Obama clinches nomination, Hillary open to being VP

[Name Lips]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/)


AP: Obama has delegates to clinch nomination
Tally follows Clinton sources saying she's ready to acknowledge

CHICAGO - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, the Associated Press reported, citing its tally of convention delegates. He would become the first black candidate ever to lead a major U.S. party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Hillary Rodham Clinton later told New York lawmakers she would be open to being Obama's vice presidential candidate in the latest message from her campaign.

NBC News has been maintaining its own tally of delegates, which stood at Obama being 27.5 delegates short of the 2,118 needed.

The AP tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

NBC News said it would not confirm Obama as the presumptive nominee until all private commitments by delegates were made public.

Two sources with the Clinton campaign earlier Tuesday said she will acknowledge that Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination. After that report, her campaign promptly issued a statement saying, "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

But the statement did not say Clinton wouldn't acknowledge Obama's delegate count, a move that would effectively end her bid to be the nation's first female president.

The AP report, which cited two campaign sources, said the former first lady would stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City, but that for all intents and purposes the campaign was over.

Harold Ickes, a top campaign official, said that Clinton would not drop out of the race. Asked on MSNBC what she would say if, after primaries Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota, Obama had enough delegates to clinch the nomination, he replied: "She will say what she will say when she says it."

Earlier on the TODAY show, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Tuesday that once Obama gets the majority of convention delegates, "I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him and call him the nominee."

The outcome could come by the end of the day with some choreography by the party's superdelegates. The party insiders were lining up behind Obama at a rate that could seal the nomination once results are in from Montana and South Dakota — or even before.

Challenge unlikely
Clinton, once seen as a sure bet in her historic quest to become the first female president, was still pressing the superdelegates to support her fading candidacy. But McAuliffe indicated she was not inclined to drag out a dispute over delegates from the unsanctioned Michigan primary despite feeling shortchanged by a weekend compromise by the party's rules committee that she could still appeal to a higher level.

"I don't think she's going to go to the credentials committee," he said on NBC's "Today" show. Taking the matter to that committee would essentially extend the dispute into the convention and deny Democrats the unity they sorely want to achieve against Republican John McCain.

However, the campaign was upset that the AP report came out as voters were still going to the polls.

Meantime, seeing the cards fall into place for his November rival, McCain planned a prime time speech Tuesday night in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner, La., in what is essentially a kickoff of the fall campaign.

Big endorsement
On Tuesday, House Majority Whip and unpledged delegate James Clyburn told the TODAY show that he was throwing his support behind Obama.

"I believe the nomination of Senator Obama is our party's best chance for victory in November, and our nation's best hope for much needed change," the South Carolina representative said.

"Once the last votes are cast, then it's in everybody's interest to resolve this quickly so we can pivot," he added.

Obama has said there were a lot of superdelegates who have been private supporters of his but wanted to respect the process by not endorsing until the final primaries were done.

"We're still working the phones and we're still talking to people ... so we'll certainly have to wait until a little later tonight to see what the final tally is, but we certainly feel good waking up this morning," Robert Gibbs, Obama's spokesman, told CNN on Tuesday.

In a defiant shot across the GOP bow, Obama, who returned to hometown Chicago late Monday, planned to hold his wrap-up rally in St. Paul, Minn., at the arena that will be the site of the Republican National Convention in September.

Clinton rally in NYC
Clinton returned to New York, the state she represents in the Senate, planning an end-of-primary evening rally in Manhattan after a grueling campaign finale as she pushed through South Dakota on Monday.

"I'm just very grateful we kept this campaign going until South Dakota would have the last word," she said at a restaurant in Rapid City in one of her final campaign stops. Polls suggested Obama would win both South Dakota and Montana.

She still sounded buoyant. Her biggest booster and most tireless campaigner, husband Bill Clinton, didn't. "This may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind," the former president said somberly as he stumped for her in South Dakota.

Ahead of Tuesday's concluding primaries, Obama sought to set the stage for reconciliation, praising Clinton's endurance and determination and offering to meet with her — on her terms — "once the dust settles" from their race.

"The sooner we can bring the party together, the sooner we can start focusing on McCain in November," Obama told reporters in Michigan. He said he spoke with Clinton on Sunday when he called to congratulate her on winning the Puerto Rico primary, most likely her last hurrah.

