OT: Will Hillary concede now?

[Diego Mamani]

Check out this handy delegate counter tool:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

For Indiana, enter 52% for Clinton. For North Carolina enter 53% for Obama. Then for the other yet-to-be-decided primaries give Clinton 60% (you'll see my point in a minute). For the still-unpledged superdelegates, give 60% to Clinton.

The result? Obama gets 2,041 delegates when he needs only 2,025 to win the nomination. And that's assuming that Clinton will win every one of the remaining primaries and unpledged superdelegates by a solid 60%-40% margin (which of course she won’t).

Either the CNN delegate counter is wrong, or I misundertood it, or the process is over and Obama is the democratic party candidate for November.

 

[Anonymous]

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

[afx114]

She’s done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She’ll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She’ll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

[Ex-SD]

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money……………AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, “you should have gone with me last time”……………..and, “I told you so”. I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

[Ex-SD]

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money……………AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, “you should have gone with me last time”……………..and, “I told you so”. I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

[Ex-SD]

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money……………AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, “you should have gone with me last time”……………..and, “I told you so”. I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

[Ex-SD]

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money……………AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, “you should have gone with me last time”……………..and, “I told you so”. I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

[Ex-SD]

I heard a rumor this morning that she is out of money……………AGAIN.
If this is true, she needs money just to keep the staff running so raising more money will also mean that she will probably have to inject more of her own money or borrow more money to keep going.

At this point, I believe her only motivation is to cause so much dissension that Obama will be guaranteed to lose to McCain in the election. Then, she gets another bite of the apple in four years where she can claim, “you should have gone with me last time”……………..and, “I told you so”. I can picture her in my mind saying both of those things in four years if McCain becomes President.

The latest results as of Wed morning say that Obama won NC by 14 points and Hillary won Indiana by 2 points.

[afx114]

She’s done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She’ll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She’ll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

[afx114]

She’s done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She’ll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She’ll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

[afx114]

She’s done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She’ll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She’ll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

[afx114]

She’s done, but she will milk it a little while longer to raise funds to pay off her debts. She’ll stop attacking Obama and will run a quiet campaign the next couple weeks, and concentrate on fundraising. She’ll bow out gracefully after she wins W. Virginia on the 13th and splits with Obama on the 20th (she wins Kentucky, he wins Oregon).

[Anonymous]

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

[Anonymous]

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

[Anonymous]

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

[Anonymous]

It is over. Obama will get the nomination.

[Coronita]

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that 🙂 I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough….

It's almost as tiring to follow as the… yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Ex-SD]

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more… Developing…

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

[Ex-SD]

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more… Developing…

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

[Ex-SD]

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more… Developing…

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

[Ex-SD]

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more… Developing…

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

[Ex-SD]

9:30 EST:
**DRUDGE EXCLUSIVE 8:59 EM ET**: Senator Clinton has made another multi-million dollar loan to her campaign. She gave $6.4M in the past month and will be giving more… Developing…

Looks like the rumor had the ring of truth to it

[an]

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

[an]

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

[an]

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

[an]

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

[an]

FLU, I agree with you. I think it has gone on long enough. We all know what type of people vote for which candidate and the super delegates should just step in and end it. Neither have a commanding, although Obama is leading in total delegates count. The current pole shows that over 50% of Clinton supporter will not vote for Obama, while a much smaller % of Obama say the same thing about Clinton.

[Coronita]

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that 🙂 I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough….

It's almost as tiring to follow as the… yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that 🙂 I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough….

It's almost as tiring to follow as the… yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that 🙂 I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough….

It's almost as tiring to follow as the… yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I'm curious. Is there anyone else out there that is sort of getting tired of this election soap opera? Not trying to sound insensitive, but at this point, does it really matter who from the obama-clinton soap opera is going to the general election? As it wears on, I'm getting sort of tired about following it. I wish they would just make up their mind and move on. I surely hope clinton doesn't demand a recount or some crap like that 🙂 I'm just wondering if there are others that are starting to think it's dragged long enough….

It's almost as tiring to follow as the… yahoo-microsoft soap opera. 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[bsrsharma]

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won’t throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall’s general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

“That’s an ugly habit I’ve picked up myself,” Brooke Buchanan, the senator’s national press secretary, said with a laugh. “We were in Kansas City … and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don’t want to jinx anything. We’re all very superstitious people.”

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

“I grew a beard in 2000 and didn’t shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That’s my little superstition. I probably won’t shave it until November,” he said, adding that he’s not sure if Mr. McCain “considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore.”

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

“He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket,” Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he’d found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state’s primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, “I think he just found that on the ground,” Miss Buchanan said. “It’s always what he finds, heads up.”

Still, it’s what she called “a lucky drummer boy quarter” — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn’t have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

“The Irish have a thing about heads and tails,” said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. “People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it’s lucky; if it’s tails up, leave it, let the poor have it.”

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, “this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated,” Miss Buchanan said. “He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet.”

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” Mr. McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Especially among his staff.

“I’ve always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13,” Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign’s headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says “M.”

“Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!” Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/132876017/1002/NATION

[bsrsharma]

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won’t throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall’s general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

“That’s an ugly habit I’ve picked up myself,” Brooke Buchanan, the senator’s national press secretary, said with a laugh. “We were in Kansas City … and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don’t want to jinx anything. We’re all very superstitious people.”

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

“I grew a beard in 2000 and didn’t shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That’s my little superstition. I probably won’t shave it until November,” he said, adding that he’s not sure if Mr. McCain “considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore.”

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

“He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket,” Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he’d found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state’s primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, “I think he just found that on the ground,” Miss Buchanan said. “It’s always what he finds, heads up.”

Still, it’s what she called “a lucky drummer boy quarter” — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn’t have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

“The Irish have a thing about heads and tails,” said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. “People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it’s lucky; if it’s tails up, leave it, let the poor have it.”

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, “this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated,” Miss Buchanan said. “He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet.”

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” Mr. McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Especially among his staff.

“I’ve always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13,” Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign’s headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says “M.”

“Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!” Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/132876017/1002/NATION

[bsrsharma]

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won’t throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall’s general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

“That’s an ugly habit I’ve picked up myself,” Brooke Buchanan, the senator’s national press secretary, said with a laugh. “We were in Kansas City … and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don’t want to jinx anything. We’re all very superstitious people.”

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

“I grew a beard in 2000 and didn’t shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That’s my little superstition. I probably won’t shave it until November,” he said, adding that he’s not sure if Mr. McCain “considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore.”

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

“He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket,” Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he’d found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state’s primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, “I think he just found that on the ground,” Miss Buchanan said. “It’s always what he finds, heads up.”

Still, it’s what she called “a lucky drummer boy quarter” — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn’t have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

“The Irish have a thing about heads and tails,” said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. “People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it’s lucky; if it’s tails up, leave it, let the poor have it.”

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, “this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated,” Miss Buchanan said. “He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet.”

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” Mr. McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Especially among his staff.

“I’ve always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13,” Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign’s headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says “M.”

“Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!” Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/132876017/1002/NATION

[bsrsharma]

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won’t throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall’s general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

“That’s an ugly habit I’ve picked up myself,” Brooke Buchanan, the senator’s national press secretary, said with a laugh. “We were in Kansas City … and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don’t want to jinx anything. We’re all very superstitious people.”

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

“I grew a beard in 2000 and didn’t shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That’s my little superstition. I probably won’t shave it until November,” he said, adding that he’s not sure if Mr. McCain “considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore.”

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

“He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket,” Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he’d found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state’s primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, “I think he just found that on the ground,” Miss Buchanan said. “It’s always what he finds, heads up.”

Still, it’s what she called “a lucky drummer boy quarter” — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn’t have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

“The Irish have a thing about heads and tails,” said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. “People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it’s lucky; if it’s tails up, leave it, let the poor have it.”

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, “this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated,” Miss Buchanan said. “He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet.”

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” Mr. McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Especially among his staff.

“I’ve always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13,” Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign’s headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says “M.”

“Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!” Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/132876017/1002/NATION

[bsrsharma]

McCain channeling all his luck toward 2008 race

April 16, 2008
By Joseph Curl

Don’t try to pass a salt shaker to John McCain. He won’t take it from your hand because it’s bad luck.

The Arizona senator also won’t throw a hat on a bed — it means death will soon visit the household — but he regularly carries 31 cents in lucky change in his pocket.

Now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has converted his staff to his famously superstitious ways. Whenever anyone says something optimistic — especially about this fall’s general election — a slew of staffers join him in knocking on wood.

“That’s an ugly habit I’ve picked up myself,” Brooke Buchanan, the senator’s national press secretary, said with a laugh. “We were in Kansas City … and someone mentioned winning in November, and three of us knocked on wood. We don’t want to jinx anything. We’re all very superstitious people.”

Top adviser Mark Salter also has been influenced.

“I grew a beard in 2000 and didn’t shave until the campaign was over, and I did it this time, too. That’s my little superstition. I probably won’t shave it until November,” he said, adding that he’s not sure if Mr. McCain “considers it lucky, or if he considers it an eyesore.”

Mr. McCain has dozens of superstitions and rituals, many stemming from his days as a Navy fighter pilot, a notoriously superstitious bunch. He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass and a lucky penny — not to mention a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter.

“He had so many of them that we had to cut down. It was like a change purse in his pocket,” Miss Buchanan said, laughing.

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher of the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, N.H., gave Mr. McCain a lucky penny he’d found (heads up, of course) just before Mr. McCain won the New Hampshire primary, on Jan. 8.

Mr. McCain also pocketed a nickel he found outside his hotel in Columbia, S.C., just before that state’s primary — his second primary win.

As for the quarter, “I think he just found that on the ground,” Miss Buchanan said. “It’s always what he finds, heads up.”

Still, it’s what she called “a lucky drummer boy quarter” — a 1976 bicentennial commemorative quarter.

He doesn’t have a dime — a lucky one, that is — but he almost picked up one in January. When he went to the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr. McCain noticed a shiny dime on the stage floor. He stooped for a closer look, but it was tails up — rejected.

“The Irish have a thing about heads and tails,” said Catherine Yronwode, co-founder of the Lucky Mojo Curio Co. and an authority on talismans. “People of Irish descent think that if a coin is heads up, it’s lucky; if it’s tails up, leave it, let the poor have it.”

Irish, indeed. On St. Patrick’s Day in Chicago, “this guy had a lucky four-leaf clover that was laminated,” Miss Buchanan said. “He pulled it out of his pocket and told the senator it had brought him good luck, and now the senator carries it around in his wallet.”

“Am I superstitious? I’m that,” Mr. McCain said. “But I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Especially among his staff.

“I’ve always been superstitious as well, like, I hate the number 13,” Miss Buchanan said.

Oddly, the campaign’s headquarters is on the 13th floor of a high rise in the Crystal City neighborhood of Arlington, even though the elevator button says “M.”

“Why did you have to bring that up? It is the M floor, the M floor, for McCain!” Miss Buchanan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/132876017/1002/NATION

[DWCAP]

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

[an]

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn’t vote for Clinton. So, that’s a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won’t vote for Obama.

[afx114]

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they’re not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

[LarryTheRenter]

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain…But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won’t allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can’t imagine any of these 3 being President…Real scary…

[LarryTheRenter]

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain…But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won’t allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can’t imagine any of these 3 being President…Real scary…

[LarryTheRenter]

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain…But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won’t allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can’t imagine any of these 3 being President…Real scary…

[LarryTheRenter]

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain…But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won’t allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can’t imagine any of these 3 being President…Real scary…

[LarryTheRenter]

I think only the dream ticket of Obama/Clinton can beat McCain…But despite Hilary saying she is willing to do everything it takes to beat McCain (extension of Bush), I believe her pride (or ego) won’t allow her to run as V.P..

She is just in it now to keep the donations coming it to cover her debt (ie the new 6 mil loan to her campaign from herself)..No one will donate to an offically dead campaign.

Unless Obama comes up with a great VP choice I think McCain will carry most of the swing states and win..Personally, I can’t imagine any of these 3 being President…Real scary…

[afx114]

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they’re not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

[afx114]

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they’re not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

[afx114]

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they’re not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

[afx114]

Once those Clinton supporters realize that they’re not only voting for McCain, but also for 2-3 Supreme Court judges (and therefore the direction of this country for the next 30-40 years), they will reconsider.

[an]

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn’t vote for Clinton. So, that’s a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won’t vote for Obama.

[an]

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn’t vote for Clinton. So, that’s a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won’t vote for Obama.

[an]

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn’t vote for Clinton. So, that’s a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won’t vote for Obama.

[an]

The polls are saying that much less than 50%, I think around 20-30% of Obama supporter wouldn’t vote for Clinton. So, that’s a little better than 50-60% of Clinton supporter saying they won’t vote for Obama.

[Diego Mamani]

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it’s not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she’ll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

[zk]

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She’s also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that “everything is going well” for her campaign. That’s pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don’t need.

I’m also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn’t, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he’s about. Disappointing, but I still think he’s the best choice.

As a side note, I’m starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it’s a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

[Aecetia]

Not to mention her unique laugh.

[Aecetia]

Not to mention her unique laugh.

[Aecetia]

Not to mention her unique laugh.

[Aecetia]

Not to mention her unique laugh.

[Aecetia]

Not to mention her unique laugh.

[cv2]

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

[cv2]

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

[cv2]

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

[cv2]

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

[cv2]

I like the scenario that Clinton/Obama ticket with Clinton promise to be one-term president.

Obama is too young and untested for a leader at a critical time of the nation. He can talk the talk but I am not sure if he can walk the walk. Give him four more years to be in the spotlight and we will know for sure.

