. A "change" label doesn't quite work when you vote for the same goodam thing that gets people in the opposing party labeled as fascists and the like. I'm not going to give him a free pass just because of the letter D next to his name. I haven't yet decided but as of now, it's a pretty big deal (maybe because I don't think all Democrats are flowery wonderful goodness and all Republicans are evil totalitarians). A bad policy is a bad policy no matter what party or what individual supports it.