That fueled speculation for a "dream ticket" in which Clinton would become Obama's running mate — but neither camp was suggesting that was much of a possibility.

In the AP interview, Obama was asked when he would start looking for a running mate.

"The day after I have gotten that last delegate needed to officially claim the nomination, I'll start thinking about vice presidential nominees," he said. "It's a very important decision, and it's one where I'm going to have to take some time."

Clinton finished a whirlwind four days of campaigning that took her from New York to Puerto Rico to South Dakota and back. For a campaign pushing against long odds, it was a show of determination.

The former first lady, suffering from a recurrent cough, had to cede the microphone to her daughter Chelsea twice Monday as she struggled to recover her voice. Chelsea promptly took the opportunity — to discuss health care.

I don't think Obama will take her as a running mate. His whole schtick is throwing out the old guard and renovating Washington, and the Clintons represent the Old Way of doing things.

[Limper]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/)



I don't think Obama will take her as a running mate. His whole schtick is throwing out the old guard and renovating Washington, and the Clintons represent the Old Way of doing things.

My guess is if he takes her McCain stands a very good chance at winning.

[Lady Fury]

My guess is if he takes her McCain stands a very good chance at winning.

I think he's smart enough to know that Clinton would be a bad choice as a running. I won't vote for him if he does choose her.

[Hatter]

I would have reservations voting for him in that case too.

[Limper]

I think he's smart enough to know that Clinton would be a bad choice as a running. I won't vote for him if he does choose her.

Congress is Democrats so I'm not voting for him on that basis alone... gridlock is the only way to vote cause letting one party have free reign is a horrid idea.

God I wish we had more parties and coallitions.

[Lady Fury]

Congress is Democrats so I'm not voting for him on that basis alone... gridlock is the only way to vote cause letting one party have free reign is a horrid idea.

God I wish we had more parties and coallitions.

You are right. I don't know if this country could handle a total party rule. But then I don't think things can get any worse than they are now.

I'm torn. I really like Obama but McCain also has a lot of strengths that I like as well. It's going to be really difficult decision this time around.

[Name Lips]

I think we need some total-democrat rule to counteract the years of rubber-stamp congress - both democrat and republican - that Bush enjoyed for most of his term.

[Limper]

I think we need some total-democrat rule to counteract the years of rubber-stamp congress - both democrat and republican - that Bush enjoyed for most of his term.

Hippy.:)

[Space Cadet B^3]

I've seen reports on both sides, I don't think anything's official.

If he chooses her as his running mate, it goes against his whole "bringing new faces to D.C." plank.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I never thought it could be possible, but the Democrats really *are* going to throw away this election - and they'll have no-one to blame but themselves. You'd think the party that nominated Carter, Mondale and Kerry would have learned its lesson by now...

Clinton would be mad to join a losing ticket. She needs to campaign for him as hard as she can and then say "I told you so" when McCain whips his ass in November.

Hell, even if he stands a chance, he shouldn't taker her as a VP. All he has is symbolism, and taking her would tarnish his rep with naive fools who support him. His only other choice would be to take her and adopt most of her policies, but that would pretty much be admitting that she was right all along - and I just don't see "the precious" being big enough to do that (though Edwards might pressure him into doing so on health care).

McCain 08: Hey, at least he'll only serve one term.

[Teve]

God I wish we had more parties and coallitions.

http://www.silentpc.org/third.php

The only way to effect change is to vote for what you believe, not the lesser of two evils. Vote for any third party. I prefer the Libertarian party; vote Constitution, Green or Peace and Freedom if that is what you believe. Don't waste your vote on a Demon-ublican or Repulic-Rat, they are the same vile fluid in different bottles.

Half of registered voters don't vote. Not voting is not a protest; not voting is submission to those who would run your life for you. A third party vote by a significant number of citizens will be noticed. If you want to move the two parties apart, and create real debate, give voice to your protest by voting for any third party.

So long as the two major parties control the vast majority of votes, they will control the electoral process so as to exclude effective third party participation. If we can expand third party voting we can seek equal representation in debates and coverage. Vocal, growing third parties will cause the major two to split apart, offering Americans more viable options.