[zk]

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She’s also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that “everything is going well” for her campaign. That’s pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don’t need.

I’m also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn’t, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he’s about. Disappointing, but I still think he’s the best choice.

As a side note, I’m starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it’s a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

[zk]

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She’s also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that “everything is going well” for her campaign. That’s pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don’t need.

I’m also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn’t, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he’s about. Disappointing, but I still think he’s the best choice.

As a side note, I’m starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it’s a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

[zk]

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She’s also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that “everything is going well” for her campaign. That’s pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don’t need.

I’m also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn’t, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he’s about. Disappointing, but I still think he’s the best choice.

As a side note, I’m starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it’s a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

[zk]

Hillary is showing some very bad judgement right now (and for the past couple months) in my opinion. Staying in the race to beat up Obama and hurt the Democrats’ chances of winning in November when she has no real chance of winning seems like a bad decision. She’s also showing a George Bush-like disconnect from reality when she says this morning that “everything is going well” for her campaign. That’s pretty scary. Another commander in chief whose personal capacity for denial will endanger our country is exactly what we don’t need.

I’m also somewhat disappointed in Obama for the negativity of his campaign over the last month or two. All he had to do was stay above the fray and let Clinton show herself to be the egomaniacal machine that she is. But he didn’t, which shows bad judgement and also goes against what he says he’s about. Disappointing, but I still think he’s the best choice.

As a side note, I’m starting to understand why the right hates Hillary so much. I think it’s a personality thing. And her personality is really extremely grating to me. Her self-centeredness, galaxy-sized ego, stilted attempts at humor, apparent meanness and condescension really add up to something quite annoying.

[an]

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That’s the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You’re giving her way too much credit. Obama can’t win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

[Dukehorn]

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it’s better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we’ll let McCain try to fix Bush’s mess(es). It’ll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but “activist” judges are only called that if they’re liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers “attending/escorting” NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

[Dukehorn]

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that “light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion” and that “men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

[XBoxBoy]

“Men used to live to be nine hundred years old”

But who calls dat livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess – It Ain’t Necessarily So

[XBoxBoy]

“Men used to live to be nine hundred years old”

But who calls dat livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess – It Ain’t Necessarily So

[XBoxBoy]

“Men used to live to be nine hundred years old”

But who calls dat livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess – It Ain’t Necessarily So

[XBoxBoy]

“Men used to live to be nine hundred years old”

But who calls dat livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess – It Ain’t Necessarily So

[XBoxBoy]

“Men used to live to be nine hundred years old”

But who calls dat livin’
When no gal’ll give in
To no man what’s nine hundred years?

Lyrics from Porgy and Bess – It Ain’t Necessarily So

[Dukehorn]

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that “light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion” and that “men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

[Dukehorn]

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that “light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion” and that “men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

[Dukehorn]

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that “light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion” and that “men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

[Dukehorn]

The Real Enemy (in my mind) is this

College biology teacher Jennifer Gruenke teaches her young charges that “light from distant galaxies is just a divine illusion” and that “men used to live to be nine hundred years old.

Think how competitive the US will be with students learning the above in college. Yeah, sounds great.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 – 3:48pm.

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don’t want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don’t understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law’s father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog…

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I’ve seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I’ve made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I’ve never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract…

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 – 3:48pm.

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don’t want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don’t understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law’s father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog…

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I’ve seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I’ve made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I’ve never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract…

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 – 3:48pm.

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don’t want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don’t understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law’s father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog…

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I’ve seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I’ve made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I’ve never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract…

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 – 3:48pm.

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don’t want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don’t understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law’s father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog…

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I’ve seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I’ve made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I’ve never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract…

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

[Anonymous]

Submitted by Dukehorn on May 7, 2008 – 3:48pm.

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Duke, agreed.

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

I don’t want to open a can of worms, but the above is what I don’t understand. My ex mother-in-law, who happens to be Japanese, married a black man and her family wanted to prevent that at ALL costs. My ex mother-in-law’s father enlisted the WHOLE family to try and talk my mother-in-law out of marrying him. She had all kinds of people trying to convince her she was making a mistake: sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, the family dog…

He was a good man and a naval officer when he met my ex mil.

I’ve seen Asians being treated very disrespectfully by whites on many occasions. For example, in recent years, I’ve made the rounds looking at model homes quite a bit. Often there was an Asian person looking uncomfortable while being browbeaten into signing a contract by one of the white salespeople. I’ve never seen a white buyer being treated that way, nor a black one. The impression I got was the realtor/salesperson thought the Asian had money and thus was an easy mark. Myself, I would have told the salesagent where to shove said contract…

The fact that there are a lot of Asians still prejudiced against black people for no logical reason at all, like Dukehorns mother, really bothers me. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of race, people need to learn that!

[an]

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it’s OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?
He doesn’t need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

[an]

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it’s OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?
He doesn’t need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

[an]

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it’s OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?
He doesn’t need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

[an]

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it’s OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?
He doesn’t need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

[an]

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

So, it’s OK for Obama to engage in negative campaign when his campaign is being hammered but not Clinton? Her campaign has been hammered for a long time now.

Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?
He doesn’t need to say it. The almost unanimous support from the black community speaks much louder than what he can say. Also, in the beginning, she was splitting the black votes with him, until the black community see him as a viable candidate. I think they would much rather vote for her than McCain though.

Personally, I like a moderate much more than either a hard left or right wing candidate.

[Dukehorn]

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it’s better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we’ll let McCain try to fix Bush’s mess(es). It’ll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but “activist” judges are only called that if they’re liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers “attending/escorting” NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

[Dukehorn]

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it’s better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we’ll let McCain try to fix Bush’s mess(es). It’ll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but “activist” judges are only called that if they’re liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers “attending/escorting” NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

[Dukehorn]

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it’s better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we’ll let McCain try to fix Bush’s mess(es). It’ll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but “activist” judges are only called that if they’re liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers “attending/escorting” NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

[Dukehorn]

Please, there’s a big difference in the race-baiting that she has been engaged in. Do you think Obama could get away telling Hillary that she won’t get elected in Nov. without the black vote? Do you see him making that condescending argument that she’s parroting?

And Obama only engaged in negativism when his campaign got hammered in PA. I find it ironic that people expect Obama to not defend himself when being attacked. Still his message has been consistently more above-board (feel free to disagree and then we can pull out some stats).

Frankly, Obama will have a tough time. He won’t get the blue collar Dems or the racist Asian immigrant Dem vote (like my mom).

That being said, in the long term (except for the SCOTUS issue), I think it’s better for the Dems to put up a historical candidate that will get blasted by the same old tired pro-war, anti-science, neo-cons. Then we’ll let McCain try to fix Bush’s mess(es). It’ll be amusing and kill the Republicans (a different party iteration) like Reconstruction.

Of course, the risks are the eviseration of privacy rights, probably expansion of fed powers (of course against the Constitution but “activist” judges are only called that if they’re liberal), more police powers, more attacks on the environment, more staffers “attending/escorting” NIH scientists, more non-scientists on NIH science boards, human embryonic cells being allowed to be thrown in the trash yet not used for science, a larger federal deficit, more bottom tier attorneys being placed at the DOJ, blah blah blah, you know the litany.

[an]

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That’s the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You’re giving her way too much credit. Obama can’t win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

[an]

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That’s the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You’re giving her way too much credit. Obama can’t win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

[an]

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That’s the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You’re giving her way too much credit. Obama can’t win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

[an]

She brought up the race issue again and again
How is race not an issue. It always was and still is. 90% of black voters vote for Obama. Just think about it. She has about 60% of the white votes on average. So in states where there are a large % of black voters, he wins, plain and simple.

She engaged in negative attacks
That’s the nature of the beast. Everybody does it, even Obama.

she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November
You’re giving her way too much credit. Obama can’t win over the blue collar, Reagan democrats. He tried many times but still not successful. Those are the voters in swing states and they are probably the majority of the 50+% that will not vote for Obama.

[Diego Mamani]

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it’s not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she’ll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

[Diego Mamani]

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it’s not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she’ll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

[Diego Mamani]

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it’s not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she’ll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

[Diego Mamani]

Hey DWCAP, what you said about disenfrachising one half or the other is true only if the process remains bitterly contested to the very end. And I agree that it’s not time for the DNC to step in.

However, this is the time for Ms. Clinton to step in, and wholeheartedly endorse Obama. She has a chance to be seen as a party uniter. Unfortunately, she’ll probably end her campaign the same way she run it (badly):

-She brought up the race issue again and again
-She engaged in negative attacks
-And to crown it all: she refuses to concede and divides the party until the very bitter end, risking a McCain victory in November

[DWCAP]

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

[DWCAP]

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

[DWCAP]

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

[DWCAP]

The democrats have a choice.

They can either disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters (blue collar, whites, older workers) and go with Obama. Problem is they will stay home and McCain will win.
OR
They can disenfranchise about 50% of their supporters(college educated, blacks, younger workers) by choosing Clinton and have them feel ignored and cheated and stay home and the dems loss to McCain.

What the party leadership is doing is hoping that itll all play out and a choice will be made without their hand being seen. (ie someone running out of money). That way they dont loose 50% of their supporters.

The democrats can win this year, Bush has made that a real possibility. But they cant if they tear themselves apart and half their voter base stays home. I dont think the DNC will step in till the very last second, just before the convention.

[Eugene]

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there’s too much bad blood between them.

[SDEngineer]

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It’s pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn’t – or shouldn’t – have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO’s like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

[Dukehorn]

Gershwin.

Very nice.

[Dukehorn]

I didn’t know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn’t give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton’s wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday–stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn’t

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

[an]

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I’ll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn’t her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

[afx114]

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?

[an]

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?
When did I say he’s unpopular? He’s leading, so he’s more popular. I personally think the race is over too based on the #, but she has every right to stay to the very end.

[Eugene]

Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004. Didn’t help one bit. He and Kerry managed to lose Edwards’ home state of NC 73%/27% among whites.

[Eugene]

Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004. Didn’t help one bit. He and Kerry managed to lose Edwards’ home state of NC 73%/27% among whites.

[Eugene]

Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004. Didn’t help one bit. He and Kerry managed to lose Edwards’ home state of NC 73%/27% among whites.

[Eugene]

Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004. Didn’t help one bit. He and Kerry managed to lose Edwards’ home state of NC 73%/27% among whites.

[Eugene]

Edwards was the VP candidate in 2004. Didn’t help one bit. He and Kerry managed to lose Edwards’ home state of NC 73%/27% among whites.

[an]

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?
When did I say he’s unpopular? He’s leading, so he’s more popular. I personally think the race is over too based on the #, but she has every right to stay to the very end.

[an]

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?
When did I say he’s unpopular? He’s leading, so he’s more popular. I personally think the race is over too based on the #, but she has every right to stay to the very end.

[an]

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?
When did I say he’s unpopular? He’s leading, so he’s more popular. I personally think the race is over too based on the #, but she has every right to stay to the very end.

[an]

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?
When did I say he’s unpopular? He’s leading, so he’s more popular. I personally think the race is over too based on the #, but she has every right to stay to the very end.

[afx114]

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?

[afx114]

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?

[afx114]

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?

[afx114]

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away

Lets flip this around.. if he’s as unpopular as you say he is, then why the hell can’t Clinton put him away?

[Anonymous]

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 – 5:01pm.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica…It’s already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can’t you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she’s hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It’s over.

[stockstradr]

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I’m a liberal. I’m a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don’t get me wrong; I’m ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn’t inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn’t put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill’s speaking fee money into her campaign hasn’t helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain’s goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.

[bonfire]

Stockstradr, you nailed it! Agree 100%. Hillary should now step aside to allow the party time to heal before the election. Will she? Character will tell.

[bonfire]

Stockstradr, you nailed it! Agree 100%. Hillary should now step aside to allow the party time to heal before the election. Will she? Character will tell.

[bonfire]

Stockstradr, you nailed it! Agree 100%. Hillary should now step aside to allow the party time to heal before the election. Will she? Character will tell.

[bonfire]

Stockstradr, you nailed it! Agree 100%. Hillary should now step aside to allow the party time to heal before the election. Will she? Character will tell.

[bonfire]

Stockstradr, you nailed it! Agree 100%. Hillary should now step aside to allow the party time to heal before the election. Will she? Character will tell.

[equalizer]

you guys must have missed my earlier post. the southern strategy is alive and kicking as esmith pointed out. Only way those losers dems could have won was if they picked former Gov Warner from VA or maybe, maybe Edwards from NC. But luckily they are too stupid and egotistic to give a damn about their party and let spoiled brats Hilobomba annihilate the parties chance. You think this Obama is going to pick up eldery voters in Fl? SO, Fl lost. Swiftboaters are coming, heard home depot is running low on nooses, Willie Horton posters are being printed, nobody wants those creepy foreigner muslim types in White House. (I could go on for days)

Only hail mary pass now for you libs is to pick Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius as VP and have an attempt on Obama by Clinton or Limb fan to get sympathy vote.

To libs:
I went to the Lee Atwater & Roger Ailes graduate school and learned that Winning is everything is losing is for dems. Dont hate me because I’m right, I’m just the messenger, hate your party.

[SDEngineer]

And as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.

The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

And as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.

The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

And as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.

The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

And as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.

The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.

[SDEngineer]

And as I pointed out, the Democrats don’t NEED the South anymore. You repubs can have it. We’ve made gains in the mountain states, and we own the West coast, New England, and have plenty of strength in the Great Lakes states. Do the math. The Dems don’t need a SINGLE Southern state anymore if they carry Ohio. If they can carry Colorado and New Mexico (which seems increasingly likely), they don’t even need Ohio.

The Southern strategy, by identifying your party with the hard right wing ideologues and the religious nutcases in the deep south has progressively cost your party the New England republicans and the economic conservative Republicans (no, cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT an economically conservative strategy. Sad to say, supply side economics has been shown to be the economic black hole that knowledgable economists always knew it would be (there’s a reason George Bush Sr. – the last non-loonie Repub in high office – called it “voodoo economics”). But you do play the “fear politics” well. Unfortunately (for you), what most of us now fear is another 4 or 8 years of Republican economic policies.

[equalizer]

you guys must have missed my earlier post. the southern strategy is alive and kicking as esmith pointed out. Only way those losers dems could have won was if they picked former Gov Warner from VA or maybe, maybe Edwards from NC. But luckily they are too stupid and egotistic to give a damn about their party and let spoiled brats Hilobomba annihilate the parties chance. You think this Obama is going to pick up eldery voters in Fl? SO, Fl lost. Swiftboaters are coming, heard home depot is running low on nooses, Willie Horton posters are being printed, nobody wants those creepy foreigner muslim types in White House. (I could go on for days)

Only hail mary pass now for you libs is to pick Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius as VP and have an attempt on Obama by Clinton or Limb fan to get sympathy vote.

To libs:
I went to the Lee Atwater & Roger Ailes graduate school and learned that Winning is everything is losing is for dems. Dont hate me because I’m right, I’m just the messenger, hate your party.

[equalizer]

you guys must have missed my earlier post. the southern strategy is alive and kicking as esmith pointed out. Only way those losers dems could have won was if they picked former Gov Warner from VA or maybe, maybe Edwards from NC. But luckily they are too stupid and egotistic to give a damn about their party and let spoiled brats Hilobomba annihilate the parties chance. You think this Obama is going to pick up eldery voters in Fl? SO, Fl lost. Swiftboaters are coming, heard home depot is running low on nooses, Willie Horton posters are being printed, nobody wants those creepy foreigner muslim types in White House. (I could go on for days)

Only hail mary pass now for you libs is to pick Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius as VP and have an attempt on Obama by Clinton or Limb fan to get sympathy vote.

To libs:
I went to the Lee Atwater & Roger Ailes graduate school and learned that Winning is everything is losing is for dems. Dont hate me because I’m right, I’m just the messenger, hate your party.

[equalizer]

you guys must have missed my earlier post. the southern strategy is alive and kicking as esmith pointed out. Only way those losers dems could have won was if they picked former Gov Warner from VA or maybe, maybe Edwards from NC. But luckily they are too stupid and egotistic to give a damn about their party and let spoiled brats Hilobomba annihilate the parties chance. You think this Obama is going to pick up eldery voters in Fl? SO, Fl lost. Swiftboaters are coming, heard home depot is running low on nooses, Willie Horton posters are being printed, nobody wants those creepy foreigner muslim types in White House. (I could go on for days)

Only hail mary pass now for you libs is to pick Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius as VP and have an attempt on Obama by Clinton or Limb fan to get sympathy vote.

To libs:
I went to the Lee Atwater & Roger Ailes graduate school and learned that Winning is everything is losing is for dems. Dont hate me because I’m right, I’m just the messenger, hate your party.

[equalizer]

you guys must have missed my earlier post. the southern strategy is alive and kicking as esmith pointed out. Only way those losers dems could have won was if they picked former Gov Warner from VA or maybe, maybe Edwards from NC. But luckily they are too stupid and egotistic to give a damn about their party and let spoiled brats Hilobomba annihilate the parties chance. You think this Obama is going to pick up eldery voters in Fl? SO, Fl lost. Swiftboaters are coming, heard home depot is running low on nooses, Willie Horton posters are being printed, nobody wants those creepy foreigner muslim types in White House. (I could go on for days)

Only hail mary pass now for you libs is to pick Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius as VP and have an attempt on Obama by Clinton or Limb fan to get sympathy vote.

To libs:
I went to the Lee Atwater & Roger Ailes graduate school and learned that Winning is everything is losing is for dems. Dont hate me because I’m right, I’m just the messenger, hate your party.

[Anonymous]

stockstradr, I agree that you’ve nailed it.

And now I present our three candidates:)

[img_assist|nid=7487|title=the three candidates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=336]

P.S. “Pressure builds for Hillary to Quit”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-picks-up-superdelegate-support/20080507153209990001?icid=100214839x1201546239x1200064566

[Anonymous]

stockstradr, I agree that you’ve nailed it.

And now I present our three candidates:)

[img_assist|nid=7487|title=the three candidates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=336]

P.S. “Pressure builds for Hillary to Quit”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-picks-up-superdelegate-support/20080507153209990001?icid=100214839x1201546239x1200064566

[Anonymous]

stockstradr, I agree that you’ve nailed it.

And now I present our three candidates:)

[img_assist|nid=7487|title=the three candidates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=336]

P.S. “Pressure builds for Hillary to Quit”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-picks-up-superdelegate-support/20080507153209990001?icid=100214839x1201546239x1200064566

[Anonymous]

stockstradr, I agree that you’ve nailed it.

And now I present our three candidates:)

[img_assist|nid=7487|title=the three candidates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=336]

P.S. “Pressure builds for Hillary to Quit”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-picks-up-superdelegate-support/20080507153209990001?icid=100214839x1201546239x1200064566

[Anonymous]

stockstradr, I agree that you’ve nailed it.

And now I present our three candidates:)

[img_assist|nid=7487|title=the three candidates|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=336]

P.S. “Pressure builds for Hillary to Quit”

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-picks-up-superdelegate-support/20080507153209990001?icid=100214839x1201546239x1200064566

[stockstradr]

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I’m a liberal. I’m a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don’t get me wrong; I’m ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn’t inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn’t put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill’s speaking fee money into her campaign hasn’t helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain’s goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.

[stockstradr]

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I’m a liberal. I’m a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don’t get me wrong; I’m ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn’t inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn’t put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill’s speaking fee money into her campaign hasn’t helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain’s goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.

[stockstradr]

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I’m a liberal. I’m a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don’t get me wrong; I’m ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn’t inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn’t put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill’s speaking fee money into her campaign hasn’t helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain’s goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.

[stockstradr]

My opinion? I like her. I like Bill also. I’m a liberal. I’m a democrat

And I also think she is PATHETIC to have stayed this long past her welcome.

And I think that even if she had won soundly in ALL state primaries, she would still be as DOOMED to lose against McCain!

The democratic party is even more PATHETIC to let her run, to think she is a candidate with any chance of making it to the White House. And don’t get me wrong; I’m ready and comfortable to vote for a woman for president, but not Hillary. She has never had what it takes to win the White House.

The Republicans are PRAYING she wins the democratic nomination, because she is THAT easily defeated. Why? Because she doesn’t inspire voters in the way her husband did and how Obama does, and because the Republicans need only succeed in raising her negative numbers a few points. They also have SO much material to work with to do that. Why do you think the Republicans have mostly held back attacking Hillary. They WANT her to win the nomination, obviously. There are even LOTS of rumors of many Republicans mustered their troops across many state primaries to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary, yet even that effort hasn’t put her ahead. Even her putting 10+ million of Bill’s speaking fee money into her campaign hasn’t helped either.

As for Obama, the Republican strategists are VERY worried about him winning, because they see a real risk that he could easily beat McCain.

A prediction: if Obama wins the nomination, then McCain’s goose is cooked. If Hillary wins (fat chance) then McCain makes it to the White House.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 – 5:01pm.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica…It’s already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can’t you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she’s hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It’s over.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 – 5:01pm.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica…It’s already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can’t you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she’s hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It’s over.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 – 5:01pm.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica…It’s already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can’t you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she’s hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It’s over.

[Anonymous]

Submitted by asianautica on May 7, 2008 – 5:01pm.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Asianautica…It’s already over. The dem majority does not want Hillary. We have spoken and we want Obama. Can’t you see that?

She will not go away. Which makes her even more ridiculous because she’s hurting the democratic party in her attacks on Obama.

Hillary has already flatlined. All these attempts to try and hang on and resuscitate herself and her campaign are fruitless.

It’s over.

[an]

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I’ll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn’t her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

[an]

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I’ll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn’t her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

[an]

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I’ll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn’t her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

[an]

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.
Oh yes, someone who disagree with you is blind. How very open minded. But I’ll just have to agree ti disagree.

If she’s as unpopular as you said she is, then why the hell can’t Obama put her away and why are we even having this conversation at this point in the primary.

Although gas tax holiday is stupid, I think raising capital gain tax to 28% is much worse.

What does Lewinsky have anything to do with Hillary? Last I check, Lewinsky wasn’t her spiritual adviser for 20+ years.

[Dukehorn]

I didn’t know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn’t give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton’s wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday–stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn’t

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

[Dukehorn]

I didn’t know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn’t give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton’s wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday–stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn’t

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

[Dukehorn]

I didn’t know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn’t give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton’s wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday–stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn’t

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

[Dukehorn]

I didn’t know that Obama owned the MSNBC, the Washington Post, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, the Atlantic or Fox News.

Just because Clinton was unpopular from her days as First Lady doesn’t give her free reign to attack a fellow Dem in a negative matter.

As for subsequent bad news, all the negative attention on Obama has been on what other people have said like Rev. Wright.

Clinton’s wounds have been self-inflicted garbage that came out of her own mouth, namely:

a) lying about snipergate after being called out on it already.

b) gas tax holiday–stupid idea

c) telling folks that McCain had passed the CiC test and Obama hadn’t

If you’re too blind to distinguish between attacks based on what comes out of a candidate’s mouth and attacks based on associations, let’s agree to disagree.

If you want to go the Wright route, then Obama should have gone the Lewinsky route. But did he? Nope.

[Dukehorn]

Gershwin.

Very nice.

[Dukehorn]

Gershwin.

Very nice.

[Dukehorn]

Gershwin.

Very nice.

[Dukehorn]

Gershwin.

Very nice.

[SDEngineer]

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It’s pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn’t – or shouldn’t – have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO’s like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

[SDEngineer]

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It’s pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn’t – or shouldn’t – have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO’s like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

[SDEngineer]

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It’s pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn’t – or shouldn’t – have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO’s like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

[SDEngineer]

The South has been trending more and more conservative for decades now. It’s pretty much a lost cause for Democrats there, with the exception of FL. I doubt Hillary could win a single one of the deep southern states, with the exception of Arkansas, and possibly FLA (which Obama I would say has a similar shot of winning). And Arkansas doesn’t – or shouldn’t – have near enough votes to matter.

However, while the South has been trending conservative, other areas have been trending more liberal (rocky mtn states like CO and NM, even AZ to a certain degree), New England and the West Coast are now pretty much Republican free zones at the state office or higher level (with the exception of RINO’s like Schwartzenegger who disagree with somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the Republican party platform). It offsets.

[Anonymous]

esmith: There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

[Eugene]

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

The answer is to be realistic.

If that’s what it takes to end the war, stop playing world’s policeman, do a comprehensive health care reform, and start working towards equal access to higher education and energy independence, I will concede to every racist I meet.

[SDEngineer]

esmith –

The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.

Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.

While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.

McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.

[CardiffBaseball]

Some of you people are like whiny little nancy-boy’s with all the talk of the pubbies being home of the racist and sexist.

Paul Begala, one of the resident dweebs-in-the-know is out there worried that we can’t win with “eggheads and african-americans”. So let’s say Joe-Six Pack decides as a “Reagan Democrat” that he thinks Hussein is way too liberal for his taste and votes McCain. And let’s assume Begala’s worries are correct and enough J6Ps do this such that McCain is elected.

Eggheads/African-American Coalition failed the first time around… (Dukakis)

Where are the racists again? If J6P votes McCain is he a pubbie or just someone who doesn’t want to be associated to Obama/Rev. Wright or whatever. That guy might know squat about conservatism.

I grew up with real-tough guy democrats not the typical SoCal/NoCal foreign-car driving eggheads and let me tell you there are many racists among that group. These are the kind of guy’s who’d bust up a Japanese car if someone drove one onto the GM or Steel Mill lot.

The Democrat Party doesn’t have a cake-walk this fall at all I don’t care who the nominee is. However I do think they flip Ohio, and that might be all they need, if all other states hold consistent.

[afx114]

People are also forgetting that in the primaries, Dem turnout and registration has been somewhere around 4-1 compared to that of Republicans. Granted, the Dem primaries have gone on longer and generated more ‘buzz,’ but you can’t argue with the fact that for every voter that has registered Republican this cycle, there have been 3-4 that have registered (or switched to) Democrat.

A lot of the time people get caught up in all the bullshit about flag pins and pastors and forget to look at the NUMBERS.

[Diego Mamani]

The Economist magazine has this very funny comment on its latest issue:

“IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton’s campaign looks a bit like that this week. After her heavy loss in North Carolina and her barely perceptible victory in Indiana, a state she needed to carry triumphantly, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is surely close to its end.

“As The Economist went to press, Mrs Clinton was publicly still promising to keep on fighting right the way to the Denver convention. That remains her right. But it is hard to see what she, her party or her country can gain from the struggle.”

[Diego Mamani]

The Economist magazine has this very funny comment on its latest issue:

“IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton’s campaign looks a bit like that this week. After her heavy loss in North Carolina and her barely perceptible victory in Indiana, a state she needed to carry triumphantly, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is surely close to its end.

“As The Economist went to press, Mrs Clinton was publicly still promising to keep on fighting right the way to the Denver convention. That remains her right. But it is hard to see what she, her party or her country can gain from the struggle.”

[Diego Mamani]

The Economist magazine has this very funny comment on its latest issue:

“IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton’s campaign looks a bit like that this week. After her heavy loss in North Carolina and her barely perceptible victory in Indiana, a state she needed to carry triumphantly, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is surely close to its end.