If just half of those who are registered and don't vote, vote third party, there will be some real changes in the ol' USA. Someone once said if voting were really effective, it would be illegal. Let's make it more effective and find out. Thomas Jefferson felt an election should be a minor revolution, each election a chance to create something new.

We need a voter's revolution to reverse the errors of the last fifty years. Protest and make your vote count:
Vote for any third party.

[Space Cadet B^3]

If you have ANY preference between the candidates running now, vote for them, voting 3rd won't do anything until we have fundamental change.

I used to believe in the power of people to change things, any more, not so much. Go Obama, blow the winds of change up all our asses!

[Teve]

If you have ANY preference between the candidates running now, vote for them, voting 3rd won't do anything until we have fundamental change.

I used to believe in the power of people to change things, any more, not so much. Go Obama, blow the winds of change up all our asses!

If you live in a state (like yours) where the vote is assured one way or the other (KS always votes republican) 3rd party is the right way to vote. (unless you actually like one of the major parties)
Maybe I'm crazy but I still think my vote counts, and I won't cast it towards someone I don't agree with. Obama sees my vote (and every vote he gets) as approval, I will not give him that, period. I will vote against him, and McCain, and anyone else I don't believe in.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I fear your movement will doom our country. Anything that pulls a vote from Obama mean the New Bush Era begins. While I agree with it's goals, I fear it's pragmatic results.

I know it's just opinion, but I'm voting for Obama, who's been my guy since Super Tuesday, not just because I want that fresh air, but because I'm tired of smelling the same stench of decay in Washington.

[Singularity]

You are right. I don't know if this country could handle a total party rule. But then I don't think things can get any worse than they are now.

We had one party rule for six years under the Republinazis. Things got as bad as they are now because of them. As much as I like McCaine for his moderate stances, I believe that his administration would just be a continuiation of the Bush whitehouse's failed policies. Not a good idea, regardless of who Obama picks as his running mate.

And in other news, Hillary was saying that she had no intention to concede and that the reporter of this story was wrong.

In other news, the party has officially told her that it's over already. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_RDP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-03-13-35-21

I agree that she would not make a very good running mate for Obama. I hope he picks Edwards, since he'll do more to secure the sex crazed female vote than Hillary ever would.

[Teve]

I fear your movement will doom our country. Anything that pulls a vote from Obama mean the New Bush Era begins. While I agree with it's goals, I fear it's pragmatic results.

I know it's just opinion, but I'm voting for Obama, who's been my guy since Super Tuesday, not just because I want that fresh air, but because I'm tired of smelling the same stench of decay in Washington.

Ahh but I feel that everyone who does not approve of either major candidate voted for a 3rd party candidate we would see MAJOR change. We are all sick of the same stench, but I believe that it comes from both major parties. You fear my movement will doom our country. I believe this movement is the only one that will change our country

Though I understand the fear most have of voting 3rd parties. But truth be known the majority of the country is fed up and does not like the options... well we just need to band together for another/better option. It is the fear that our vote doesn't count that holds us captive.

I don't expect to change your mind, good thing we like each other :D

[Singularity]

I agree with Space Cadet. I think it's entirely possible that Gore would have won in 2000 if Nader hadn't muddied things with his green party. I'm all for change, but I think it needs to come during an election year where we don't have so much at stake, or at a time between the major election cycle. A third party right now as a pseudo-candidate will only pull away from one or the other, and this time around this country cannot take the strain of another four years of failed policies.

[Teve]

I agree with Space Cadet. I think it's entirely possible that Gore would have won in 2000 if Nader hadn't muddied things with his green party. I'm all for change, but I think it needs to come during an election year where we don't have so much at stake, or at a time between the major election cycle. A third party right now as a pseudo-candidate will only pull away from one or the other, and this time around this country cannot take the strain of another four years of failed policies.

why can't we elect that 3rd party candidate? http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

[Singularity]

why can't we elect that 3rd party candidate? http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Because as much as a lot of people would like to see that, it's not going to happen any time soon. They can't raise the same amount of funding, and because at this point in the campaign they're unknowns as candidates.

What would have to happen for a third party to actually win is one of the major players from one of the existing parties would have to quit their party and start a new one. They would have to do it after a significant amount of campaigning and money spent, and they would have to have a shit-ton of money behind them.