“As The Economist went to press, Mrs Clinton was publicly still promising to keep on fighting right the way to the Denver convention. That remains her right. But it is hard to see what she, her party or her country can gain from the struggle.”

[Diego Mamani]

The Economist magazine has this very funny comment on its latest issue:

“IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton’s campaign looks a bit like that this week. After her heavy loss in North Carolina and her barely perceptible victory in Indiana, a state she needed to carry triumphantly, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is surely close to its end.

“As The Economist went to press, Mrs Clinton was publicly still promising to keep on fighting right the way to the Denver convention. That remains her right. But it is hard to see what she, her party or her country can gain from the struggle.”

[Diego Mamani]

The Economist magazine has this very funny comment on its latest issue:

“IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton’s campaign looks a bit like that this week. After her heavy loss in North Carolina and her barely perceptible victory in Indiana, a state she needed to carry triumphantly, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is surely close to its end.

“As The Economist went to press, Mrs Clinton was publicly still promising to keep on fighting right the way to the Denver convention. That remains her right. But it is hard to see what she, her party or her country can gain from the struggle.”

[afx114]

People are also forgetting that in the primaries, Dem turnout and registration has been somewhere around 4-1 compared to that of Republicans. Granted, the Dem primaries have gone on longer and generated more ‘buzz,’ but you can’t argue with the fact that for every voter that has registered Republican this cycle, there have been 3-4 that have registered (or switched to) Democrat.

A lot of the time people get caught up in all the bullshit about flag pins and pastors and forget to look at the NUMBERS.

[afx114]

People are also forgetting that in the primaries, Dem turnout and registration has been somewhere around 4-1 compared to that of Republicans. Granted, the Dem primaries have gone on longer and generated more ‘buzz,’ but you can’t argue with the fact that for every voter that has registered Republican this cycle, there have been 3-4 that have registered (or switched to) Democrat.

A lot of the time people get caught up in all the bullshit about flag pins and pastors and forget to look at the NUMBERS.

[afx114]

People are also forgetting that in the primaries, Dem turnout and registration has been somewhere around 4-1 compared to that of Republicans. Granted, the Dem primaries have gone on longer and generated more ‘buzz,’ but you can’t argue with the fact that for every voter that has registered Republican this cycle, there have been 3-4 that have registered (or switched to) Democrat.

A lot of the time people get caught up in all the bullshit about flag pins and pastors and forget to look at the NUMBERS.

[afx114]

People are also forgetting that in the primaries, Dem turnout and registration has been somewhere around 4-1 compared to that of Republicans. Granted, the Dem primaries have gone on longer and generated more ‘buzz,’ but you can’t argue with the fact that for every voter that has registered Republican this cycle, there have been 3-4 that have registered (or switched to) Democrat.

A lot of the time people get caught up in all the bullshit about flag pins and pastors and forget to look at the NUMBERS.

[CardiffBaseball]

Some of you people are like whiny little nancy-boy’s with all the talk of the pubbies being home of the racist and sexist.

Paul Begala, one of the resident dweebs-in-the-know is out there worried that we can’t win with “eggheads and african-americans”. So let’s say Joe-Six Pack decides as a “Reagan Democrat” that he thinks Hussein is way too liberal for his taste and votes McCain. And let’s assume Begala’s worries are correct and enough J6Ps do this such that McCain is elected.

Eggheads/African-American Coalition failed the first time around… (Dukakis)

Where are the racists again? If J6P votes McCain is he a pubbie or just someone who doesn’t want to be associated to Obama/Rev. Wright or whatever. That guy might know squat about conservatism.

I grew up with real-tough guy democrats not the typical SoCal/NoCal foreign-car driving eggheads and let me tell you there are many racists among that group. These are the kind of guy’s who’d bust up a Japanese car if someone drove one onto the GM or Steel Mill lot.

The Democrat Party doesn’t have a cake-walk this fall at all I don’t care who the nominee is. However I do think they flip Ohio, and that might be all they need, if all other states hold consistent.

[CardiffBaseball]

Some of you people are like whiny little nancy-boy’s with all the talk of the pubbies being home of the racist and sexist.

Paul Begala, one of the resident dweebs-in-the-know is out there worried that we can’t win with “eggheads and african-americans”. So let’s say Joe-Six Pack decides as a “Reagan Democrat” that he thinks Hussein is way too liberal for his taste and votes McCain. And let’s assume Begala’s worries are correct and enough J6Ps do this such that McCain is elected.

Eggheads/African-American Coalition failed the first time around… (Dukakis)

Where are the racists again? If J6P votes McCain is he a pubbie or just someone who doesn’t want to be associated to Obama/Rev. Wright or whatever. That guy might know squat about conservatism.

I grew up with real-tough guy democrats not the typical SoCal/NoCal foreign-car driving eggheads and let me tell you there are many racists among that group. These are the kind of guy’s who’d bust up a Japanese car if someone drove one onto the GM or Steel Mill lot.

The Democrat Party doesn’t have a cake-walk this fall at all I don’t care who the nominee is. However I do think they flip Ohio, and that might be all they need, if all other states hold consistent.

[CardiffBaseball]

Some of you people are like whiny little nancy-boy’s with all the talk of the pubbies being home of the racist and sexist.

Paul Begala, one of the resident dweebs-in-the-know is out there worried that we can’t win with “eggheads and african-americans”. So let’s say Joe-Six Pack decides as a “Reagan Democrat” that he thinks Hussein is way too liberal for his taste and votes McCain. And let’s assume Begala’s worries are correct and enough J6Ps do this such that McCain is elected.

Eggheads/African-American Coalition failed the first time around… (Dukakis)

Where are the racists again? If J6P votes McCain is he a pubbie or just someone who doesn’t want to be associated to Obama/Rev. Wright or whatever. That guy might know squat about conservatism.

I grew up with real-tough guy democrats not the typical SoCal/NoCal foreign-car driving eggheads and let me tell you there are many racists among that group. These are the kind of guy’s who’d bust up a Japanese car if someone drove one onto the GM or Steel Mill lot.

The Democrat Party doesn’t have a cake-walk this fall at all I don’t care who the nominee is. However I do think they flip Ohio, and that might be all they need, if all other states hold consistent.

[CardiffBaseball]

Some of you people are like whiny little nancy-boy’s with all the talk of the pubbies being home of the racist and sexist.

Paul Begala, one of the resident dweebs-in-the-know is out there worried that we can’t win with “eggheads and african-americans”. So let’s say Joe-Six Pack decides as a “Reagan Democrat” that he thinks Hussein is way too liberal for his taste and votes McCain. And let’s assume Begala’s worries are correct and enough J6Ps do this such that McCain is elected.

Eggheads/African-American Coalition failed the first time around… (Dukakis)

Where are the racists again? If J6P votes McCain is he a pubbie or just someone who doesn’t want to be associated to Obama/Rev. Wright or whatever. That guy might know squat about conservatism.

I grew up with real-tough guy democrats not the typical SoCal/NoCal foreign-car driving eggheads and let me tell you there are many racists among that group. These are the kind of guy’s who’d bust up a Japanese car if someone drove one onto the GM or Steel Mill lot.

The Democrat Party doesn’t have a cake-walk this fall at all I don’t care who the nominee is. However I do think they flip Ohio, and that might be all they need, if all other states hold consistent.

[SDEngineer]

esmith –

The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.

Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.

While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.

McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.

[SDEngineer]

esmith –

The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.

Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.

While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.

McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.

[SDEngineer]

esmith –

The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.

Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.

While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.

McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.

[SDEngineer]

esmith –

The problem is, there are just as many sexists as racists.

Fortunately, the majority of them (in both cases) are card carrying Republicans.

While it’s true that in a close election, there are probably enough racists/sexists to turn the tide in the Democratic party itself, in this election – with the cards so heavily stacked against the Republicans (both with the failed war and the failed economic policies), it really shouldn’t matter.

McCain has gotten a free pass so far, with a lot of people still thinking of him as the “maverick” Republican that he was in 2000. Unfortunately (for him), he’s thoroughly tied himself to the Bush administration over the past 5 or 6 years. Once the Democrats actually go on the offensive against him, I think it’s all over.

[Eugene]

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

The answer is to be realistic.

If that’s what it takes to end the war, stop playing world’s policeman, do a comprehensive health care reform, and start working towards equal access to higher education and energy independence, I will concede to every racist I meet.

[Eugene]

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

The answer is to be realistic.

If that’s what it takes to end the war, stop playing world’s policeman, do a comprehensive health care reform, and start working towards equal access to higher education and energy independence, I will concede to every racist I meet.

[Eugene]

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

The answer is to be realistic.

If that’s what it takes to end the war, stop playing world’s policeman, do a comprehensive health care reform, and start working towards equal access to higher education and energy independence, I will concede to every racist I meet.

[Eugene]

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

The answer is to be realistic.

If that’s what it takes to end the war, stop playing world’s policeman, do a comprehensive health care reform, and start working towards equal access to higher education and energy independence, I will concede to every racist I meet.

[Anonymous]

esmith: There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

[Anonymous]

esmith: There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

[Anonymous]

esmith: There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

[Anonymous]

esmith: There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

esmith…so then the answer is to concede to the racists?!

Unbelievable. Doesn’t matter who will be best for the country. We’ll just let the ignorant, backward people in the south tell us who we should vote for.

It’s time to turn the page.

[Eugene]

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there’s too much bad blood between them.

[Eugene]

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there’s too much bad blood between them.

[Eugene]

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there’s too much bad blood between them.

[Eugene]

Clinton has a good reason to stay. She is a lot more electable than Obama.

The key to becoming a president is winning Deep South. The reason we had Bush for two terms is that Southern whites voted for him in massive numbers two times in a row. Racism is still strong there. In 2004, Louisiana whites voted 75% Bush / 24% Kerry, blacks voted 9% Bush / 90% Kerry. Georgia whites voted 76%/23%, blacks voted 12%/88%. Bush won both states. And that was with white democratic nominee.

There aren’t enough blacks in the South to turn those states Democratic if we pick Obama, and those blacks vote Democratic anyway. But there are plenty of racist whites who would choose McCain just to keep a black man out of the White House.

As much as I like Obama, his face-off with McCain could be a disaster.

I still hope for some kind of compromise, such as Clinton as VP. But it seems that there’s too much bad blood between them.

[DWCAP]

I know the comments have moved on alittle, sorry to back to the past.

My point about 50/50 split is that it is just that. Yes, Hilaries people say they wont vote for Obama more then the reverse do about Hilary. It is easy to say that now. Wait till they need to go to vote and look at the ballot and need to make a choice. McCain has made a big mistake linking himself so closely to Bush.

No matter which way it goes though, the Democrats will be loosing some people to bitterness. They can choose between their most reliable bases in either Blacks or White blue collar workers, but either way everyone voting now wont be voting in Novemeber. As to the actual percentage that wont be going to the polls, it is along ways till November and anything can change.

Also, primaries dont always give the best results of how a state will vote. Texas split between the two, but I have a feeling itll go for McCain in November. Same with other relyable red states. Ca will go democrat no matter who gets the nomination.

And also, just on an aside, Raceism/sexism isnt the only reason people wont vote for a certain canadate. People can have legit complaints about a canadate that have nothing to do with age, sex, race, or creed. To paint the whole south racest(or sexist or……) cause some idiots still live there is less than a hop, skip and a jump from the kettle calling the pot black.

[sd_matt]

I think all it will take for McCain to win against Barak is to play a steady stream of Reverend Wright clips and stand back. Besides, McCain is a lousy speaker anyway.

For Obama to try to disassociate himself from Wright after 20 years is dumber than “I didn’t inhale”. Of course He got elected.

Ok….what was my point?

[Coronita]

Which party do you think Ralph Nader will do more damage to this time around?

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Which party do you think Ralph Nader will do more damage to this time around?

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Which party do you think Ralph Nader will do more damage to this time around?

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Which party do you think Ralph Nader will do more damage to this time around?

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Which party do you think Ralph Nader will do more damage to this time around?

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[SDEngineer]

“For Obama to try to disassociate himself from Wright after 20 years is dumber than “I didn’t inhale”. Of course He got elected. ”

Sort of like trying to disassociate yourself from a incredibly unpopular President who’s policies you’ve been a solid supporter of for the past 5 years?

In the current atmosphere, McCain has far more significant exploitable flaws than attempting to tie a candidate to his previous pastor’s most extreme views with the insinuation that he must believe all of them as well. It’d be hard to pin that one on Obama, since there is nothing he has on the record that says he supports any of those positions (and plenty on the record to the contrary). McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of soundbites of recent vintage that can be used to directly tie him to Bush’s least popular policies (and, for that matter, on many of them paint him as a flip-flopper as well).

[equalizer]

SDE,
Well, there you go again trying to apply your logic. This aint no math eqtn. People vote for the feel good guy, why the heck would they vote for a strange Hussein muslim foriegner with weirdo friends and wifey who doesnt love America?

Have you Piggs been around this country. I’ve been to Miss, La, Fl, NC. You libs wouldn’t like it most places, its kinda old fashioned. I’ve lived in Ohio, Mi, Windy City. You would be surprised by amount of racism in Chicago, the democratic capital. Daley dynasty.

As some have pointed out, only reason some libs are voting for Hussein is because they have white guilt factor. The weirdness is going win out over the guilt and we’re looking for McGovern, heck maybe Mondale type thumping.

I will concede that dems are getting 3 times reb turnout recently, but half those people will stay home in Nov and be bitter.

Way out there: I hear those “vast rw media” always saying that Hillary will do anything to get elected. They say she killed Foster, so why wouldn’t she sweet talk her way into the VP spot, then whack Wright and then whack the O man?

[zk]

deleted.

[equalizer]

The words I use are strong. I try not to attack anyone and apologize if I accidentally offended anyone. I just wanta bring my semi-objective observerations of politics to the forum unlike many here who are not looking at the big picture.

BTW, I posted a crazy comment which I said was way out there. I was, for once, ridiculing Hillary’s hate mob.

zk: Think back a couple a couple of years, do you remember me? I’m a pretty laid back jolly guy.

[raptorduck]

I agree with stocktrader. I am a card carrying republican, albeit a just right of center one with a libertarian rights theorist and consequentialist bent. I hope McCain has a better chance against Obama though, but do wish Hilary would win the dem nomination to be safe.

This is not about race or gender. I would have voted for Collin Powell and would vote for Condolezza Rice, who I have had the good fortune to meet. It is about partisan viewpoints as should always be the case. Elections should be color and gender blind and always about the issues. Voting for a white guy does not suddently mean race and gender were the reason.

If Obama wins he wins. I have survived democratic administrations before and at least one dream of the great Martin Luther King will have been realized, but no, if I were a democrat, I would not vote for or against him because of his race, I would vote for him because he has a better chance of beating McCain and because he is . . . well, a democrat.

[NotCranky]

Could running mate selections really change things?

Obama will likely have a white male, more center running mate?

McCain chooses someone who attracts people he doesn’t and looks like a good replacement in case he dies?

It would be interesting to have a birds-eye view of the strategies contemplated.

[afx114]

I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

[Diego Mamani]

I think Hillary is showing really bad judgment by prolonging the contest and dividing her party. She also showed poor judgment when she voted for the Iraq war, but at least she has the excuse of having received faulty intelligence from the administration (although I think she voted for the war b/c that was the way the wind was blowing after 9/11 and she didn’t want to alienate would-be voters).

But there’s no excuse now, she has all the facts. If she shows this bad judgment as a candidate, what can we expect of her if she ever becomes president? If, say, Obama loses in November, she could be a natural candidate in 2012. But her actions are not only hurting her party, they are hurting her political career as well.

[stockstradr]

I think time for ME to concede, that marion has the best post! I love that Three Stooges image of our present candidates. So true.

[stockstradr]

I think time for ME to concede, that marion has the best post! I love that Three Stooges image of our present candidates. So true.

[stockstradr]

I think time for ME to concede, that marion has the best post! I love that Three Stooges image of our present candidates. So true.

[stockstradr]

I think time for ME to concede, that marion has the best post! I love that Three Stooges image of our present candidates. So true.

[stockstradr]

I think time for ME to concede, that marion has the best post! I love that Three Stooges image of our present candidates. So true.

[Diego Mamani]

I think Hillary is showing really bad judgment by prolonging the contest and dividing her party. She also showed poor judgment when she voted for the Iraq war, but at least she has the excuse of having received faulty intelligence from the administration (although I think she voted for the war b/c that was the way the wind was blowing after 9/11 and she didn’t want to alienate would-be voters).

But there’s no excuse now, she has all the facts. If she shows this bad judgment as a candidate, what can we expect of her if she ever becomes president? If, say, Obama loses in November, she could be a natural candidate in 2012. But her actions are not only hurting her party, they are hurting her political career as well.

[Diego Mamani]

I think Hillary is showing really bad judgment by prolonging the contest and dividing her party. She also showed poor judgment when she voted for the Iraq war, but at least she has the excuse of having received faulty intelligence from the administration (although I think she voted for the war b/c that was the way the wind was blowing after 9/11 and she didn’t want to alienate would-be voters).

But there’s no excuse now, she has all the facts. If she shows this bad judgment as a candidate, what can we expect of her if she ever becomes president? If, say, Obama loses in November, she could be a natural candidate in 2012. But her actions are not only hurting her party, they are hurting her political career as well.

[Diego Mamani]

I think Hillary is showing really bad judgment by prolonging the contest and dividing her party. She also showed poor judgment when she voted for the Iraq war, but at least she has the excuse of having received faulty intelligence from the administration (although I think she voted for the war b/c that was the way the wind was blowing after 9/11 and she didn’t want to alienate would-be voters).

But there’s no excuse now, she has all the facts. If she shows this bad judgment as a candidate, what can we expect of her if she ever becomes president? If, say, Obama loses in November, she could be a natural candidate in 2012. But her actions are not only hurting her party, they are hurting her political career as well.

[Diego Mamani]

I think Hillary is showing really bad judgment by prolonging the contest and dividing her party. She also showed poor judgment when she voted for the Iraq war, but at least she has the excuse of having received faulty intelligence from the administration (although I think she voted for the war b/c that was the way the wind was blowing after 9/11 and she didn’t want to alienate would-be voters).

But there’s no excuse now, she has all the facts. If she shows this bad judgment as a candidate, what can we expect of her if she ever becomes president? If, say, Obama loses in November, she could be a natural candidate in 2012. But her actions are not only hurting her party, they are hurting her political career as well.

[NotCranky]

Submitted by afx114 on May 9, 2008 – 10:36am.
I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

I like that possibility. I hope you are right. He could be to Obama what Cheney is to Bush. I like Clark in that role a lot more of course.

I mentioned this to my wife and she said Clark as v.p. makes her fear for Obama’s life even more. Maybe some nutcase would want to create a scenario where the president was white again.
Some of my hopes for Obama’s campaign are that ultimately it would be good for black and white relations, that a more positive expectation of black leadership in America prevails at all levels,specifically from blacks and that cynicism of black towards whites and whites towards blacks would diminish. The rev. Wright issue was awful with regard to these hopes. Who knows maybe even that has some lessons for a lot of people? I really hope nothing of a violent nature ever happens to Obama.

[NotCranky]

Submitted by afx114 on May 9, 2008 – 10:36am.
I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

I like that possibility. I hope you are right. He could be to Obama what Cheney is to Bush. I like Clark in that role a lot more of course.

I mentioned this to my wife and she said Clark as v.p. makes her fear for Obama’s life even more. Maybe some nutcase would want to create a scenario where the president was white again.
Some of my hopes for Obama’s campaign are that ultimately it would be good for black and white relations, that a more positive expectation of black leadership in America prevails at all levels,specifically from blacks and that cynicism of black towards whites and whites towards blacks would diminish. The rev. Wright issue was awful with regard to these hopes. Who knows maybe even that has some lessons for a lot of people? I really hope nothing of a violent nature ever happens to Obama.

[NotCranky]

Submitted by afx114 on May 9, 2008 – 10:36am.
I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

I like that possibility. I hope you are right. He could be to Obama what Cheney is to Bush. I like Clark in that role a lot more of course.

I mentioned this to my wife and she said Clark as v.p. makes her fear for Obama’s life even more. Maybe some nutcase would want to create a scenario where the president was white again.
Some of my hopes for Obama’s campaign are that ultimately it would be good for black and white relations, that a more positive expectation of black leadership in America prevails at all levels,specifically from blacks and that cynicism of black towards whites and whites towards blacks would diminish. The rev. Wright issue was awful with regard to these hopes. Who knows maybe even that has some lessons for a lot of people? I really hope nothing of a violent nature ever happens to Obama.

[NotCranky]

Submitted by afx114 on May 9, 2008 – 10:36am.
I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

I like that possibility. I hope you are right. He could be to Obama what Cheney is to Bush. I like Clark in that role a lot more of course.

I mentioned this to my wife and she said Clark as v.p. makes her fear for Obama’s life even more. Maybe some nutcase would want to create a scenario where the president was white again.
Some of my hopes for Obama’s campaign are that ultimately it would be good for black and white relations, that a more positive expectation of black leadership in America prevails at all levels,specifically from blacks and that cynicism of black towards whites and whites towards blacks would diminish. The rev. Wright issue was awful with regard to these hopes. Who knows maybe even that has some lessons for a lot of people? I really hope nothing of a violent nature ever happens to Obama.

[NotCranky]

Submitted by afx114 on May 9, 2008 – 10:36am.
I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

I like that possibility. I hope you are right. He could be to Obama what Cheney is to Bush. I like Clark in that role a lot more of course.

I mentioned this to my wife and she said Clark as v.p. makes her fear for Obama’s life even more. Maybe some nutcase would want to create a scenario where the president was white again.
Some of my hopes for Obama’s campaign are that ultimately it would be good for black and white relations, that a more positive expectation of black leadership in America prevails at all levels,specifically from blacks and that cynicism of black towards whites and whites towards blacks would diminish. The rev. Wright issue was awful with regard to these hopes. Who knows maybe even that has some lessons for a lot of people? I really hope nothing of a violent nature ever happens to Obama.

[equalizer]

I’m not scared of Wes cause he was allegedly fired by Sec of Def Cohen for integrity and character issues. Thats that 10 word byline that voters will remember and that he wants to go faster than speed of light.

I’d be more scared of Jim Webb, a pro-gun Virginian, maybe tie down resources in VA for repbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[Bugs]

As a nominal conservative, I don’t think the GOP can win this election. However, I do think that the Democrats can lose it. They have repeatedly proven their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Going forward they’re going to have to play it smart if they want to win. I’m pretty sure they have the margin to win right now, but I don’t think they have the margin to be stupid.

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[afx114]

As much as Webb seems like a good idea (Secretary of the Navy under Reagan), it won’t be Webb, because the Dems just won his seat in a hard fought battle. They’ll likely lose that seat if he vacates and they need seats in the Senate just as bad as they need the Presidency.

…. BUT, I could see Webb on the Dem ticket in 2012 if things don’t work out this year. And he’ll definitely be on the short list for 2016.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[picpoule]

First, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in California. The Democrat candidate will take California. McCain is toast because the conservative base will not vote for him and he can’t win with disillusioned Dems who didn’t get their way or with moderates. He needs the base and won’t get their vote. The next Prez is a Democrat.

[an]

Lets assume that Obama wins in November, what will the economic landscape be with all 3 houses under the control of the democrats? Personally, I think there will be higher taxes all around and a lot more bail outs.

[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[SDEngineer]

Asianautica:

Bail outs do seem likely – and one of the things I think shouldn’t be done – but those would likely happen regardless of who wins – there’s too much political pressure being brought to bear. The only question would be WHO would be bailed out. If it’s the Democrats, it’ll be the homeowners who get bailed out. If it’s the Republicans, it’ll be the banks and the financial houses that sold MBS’s. Between those two, I’d rather bail out the homeowners.

Higher taxes all around seems very unlikely though. Obama has pledged to cut middle class taxes (though he has also promised to revoke George Bush’s tax cuts on the highest earners). Under Obama, I think those of us making 125K or more will probably see a slight tax increase, those making 200K+ will probably see a significant tax increase, and anyone here making less than 75K will probably get a tax cut. He has also said he is likely to increase the capital gains tax on a sliding scale up to 28% for the highest amount of gains.

Bear in mind though that the MOST likely thing that will happen is the restoration of the 38% tax bracket for those making 200K single/350K married, and the 33% bracket returning to the 35% level – as those he can have done without needing new legislation (by simply letting the Bush tax cuts for those brackets lapse). If the Democrats don’t have a filibuster proof majority (which seems likely) the GOP will likely filibuster any additional taxes.

Unfortunately, we do need to increase taxes somehow because we do have to dig ourselves out of the hole that we’ve been dug into – and given how badly the middle class has gotten squeezed during the Bush Presidency, it’s neither prudent nor likely that they will get hit with it.

[an]

Lets assume that Obama wins in November, what will the economic landscape be with all 3 houses under the control of the democrats? Personally, I think there will be higher taxes all around and a lot more bail outs.

[an]

Lets assume that Obama wins in November, what will the economic landscape be with all 3 houses under the control of the democrats? Personally, I think there will be higher taxes all around and a lot more bail outs.

[an]

Lets assume that Obama wins in November, what will the economic landscape be with all 3 houses under the control of the democrats? Personally, I think there will be higher taxes all around and a lot more bail outs.

[an]

Lets assume that Obama wins in November, what will the economic landscape be with all 3 houses under the control of the democrats? Personally, I think there will be higher taxes all around and a lot more bail outs.

[picpoule]

First, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in California. The Democrat candidate will take California. McCain is toast because the conservative base will not vote for him and he can’t win with disillusioned Dems who didn’t get their way or with moderates. He needs the base and won’t get their vote. The next Prez is a Democrat.

[picpoule]

First, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in California. The Democrat candidate will take California. McCain is toast because the conservative base will not vote for him and he can’t win with disillusioned Dems who didn’t get their way or with moderates. He needs the base and won’t get their vote. The next Prez is a Democrat.

[picpoule]

First, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in California. The Democrat candidate will take California. McCain is toast because the conservative base will not vote for him and he can’t win with disillusioned Dems who didn’t get their way or with moderates. He needs the base and won’t get their vote. The next Prez is a Democrat.

[picpoule]

First, it doesn’t matter who you vote for in California. The Democrat candidate will take California. McCain is toast because the conservative base will not vote for him and he can’t win with disillusioned Dems who didn’t get their way or with moderates. He needs the base and won’t get their vote. The next Prez is a Democrat.

[sd_matt]

..oops, Were Not nice people….

[sd_matt]

Ahh here it is…homosexuals causing Katrina….ooof that is a Doozey.

As it is, America is mostly Christian. The white majority won’t tolerate racism from Anyone, and while the boomers are still alive, homosexuality is still a sin here. So while both pastors are nuts, there will be more tolerance for Hagee. Engineer, what else did Hagee say besides Katrina? I haven’t found much.

Picpoule I’m guessing the white base will go for McCain.
He can bank on his reputation for pissing off the Repubs on a regular basis so as not to appear like a Bush number 2.

What do you think the race between McCain and Obama will be like?

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt:

On John Hagee – the homosexual quote is just the tip of the iceberg – he’s the classic uber-Southern Baptist and has been full of misogynist and anti-Catholic quotes (probably anti-Mormon and other fringe Christian groups as well).

Here’s his description of Catholicism (and note, it’s NOT an off the cuff remark – it was printed in one of his books!)

“A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.” (1987, “Should Christians Support Israel?”) In the past, he also referred to it as “The Great Whore” (something not unique to him – a lot of the more extreme pastors in the Southern Baptist church and other fundamentalist Christian sects consider it to be such).

He has recently attempted to a certain degree to recant his anti-Catholism, but frankly, coming on the heels of his endorsement of John McCain, it strikes me as very likely to be nothing but political damage control, about as believable as if Wright did the same thing.

He’s also been guilty of blaming the Jewish people themselves for the holocaust and other issues (sounds contradictory to his stance on Israel, but if you’re familiar with fundamentalist end-times stuff, it’s not – the right wing in many cases doesn’t appear to care one bit about the Jewish people – but they’re needed to be there in Israel for the end-times prophecies to be fulfilled).

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day… Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people” )(2006, “Jerusalem Countdown”)

There are others, but he’s quite clearly just as nuts as Wright is, just with a different theological bent. Hagee is an “end-timer”, and frankly, that’s a nuttier theological bent in my opinion than anything Wright believes in (though I know theres a fairly large chunk of US Christians who believe it as well).

[CardiffBaseball]

Hagee is quite far from “Southern Baptist”s as he is from the Prosperity/Word of Faith movement. You’ll note that most of the guys with a TV following come from this movement. In general if the guy has a wide following on TBN it’s ok to be a little suspicious.

So to that extent while I view both as being not being doctrinally sound, I’d say Wright is probably less nutty. I really don’t care for these positive confession preacher types. Hell you can just go buy “The Secret” if that’s what you are into, you don’t need a pastor preaching it. or else Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy etc.

[SDEngineer]

My bad, you’re correct, I was under the mistaken impression he was a Southern Baptist. But, as you pointed out, the Word of Faith nondenoms are pretty extreme. It’s instructive to read the titles of some of his books (note, this is a deliberate list only of the more tinfoil hat books he’s written – he has some typical preacher touchy-feely books in there as well):

“The Invasion of Demons” (1973)
“Like a cleansing fire” (1974)
“The Beginning of the End” (1996) – at this point, Hagee began churning out End-Times prediction books at the rate of more than one per year.
“Day of Deception” (1997)
“Final Dawn Over Jerusalem” (1998)
“From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown has Begun” (1999)
“God’s Two-Minute Warning” (in 2000, of course)
“Attack On America New York, Jerusalem, and The Role of Terrorism in the Last Days” (2001) – after this book, looks like he decided God was going to wait a little longer to start Armageddon, though he clearly still believes it’s “soon”.
“Jerusalem Countdown” (2005)

[SDEngineer]

My bad, you’re correct, I was under the mistaken impression he was a Southern Baptist. But, as you pointed out, the Word of Faith nondenoms are pretty extreme. It’s instructive to read the titles of some of his books (note, this is a deliberate list only of the more tinfoil hat books he’s written – he has some typical preacher touchy-feely books in there as well):

“The Invasion of Demons” (1973)
“Like a cleansing fire” (1974)
“The Beginning of the End” (1996) – at this point, Hagee began churning out End-Times prediction books at the rate of more than one per year.
“Day of Deception” (1997)
“Final Dawn Over Jerusalem” (1998)
“From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown has Begun” (1999)
“God’s Two-Minute Warning” (in 2000, of course)
“Attack On America New York, Jerusalem, and The Role of Terrorism in the Last Days” (2001) – after this book, looks like he decided God was going to wait a little longer to start Armageddon, though he clearly still believes it’s “soon”.
“Jerusalem Countdown” (2005)

[SDEngineer]

My bad, you’re correct, I was under the mistaken impression he was a Southern Baptist. But, as you pointed out, the Word of Faith nondenoms are pretty extreme. It’s instructive to read the titles of some of his books (note, this is a deliberate list only of the more tinfoil hat books he’s written – he has some typical preacher touchy-feely books in there as well):

“The Invasion of Demons” (1973)
“Like a cleansing fire” (1974)
“The Beginning of the End” (1996) – at this point, Hagee began churning out End-Times prediction books at the rate of more than one per year.
“Day of Deception” (1997)
“Final Dawn Over Jerusalem” (1998)
“From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown has Begun” (1999)
“God’s Two-Minute Warning” (in 2000, of course)
“Attack On America New York, Jerusalem, and The Role of Terrorism in the Last Days” (2001) – after this book, looks like he decided God was going to wait a little longer to start Armageddon, though he clearly still believes it’s “soon”.
“Jerusalem Countdown” (2005)

[SDEngineer]

My bad, you’re correct, I was under the mistaken impression he was a Southern Baptist. But, as you pointed out, the Word of Faith nondenoms are pretty extreme. It’s instructive to read the titles of some of his books (note, this is a deliberate list only of the more tinfoil hat books he’s written – he has some typical preacher touchy-feely books in there as well):

“The Invasion of Demons” (1973)
“Like a cleansing fire” (1974)
“The Beginning of the End” (1996) – at this point, Hagee began churning out End-Times prediction books at the rate of more than one per year.
“Day of Deception” (1997)
“Final Dawn Over Jerusalem” (1998)
“From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown has Begun” (1999)
“God’s Two-Minute Warning” (in 2000, of course)
“Attack On America New York, Jerusalem, and The Role of Terrorism in the Last Days” (2001) – after this book, looks like he decided God was going to wait a little longer to start Armageddon, though he clearly still believes it’s “soon”.
“Jerusalem Countdown” (2005)

[SDEngineer]

My bad, you’re correct, I was under the mistaken impression he was a Southern Baptist. But, as you pointed out, the Word of Faith nondenoms are pretty extreme. It’s instructive to read the titles of some of his books (note, this is a deliberate list only of the more tinfoil hat books he’s written – he has some typical preacher touchy-feely books in there as well):

“The Invasion of Demons” (1973)
“Like a cleansing fire” (1974)
“The Beginning of the End” (1996) – at this point, Hagee began churning out End-Times prediction books at the rate of more than one per year.
“Day of Deception” (1997)
“Final Dawn Over Jerusalem” (1998)
“From Daniel to Doomsday: The Countdown has Begun” (1999)
“God’s Two-Minute Warning” (in 2000, of course)
“Attack On America New York, Jerusalem, and The Role of Terrorism in the Last Days” (2001) – after this book, looks like he decided God was going to wait a little longer to start Armageddon, though he clearly still believes it’s “soon”.
“Jerusalem Countdown” (2005)

[CardiffBaseball]

Hagee is quite far from “Southern Baptist”s as he is from the Prosperity/Word of Faith movement. You’ll note that most of the guys with a TV following come from this movement. In general if the guy has a wide following on TBN it’s ok to be a little suspicious.

So to that extent while I view both as being not being doctrinally sound, I’d say Wright is probably less nutty. I really don’t care for these positive confession preacher types. Hell you can just go buy “The Secret” if that’s what you are into, you don’t need a pastor preaching it. or else Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy etc.

[CardiffBaseball]

Hagee is quite far from “Southern Baptist”s as he is from the Prosperity/Word of Faith movement. You’ll note that most of the guys with a TV following come from this movement. In general if the guy has a wide following on TBN it’s ok to be a little suspicious.

So to that extent while I view both as being not being doctrinally sound, I’d say Wright is probably less nutty. I really don’t care for these positive confession preacher types. Hell you can just go buy “The Secret” if that’s what you are into, you don’t need a pastor preaching it. or else Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy etc.

[CardiffBaseball]

Hagee is quite far from “Southern Baptist”s as he is from the Prosperity/Word of Faith movement. You’ll note that most of the guys with a TV following come from this movement. In general if the guy has a wide following on TBN it’s ok to be a little suspicious.

So to that extent while I view both as being not being doctrinally sound, I’d say Wright is probably less nutty. I really don’t care for these positive confession preacher types. Hell you can just go buy “The Secret” if that’s what you are into, you don’t need a pastor preaching it. or else Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy etc.

[CardiffBaseball]

Hagee is quite far from “Southern Baptist”s as he is from the Prosperity/Word of Faith movement. You’ll note that most of the guys with a TV following come from this movement. In general if the guy has a wide following on TBN it’s ok to be a little suspicious.

So to that extent while I view both as being not being doctrinally sound, I’d say Wright is probably less nutty. I really don’t care for these positive confession preacher types. Hell you can just go buy “The Secret” if that’s what you are into, you don’t need a pastor preaching it. or else Tony Robbins, Brian Tracy etc.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt:

On John Hagee – the homosexual quote is just the tip of the iceberg – he’s the classic uber-Southern Baptist and has been full of misogynist and anti-Catholic quotes (probably anti-Mormon and other fringe Christian groups as well).

Here’s his description of Catholicism (and note, it’s NOT an off the cuff remark – it was printed in one of his books!)

“A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.” (1987, “Should Christians Support Israel?”) In the past, he also referred to it as “The Great Whore” (something not unique to him – a lot of the more extreme pastors in the Southern Baptist church and other fundamentalist Christian sects consider it to be such).

He has recently attempted to a certain degree to recant his anti-Catholism, but frankly, coming on the heels of his endorsement of John McCain, it strikes me as very likely to be nothing but political damage control, about as believable as if Wright did the same thing.

He’s also been guilty of blaming the Jewish people themselves for the holocaust and other issues (sounds contradictory to his stance on Israel, but if you’re familiar with fundamentalist end-times stuff, it’s not – the right wing in many cases doesn’t appear to care one bit about the Jewish people – but they’re needed to be there in Israel for the end-times prophecies to be fulfilled).

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day… Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people” )(2006, “Jerusalem Countdown”)

There are others, but he’s quite clearly just as nuts as Wright is, just with a different theological bent. Hagee is an “end-timer”, and frankly, that’s a nuttier theological bent in my opinion than anything Wright believes in (though I know theres a fairly large chunk of US Christians who believe it as well).

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt:

On John Hagee – the homosexual quote is just the tip of the iceberg – he’s the classic uber-Southern Baptist and has been full of misogynist and anti-Catholic quotes (probably anti-Mormon and other fringe Christian groups as well).

Here’s his description of Catholicism (and note, it’s NOT an off the cuff remark – it was printed in one of his books!)

“A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.” (1987, “Should Christians Support Israel?”) In the past, he also referred to it as “The Great Whore” (something not unique to him – a lot of the more extreme pastors in the Southern Baptist church and other fundamentalist Christian sects consider it to be such).

He has recently attempted to a certain degree to recant his anti-Catholism, but frankly, coming on the heels of his endorsement of John McCain, it strikes me as very likely to be nothing but political damage control, about as believable as if Wright did the same thing.

He’s also been guilty of blaming the Jewish people themselves for the holocaust and other issues (sounds contradictory to his stance on Israel, but if you’re familiar with fundamentalist end-times stuff, it’s not – the right wing in many cases doesn’t appear to care one bit about the Jewish people – but they’re needed to be there in Israel for the end-times prophecies to be fulfilled).

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day… Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people” )(2006, “Jerusalem Countdown”)

There are others, but he’s quite clearly just as nuts as Wright is, just with a different theological bent. Hagee is an “end-timer”, and frankly, that’s a nuttier theological bent in my opinion than anything Wright believes in (though I know theres a fairly large chunk of US Christians who believe it as well).

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt:

On John Hagee – the homosexual quote is just the tip of the iceberg – he’s the classic uber-Southern Baptist and has been full of misogynist and anti-Catholic quotes (probably anti-Mormon and other fringe Christian groups as well).

Here’s his description of Catholicism (and note, it’s NOT an off the cuff remark – it was printed in one of his books!)

“A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.” (1987, “Should Christians Support Israel?”) In the past, he also referred to it as “The Great Whore” (something not unique to him – a lot of the more extreme pastors in the Southern Baptist church and other fundamentalist Christian sects consider it to be such).

He has recently attempted to a certain degree to recant his anti-Catholism, but frankly, coming on the heels of his endorsement of John McCain, it strikes me as very likely to be nothing but political damage control, about as believable as if Wright did the same thing.

He’s also been guilty of blaming the Jewish people themselves for the holocaust and other issues (sounds contradictory to his stance on Israel, but if you’re familiar with fundamentalist end-times stuff, it’s not – the right wing in many cases doesn’t appear to care one bit about the Jewish people – but they’re needed to be there in Israel for the end-times prophecies to be fulfilled).

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day… Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people” )(2006, “Jerusalem Countdown”)

There are others, but he’s quite clearly just as nuts as Wright is, just with a different theological bent. Hagee is an “end-timer”, and frankly, that’s a nuttier theological bent in my opinion than anything Wright believes in (though I know theres a fairly large chunk of US Christians who believe it as well).

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt:

On John Hagee – the homosexual quote is just the tip of the iceberg – he’s the classic uber-Southern Baptist and has been full of misogynist and anti-Catholic quotes (probably anti-Mormon and other fringe Christian groups as well).

Here’s his description of Catholicism (and note, it’s NOT an off the cuff remark – it was printed in one of his books!)

“A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.” (1987, “Should Christians Support Israel?”) In the past, he also referred to it as “The Great Whore” (something not unique to him – a lot of the more extreme pastors in the Southern Baptist church and other fundamentalist Christian sects consider it to be such).

He has recently attempted to a certain degree to recant his anti-Catholism, but frankly, coming on the heels of his endorsement of John McCain, it strikes me as very likely to be nothing but political damage control, about as believable as if Wright did the same thing.

He’s also been guilty of blaming the Jewish people themselves for the holocaust and other issues (sounds contradictory to his stance on Israel, but if you’re familiar with fundamentalist end-times stuff, it’s not – the right wing in many cases doesn’t appear to care one bit about the Jewish people – but they’re needed to be there in Israel for the end-times prophecies to be fulfilled).

“It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day… Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come…. it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people” )(2006, “Jerusalem Countdown”)

There are others, but he’s quite clearly just as nuts as Wright is, just with a different theological bent. Hagee is an “end-timer”, and frankly, that’s a nuttier theological bent in my opinion than anything Wright believes in (though I know theres a fairly large chunk of US Christians who believe it as well).

[picpoule]

sd_matt: I don’t think Obama/McCain contest will even be close. Obama wins handily. And no, white conservative base will not turn out for McCain. They will sit on their hands like they did in last election, handing Congress to the Democrats. Democrats will take more seats in Congress, get a veto-proof majority (with help of some RINOs) in Senate.

[afx114]

Not to mention Hagee’s stated goal of hastening the apocalypse in the Middle East…

He and his type WANT the apocalypse, so that they can be raptured to heaven and get their 72 virgin choir boys. Oh wait, sorry, I got my extremist religions mixed up there for a second…

[sd_matt]

Asiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.

Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.

I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.

My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.

[equalizer]

FLU is “scary” right when he said
“that for someone that’s not going to win…Yes, that’s right. I don’t think he’s going to win the election. In fact, it would be a blessing for the Republicans if he wins the primary, and not Sen. Clinton… Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned. The media has been completely ignoring this story until now:
“Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051301359.html?sid=ST2008051301359

Thats why Miss. loss of another congressional district by Rep party doesn’t scare me. Like someone stated, Edwards couldn’t get NC voters to vote for his party in 04 pres election. I trust the good people in Miss and WV will come back into the fold and do the right thing in Nov.

BTW, Michael Medved called Hagee a good man today, called him a truce maker among religious groups. When caller asked about Hagee stating that God causing Katrina because homos, Medvved said it was a stupid, illogical statement made because pride parade happened week before Katrina. It was just a silly statement, at least he doesn’t hate America.

[Anonymous]

“Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Obama isn’t a muslim. It would be an ignorant campaign strategy geared towards ignorant people. The educated and intelligent aren’t concerned with lies.

“Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned.”

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

[an]

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

Because it’s two peas from the same pod. Have you ever seen any group of people (same race) have an agreement rate of 90+% on anything? If it’s not the color of his skin, can you please tell me what is it about Obama that appeal to 90+% of the black votes and not even 50% of the white votes?

[Anonymous]

It’s his character Asianautica, what he stands for, his vision for the country.

I’m not denying that a lot of black people want to see a black president in their lifetime, but If he were a black Bush, I think it’s safe to say you wouldn’t be seeing the 90%.

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.

Asianautica, do you think if Obama were Idi Amin he would get the majority of the black vote?..

[an]

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.
There are racists everywhere of every color. But for you to insinuate that over 50% of the white voter are so racist that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black is just wrong. Not everybody like what he stands for or his vision of the country.

[Anonymous]

I’m not insinuating anything, but if you’re going to deny the large number of racists in this country (that has even been pointed out on this very thread) and pretend the color of his skin won’t matter to that category of people, you’re just wrong.

Don’t you remember the comments about the “backward a%% rednecks” and how they aren’t going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Are you saying you don’t believe that?

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying he doesn’t have the majority of white voter support because most white people are racists. There is the little party thing that matters, you know: democrats versus republicans…Even then, I don’t think most white people are racists. Decent people are not like that.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.

[an]

Please read the very first sentence of my last reply. If you just read that first line, you’d see that I said racists are everywhere of every color. So 1/2 of your post doesn’t make much sense.

This is what you said: Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it.

Please read that and tell me you’re not insinuating that white racists is the reason he’s not popular /w the white voters.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.
I never said his skin color was the only reason. But if you think it doesn’t play a role, then I can’t help you.

[an]

Please read the very first sentence of my last reply. If you just read that first line, you’d see that I said racists are everywhere of every color. So 1/2 of your post doesn’t make much sense.

This is what you said: Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it.

Please read that and tell me you’re not insinuating that white racists is the reason he’s not popular /w the white voters.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.
I never said his skin color was the only reason. But if you think it doesn’t play a role, then I can’t help you.

[an]

Please read the very first sentence of my last reply. If you just read that first line, you’d see that I said racists are everywhere of every color. So 1/2 of your post doesn’t make much sense.

This is what you said: Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it.

Please read that and tell me you’re not insinuating that white racists is the reason he’s not popular /w the white voters.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.
I never said his skin color was the only reason. But if you think it doesn’t play a role, then I can’t help you.

[an]

Please read the very first sentence of my last reply. If you just read that first line, you’d see that I said racists are everywhere of every color. So 1/2 of your post doesn’t make much sense.

This is what you said: Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it.

Please read that and tell me you’re not insinuating that white racists is the reason he’s not popular /w the white voters.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.
I never said his skin color was the only reason. But if you think it doesn’t play a role, then I can’t help you.

[an]

Please read the very first sentence of my last reply. If you just read that first line, you’d see that I said racists are everywhere of every color. So 1/2 of your post doesn’t make much sense.

This is what you said: Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it.

Please read that and tell me you’re not insinuating that white racists is the reason he’s not popular /w the white voters.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.
I never said his skin color was the only reason. But if you think it doesn’t play a role, then I can’t help you.

[Anonymous]

I’m not insinuating anything, but if you’re going to deny the large number of racists in this country (that has even been pointed out on this very thread) and pretend the color of his skin won’t matter to that category of people, you’re just wrong.

Don’t you remember the comments about the “backward a%% rednecks” and how they aren’t going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Are you saying you don’t believe that?

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying he doesn’t have the majority of white voter support because most white people are racists. There is the little party thing that matters, you know: democrats versus republicans…Even then, I don’t think most white people are racists. Decent people are not like that.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.

[Anonymous]

I’m not insinuating anything, but if you’re going to deny the large number of racists in this country (that has even been pointed out on this very thread) and pretend the color of his skin won’t matter to that category of people, you’re just wrong.

Don’t you remember the comments about the “backward a%% rednecks” and how they aren’t going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Are you saying you don’t believe that?

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying he doesn’t have the majority of white voter support because most white people are racists. There is the little party thing that matters, you know: democrats versus republicans…Even then, I don’t think most white people are racists. Decent people are not like that.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.

[Anonymous]

I’m not insinuating anything, but if you’re going to deny the large number of racists in this country (that has even been pointed out on this very thread) and pretend the color of his skin won’t matter to that category of people, you’re just wrong.

Don’t you remember the comments about the “backward a%% rednecks” and how they aren’t going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Are you saying you don’t believe that?

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying he doesn’t have the majority of white voter support because most white people are racists. There is the little party thing that matters, you know: democrats versus republicans…Even then, I don’t think most white people are racists. Decent people are not like that.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.

[Anonymous]

I’m not insinuating anything, but if you’re going to deny the large number of racists in this country (that has even been pointed out on this very thread) and pretend the color of his skin won’t matter to that category of people, you’re just wrong.

Don’t you remember the comments about the “backward a%% rednecks” and how they aren’t going to vote for Obama because he’s black? Are you saying you don’t believe that?

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying he doesn’t have the majority of white voter support because most white people are racists. There is the little party thing that matters, you know: democrats versus republicans…Even then, I don’t think most white people are racists. Decent people are not like that.

I resent the fact that your position is that black people are voting for him because of his skin color, character and how he plans to run the country be damned.

[an]

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.
There are racists everywhere of every color. But for you to insinuate that over 50% of the white voter are so racist that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black is just wrong. Not everybody like what he stands for or his vision of the country.

[an]

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.
There are racists everywhere of every color. But for you to insinuate that over 50% of the white voter are so racist that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black is just wrong. Not everybody like what he stands for or his vision of the country.

[an]

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.
There are racists everywhere of every color. But for you to insinuate that over 50% of the white voter are so racist that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black is just wrong. Not everybody like what he stands for or his vision of the country.

[an]

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.
There are racists everywhere of every color. But for you to insinuate that over 50% of the white voter are so racist that they won’t vote for Obama because he’s black is just wrong. Not everybody like what he stands for or his vision of the country.

[Anonymous]

It’s his character Asianautica, what he stands for, his vision for the country.

I’m not denying that a lot of black people want to see a black president in their lifetime, but If he were a black Bush, I think it’s safe to say you wouldn’t be seeing the 90%.

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.

Asianautica, do you think if Obama were Idi Amin he would get the majority of the black vote?..

[Anonymous]

It’s his character Asianautica, what he stands for, his vision for the country.

I’m not denying that a lot of black people want to see a black president in their lifetime, but If he were a black Bush, I think it’s safe to say you wouldn’t be seeing the 90%.

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.

Asianautica, do you think if Obama were Idi Amin he would get the majority of the black vote?..

[Anonymous]

It’s his character Asianautica, what he stands for, his vision for the country.

I’m not denying that a lot of black people want to see a black president in their lifetime, but If he were a black Bush, I think it’s safe to say you wouldn’t be seeing the 90%.

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.

Asianautica, do you think if Obama were Idi Amin he would get the majority of the black vote?..

[Anonymous]

It’s his character Asianautica, what he stands for, his vision for the country.

I’m not denying that a lot of black people want to see a black president in their lifetime, but If he were a black Bush, I think it’s safe to say you wouldn’t be seeing the 90%.

Regarding Obama not being as popular with white voters, we all know there are a large number of white racists in this country. That may have something to do with it. In spite of that, Obama is doing well.

Asianautica, do you think if Obama were Idi Amin he would get the majority of the black vote?..

[an]

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

Because it’s two peas from the same pod. Have you ever seen any group of people (same race) have an agreement rate of 90+% on anything? If it’s not the color of his skin, can you please tell me what is it about Obama that appeal to 90+% of the black votes and not even 50% of the white votes?

[an]

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

Because it’s two peas from the same pod. Have you ever seen any group of people (same race) have an agreement rate of 90+% on anything? If it’s not the color of his skin, can you please tell me what is it about Obama that appeal to 90+% of the black votes and not even 50% of the white votes?

[an]

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

Because it’s two peas from the same pod. Have you ever seen any group of people (same race) have an agreement rate of 90+% on anything? If it’s not the color of his skin, can you please tell me what is it about Obama that appeal to 90+% of the black votes and not even 50% of the white votes?

[an]

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

Because it’s two peas from the same pod. Have you ever seen any group of people (same race) have an agreement rate of 90+% on anything? If it’s not the color of his skin, can you please tell me what is it about Obama that appeal to 90+% of the black votes and not even 50% of the white votes?

[Anonymous]

“Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Obama isn’t a muslim. It would be an ignorant campaign strategy geared towards ignorant people. The educated and intelligent aren’t concerned with lies.

“Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned.”

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

[Anonymous]

“Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Obama isn’t a muslim. It would be an ignorant campaign strategy geared towards ignorant people. The educated and intelligent aren’t concerned with lies.

“Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned.”

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

[Anonymous]

“Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Obama isn’t a muslim. It would be an ignorant campaign strategy geared towards ignorant people. The educated and intelligent aren’t concerned with lies.

“Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned.”

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

[Anonymous]

“Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Obama isn’t a muslim. It would be an ignorant campaign strategy geared towards ignorant people. The educated and intelligent aren’t concerned with lies.

“Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned.”

Why should it be questioned? This country has had nothing but white presidents for over 200 years? Perhaps we want to see a qualified minority or woman have a chance. I don’t see anything racist about that. Obama is a quality candidate with a great vision. I wouldn’t vote for a black GW Bush.

[equalizer]

FLU is “scary” right when he said
“that for someone that’s not going to win…Yes, that’s right. I don’t think he’s going to win the election. In fact, it would be a blessing for the Republicans if he wins the primary, and not Sen. Clinton… Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned. The media has been completely ignoring this story until now:
“Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051301359.html?sid=ST2008051301359

Thats why Miss. loss of another congressional district by Rep party doesn’t scare me. Like someone stated, Edwards couldn’t get NC voters to vote for his party in 04 pres election. I trust the good people in Miss and WV will come back into the fold and do the right thing in Nov.

BTW, Michael Medved called Hagee a good man today, called him a truce maker among religious groups. When caller asked about Hagee stating that God causing Katrina because homos, Medvved said it was a stupid, illogical statement made because pride parade happened week before Katrina. It was just a silly statement, at least he doesn’t hate America.

[equalizer]

FLU is “scary” right when he said
“that for someone that’s not going to win…Yes, that’s right. I don’t think he’s going to win the election. In fact, it would be a blessing for the Republicans if he wins the primary, and not Sen. Clinton… Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned. The media has been completely ignoring this story until now:
“Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051301359.html?sid=ST2008051301359

Thats why Miss. loss of another congressional district by Rep party doesn’t scare me. Like someone stated, Edwards couldn’t get NC voters to vote for his party in 04 pres election. I trust the good people in Miss and WV will come back into the fold and do the right thing in Nov.

BTW, Michael Medved called Hagee a good man today, called him a truce maker among religious groups. When caller asked about Hagee stating that God causing Katrina because homos, Medvved said it was a stupid, illogical statement made because pride parade happened week before Katrina. It was just a silly statement, at least he doesn’t hate America.

[equalizer]

FLU is “scary” right when he said
“that for someone that’s not going to win…Yes, that’s right. I don’t think he’s going to win the election. In fact, it would be a blessing for the Republicans if he wins the primary, and not Sen. Clinton… Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned. The media has been completely ignoring this story until now:
“Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051301359.html?sid=ST2008051301359

Thats why Miss. loss of another congressional district by Rep party doesn’t scare me. Like someone stated, Edwards couldn’t get NC voters to vote for his party in 04 pres election. I trust the good people in Miss and WV will come back into the fold and do the right thing in Nov.

BTW, Michael Medved called Hagee a good man today, called him a truce maker among religious groups. When caller asked about Hagee stating that God causing Katrina because homos, Medvved said it was a stupid, illogical statement made because pride parade happened week before Katrina. It was just a silly statement, at least he doesn’t hate America.

[equalizer]

FLU is “scary” right when he said
“that for someone that’s not going to win…Yes, that’s right. I don’t think he’s going to win the election. In fact, it would be a blessing for the Republicans if he wins the primary, and not Sen. Clinton… Why? Because there are enough backward-ass, redneck, bible humping, hillbillies in the south and throughout the country (probably even in SD) that would fear anyone that has any suspect muslim blood (real or not). All it would take would be some al qaeda looking dude (real or not) appearing on a web broadcast endorsing obama as a “brother”, and that would strike enough fear in these hillbillies to vote against him. In fact, that would be a perfect campaign strategy for the republicans to use..”

Pat Buchanan said today that WV voters are called “racist” hillbillies, but 95% black voters voting for Obama is not questioned. The media has been completely ignoring this story until now:
“Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/13/ST2008051301359.html?sid=ST2008051301359

Thats why Miss. loss of another congressional district by Rep party doesn’t scare me. Like someone stated, Edwards couldn’t get NC voters to vote for his party in 04 pres election. I trust the good people in Miss and WV will come back into the fold and do the right thing in Nov.

BTW, Michael Medved called Hagee a good man today, called him a truce maker among religious groups. When caller asked about Hagee stating that God causing Katrina because homos, Medvved said it was a stupid, illogical statement made because pride parade happened week before Katrina. It was just a silly statement, at least he doesn’t hate America.

[sd_matt]

Asiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.

Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.

I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.

My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.

[sd_matt]

Asiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.

Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.

I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.

My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.

[sd_matt]

Asiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.

Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.

I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.

My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.

[sd_matt]

Asiannautica; I didn’t mean to imply congress, I meant the president. The white base didn’t sit on its hands for Bush. He still got reelected.

Like I said before SDEngineer, there is much more tolerance for homophobia than for racism. Not that it’s fair, it is what it is. McCains disassociation from Hagee will be less painful than Obamas with Wright. We can debate this all day but time will tell. And I bet I am correct.

I think that the voters will go with what they know (even if they don’t like McCain all that much), this is what happened with GW vs Kerry. What did all the analyses say about Kerry before he lost? Last I remember he was projected to be the winner by the mainstream media.

My impression of McCain is that he doesn’t want to bail out anyone. It’s a coin toss whether he gives in to pressure from the right to bailout big business. I think you are correct that Obama will try to bail out the masses.

[afx114]

Not to mention Hagee’s stated goal of hastening the apocalypse in the Middle East…

He and his type WANT the apocalypse, so that they can be raptured to heaven and get their 72 virgin choir boys. Oh wait, sorry, I got my extremist religions mixed up there for a second…

[afx114]

Not to mention Hagee’s stated goal of hastening the apocalypse in the Middle East…

He and his type WANT the apocalypse, so that they can be raptured to heaven and get their 72 virgin choir boys. Oh wait, sorry, I got my extremist religions mixed up there for a second…

[afx114]

Not to mention Hagee’s stated goal of hastening the apocalypse in the Middle East…

He and his type WANT the apocalypse, so that they can be raptured to heaven and get their 72 virgin choir boys. Oh wait, sorry, I got my extremist religions mixed up there for a second…

[afx114]

Not to mention Hagee’s stated goal of hastening the apocalypse in the Middle East…

He and his type WANT the apocalypse, so that they can be raptured to heaven and get their 72 virgin choir boys. Oh wait, sorry, I got my extremist religions mixed up there for a second…

[picpoule]

sd_matt: I don’t think Obama/McCain contest will even be close. Obama wins handily. And no, white conservative base will not turn out for McCain. They will sit on their hands like they did in last election, handing Congress to the Democrats. Democrats will take more seats in Congress, get a veto-proof majority (with help of some RINOs) in Senate.

[picpoule]

sd_matt: I don’t think Obama/McCain contest will even be close. Obama wins handily. And no, white conservative base will not turn out for McCain. They will sit on their hands like they did in last election, handing Congress to the Democrats. Democrats will take more seats in Congress, get a veto-proof majority (with help of some RINOs) in Senate.

[picpoule]

sd_matt: I don’t think Obama/McCain contest will even be close. Obama wins handily. And no, white conservative base will not turn out for McCain. They will sit on their hands like they did in last election, handing Congress to the Democrats. Democrats will take more seats in Congress, get a veto-proof majority (with help of some RINOs) in Senate.

[picpoule]

sd_matt: I don’t think Obama/McCain contest will even be close. Obama wins handily. And no, white conservative base will not turn out for McCain. They will sit on their hands like they did in last election, handing Congress to the Democrats. Democrats will take more seats in Congress, get a veto-proof majority (with help of some RINOs) in Senate.

[sd_matt]

Ahh here it is…homosexuals causing Katrina….ooof that is a Doozey.

As it is, America is mostly Christian. The white majority won’t tolerate racism from Anyone, and while the boomers are still alive, homosexuality is still a sin here. So while both pastors are nuts, there will be more tolerance for Hagee. Engineer, what else did Hagee say besides Katrina? I haven’t found much.

Picpoule I’m guessing the white base will go for McCain.
He can bank on his reputation for pissing off the Repubs on a regular basis so as not to appear like a Bush number 2.

What do you think the race between McCain and Obama will be like?

[sd_matt]

Ahh here it is…homosexuals causing Katrina….ooof that is a Doozey.

As it is, America is mostly Christian. The white majority won’t tolerate racism from Anyone, and while the boomers are still alive, homosexuality is still a sin here. So while both pastors are nuts, there will be more tolerance for Hagee. Engineer, what else did Hagee say besides Katrina? I haven’t found much.

Picpoule I’m guessing the white base will go for McCain.
He can bank on his reputation for pissing off the Repubs on a regular basis so as not to appear like a Bush number 2.

What do you think the race between McCain and Obama will be like?

[sd_matt]

Ahh here it is…homosexuals causing Katrina….ooof that is a Doozey.

As it is, America is mostly Christian. The white majority won’t tolerate racism from Anyone, and while the boomers are still alive, homosexuality is still a sin here. So while both pastors are nuts, there will be more tolerance for Hagee. Engineer, what else did Hagee say besides Katrina? I haven’t found much.

Picpoule I’m guessing the white base will go for McCain.
He can bank on his reputation for pissing off the Repubs on a regular basis so as not to appear like a Bush number 2.

What do you think the race between McCain and Obama will be like?

[sd_matt]

Ahh here it is…homosexuals causing Katrina….ooof that is a Doozey.

As it is, America is mostly Christian. The white majority won’t tolerate racism from Anyone, and while the boomers are still alive, homosexuality is still a sin here. So while both pastors are nuts, there will be more tolerance for Hagee. Engineer, what else did Hagee say besides Katrina? I haven’t found much.

Picpoule I’m guessing the white base will go for McCain.
He can bank on his reputation for pissing off the Repubs on a regular basis so as not to appear like a Bush number 2.

What do you think the race between McCain and Obama will be like?

[sd_matt]

..oops, Were Not nice people….

[sd_matt]

..oops, Were Not nice people….

[sd_matt]

..oops, Were Not nice people….

[sd_matt]

..oops, Were Not nice people….

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[sd_matt]

You didn’t watch Wrights videos. “….Americas chickens are coming home to roost….We bombed Hiroshima, We bombed Nagasaki…and we didn’t bat an eye…”

Anyone who has read a page of history knows that it was the Atom bomb or a land invasion that would left the only remaining living Japanese at Manzanar, not to mention the 500k American soldiers that were saved.

I just watched Hagees sermons. Clearly he doesnt like the Catholic Church or Islam. But where are the conspiracy theories?

If a pastor was ranting about what the “Queers are doing to the soil….” would you give him 20 years? I wouldn’t give him 20 seconds.

I don’t deny that the Bautistas, Mobutu, Hussein, the Shah, and so on were nice people to support. What does that have to do with Wrights conspiracists comments? Hagees comments are nutty just as would be those from the local Imam or Rabbi. Again where are the conspiracy comments?

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[SDEngineer]

sd_matt –

Actually, I inferred nothing of the sort – I was simply pointing out that McCain can be directly connected to policies that aren’t playing very well now (by direct quotation), while Obama can only be connected by inference from associations.

McCain, for example, has frequently attended John Hagee’s sermons. Do I think that means he necessarily believes everything that comes out of John Hagee’s mouth (and there have been some doozies)? Of course not.

Certainly you can’t dig up (or at least the right hasn’t been able to dig up, and I have no doubt they’re trying VERY hard) anything which connects Obama directly to those inflammatory opinions of Rev. Wright’s. It’s simply not there, and while we can speculate endlessly on why Obama stuck with Wright as his pastor for many years, it doesn’t appear that those particular opinions have “rubbed off” so to speak on Obama.

I don’t remember a comment about an atom bomb though? Are you referring to his “bomb Pakistan” statement? I don’t believe he mentioned nukes, and I think it was clear from context (said context omitted by the soundbites that most of the right wing talking heads have replayed over and over) that he was referring to limited bombing of known high-value targets – much as Bush has done on actionable intelligence (and Clinton before him, and Bush Sr. before him, and Reagan before him). Our country violating another’s sovereignity has occurred repeatedly by every administration I can recall, as long as there was a very solid reason, and the country who’s sovereignity we violated was unreasonable in attending to an issue related to our national security located within their borders.

EDITED TO ADD: Ok, I found his nukes comment (at least the only one I could find) where he said that “nukes were not on the table” to get terrorists. I don’t really find anything objectionable on that. IMO, using nukes as anything but a last ditch deterrent is a foolish geopolitical move (and very destabilizing).

Oh, and as for fringe-left? Not really. Definitely left-wing on social issues, but center-left on most economic ones. Fringe though on neither, unless you define fringe with a very wide brush.

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[sd_matt]

SDEngineer..I smell fringe left from you. You inferred from my comment that I am a republican. I never said whether or not I’m voting for McCain.

Reverend Wright preaches a black version of “Separate but Equal”

If a right wing hack like Hannity can shut up Wright for a few seconds by quoting Dr.King then something just ain’t real about Wright.

And theres the ginormeously stupid comment about the atom bomb….I suppose you too think there was a better alternative. Please indulge me.

[Bugs]

As a nominal conservative, I don’t think the GOP can win this election. However, I do think that the Democrats can lose it. They have repeatedly proven their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Going forward they’re going to have to play it smart if they want to win. I’m pretty sure they have the margin to win right now, but I don’t think they have the margin to be stupid.

[Bugs]

As a nominal conservative, I don’t think the GOP can win this election. However, I do think that the Democrats can lose it. They have repeatedly proven their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Going forward they’re going to have to play it smart if they want to win. I’m pretty sure they have the margin to win right now, but I don’t think they have the margin to be stupid.

[Bugs]

As a nominal conservative, I don’t think the GOP can win this election. However, I do think that the Democrats can lose it. They have repeatedly proven their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Going forward they’re going to have to play it smart if they want to win. I’m pretty sure they have the margin to win right now, but I don’t think they have the margin to be stupid.

[Bugs]

As a nominal conservative, I don’t think the GOP can win this election. However, I do think that the Democrats can lose it. They have repeatedly proven their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Going forward they’re going to have to play it smart if they want to win. I’m pretty sure they have the margin to win right now, but I don’t think they have the margin to be stupid.

[equalizer]

I’m not scared of Wes cause he was allegedly fired by Sec of Def Cohen for integrity and character issues. Thats that 10 word byline that voters will remember and that he wants to go faster than speed of light.

I’d be more scared of Jim Webb, a pro-gun Virginian, maybe tie down resources in VA for repbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[equalizer]

I’m not scared of Wes cause he was allegedly fired by Sec of Def Cohen for integrity and character issues. Thats that 10 word byline that voters will remember and that he wants to go faster than speed of light.

I’d be more scared of Jim Webb, a pro-gun Virginian, maybe tie down resources in VA for repbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[equalizer]

I’m not scared of Wes cause he was allegedly fired by Sec of Def Cohen for integrity and character issues. Thats that 10 word byline that voters will remember and that he wants to go faster than speed of light.

I’d be more scared of Jim Webb, a pro-gun Virginian, maybe tie down resources in VA for repbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[equalizer]

I’m not scared of Wes cause he was allegedly fired by Sec of Def Cohen for integrity and character issues. Thats that 10 word byline that voters will remember and that he wants to go faster than speed of light.

I’d be more scared of Jim Webb, a pro-gun Virginian, maybe tie down resources in VA for repbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[afx114]

I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

[afx114]

I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

[afx114]

I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

[afx114]

I’m guessing Obama will go with Wes Clark, because:

– Military strength to combat McCain’s only plus.
– He’s a Hillary supporter – unify the party.
– He ran in ’04, people already kinda know about him.
– He’s a handsome white dude (calm the nerves of the people afraid to vote for an ‘angry black muslim america-hater’).

[NotCranky]

Could running mate selections really change things?

Obama will likely have a white male, more center running mate?

McCain chooses someone who attracts people he doesn’t and looks like a good replacement in case he dies?

It would be interesting to have a birds-eye view of the strategies contemplated.

[NotCranky]

Could running mate selections really change things?

Obama will likely have a white male, more center running mate?

McCain chooses someone who attracts people he doesn’t and looks like a good replacement in case he dies?

It would be interesting to have a birds-eye view of the strategies contemplated.