[Teve]

but if people like you and me and bbb voted 3rd party, one we believed in. And we donated our $5's and $10's to the campaign, and encouraged our friends who do not educate themselves to the alternatives....

But I agree with you, it will not happen in a long time. The few good Libertarians that have gotten in to major office have done so because they ran as republicans. But I don't think that is the right way either, because then those who don't pay attention to what is going on around them don't see that it is Libertarian policies that got elected, they think it's new republicans.

Lets face it, it is fear, apathy, indifference and impotence that keep this country from changing... We don't look ahead at what is coming... we bitch and bitch, and then do nothing. It is lucky to get 1/2 of us to even come to the polls every 4 years let alone at the local level.
I don't just blame those governing, I mostly blame us, the people.

Have we forgotten what revolution means... well, I guess that won't matter when the democrats take our firearms, and spend us all into poverty but then the republicans take away so many other rights.

[Singularity]

Lets face it, it is fear, apathy, indifference and impotence that keep this country from changing... We don't look ahead at what is coming... we bitch and bitch, and then do nothing. It is lucky to get 1/2 of us to even come to the polls every 4 years let alone at the local level.
I don't just blame those governing, I mostly blame us, the people.

Democracy is dying a slow death. The real question is whether we slide into socialism or fascism. I'll take socialism any day of the week.

[Teve]

Democracy is dying a slow death. The real question is whether we slide into socialism or fascism. I'll take socialism any day of the week.

We DO NOT have to slide to either. I will fight to avoid both, and I'll never quit fighting, even if I'm alone in that fight

[Singularity]

We DO NOT have to slide to either. I will fight to avoid both, and I'll never quit fighting, even if I'm alone in that fight

You may care and I may care, but the vast majority of the people in this country are complacent idiots who will follow the most charismatic SOB who makes it into office. Worse, most people just don't give a shit, never bothered to pay attention in class, and don't really know why they should care about liberty, freedom, or the blood shed to gain and protect those things. Once you've lost the people, you get stupid things, like two terms of a Bush presidency.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hillary jsut gave the most impressive victory speech I've ever seen. :shock:

Man that woman has balls.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Apparently, Hillary Clinton is conceding nothing. She is staying in.
Since the Superdelegates can vote for whoever they wish, the battle continues.

[Singularity]

Apparently, Hillary Clinton is conceding nothing. She is staying in.
Since the Superdelegates can vote for whoever they wish, the battle continues.

She'll concede. It's just a matter of time now. Obama isn't going to waste any more energy on her at this point.

[Edena_of_Neith]

I agree.
However Clinton herself, may wish to duke this out all the way to November. I guess that's the Big Question we are all asking: what will Hillary Clinton do?

(shrugs)

Beats me on what Clinton will do. I can only make guesses.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

She'll concede. It's just a matter of time now. Obama isn't going to waste any more energy on her at this point.

Go listen to her speech. I wouldn't be so sure...

[Harry]

She'll concede. It's just a matter of time now. Obama isn't going to waste any more energy on her at this point.

You do know that if it weren't for the declared super-delegates showing their hands early, this wouldn't be a shoe-in situation with Obama.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You do know that if it weren't for the declared super-delegates showing their hands early, this wouldn't be a shoe-in situation with Obama.

And super-delegates can change their mind at any time before the first ballot.

This thing isn't over until one of the two candidates has pulled out or the last ballot is cast on the Convention floor. And I'm not sure Hillary is planning to pull out any time soon.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Neither Obama nor Clinton have enough pledged delegates to win.
To win, they must have enough superdelegate votes on top of their pledged delegates ... and the superdelegates (regardless of any early announcements) can change their minds at any time.

So, we have - what? - Obama with around 1,800 pledged delegates and Clinton with around 1,700. To win, each must have a majority of the superdelegates as well, to achieve the 2,150 vote mark.

So, we have a number of possibilities:

- Clinton may go ahead and concede
- Clinton may go into all out war
- Something in between

[Atticus_of_Amber]

And super-delegates can change their mind at any time before the first ballot.

This thing isn't over until one of the two candidates has pulled out or the last ballot is cast on the Convention floor. And I'm not sure Hillary is planning to pull out any time soon.

Of course I should add that, no matter how stupid one thinks Obama is as a choice for nominee, there has to come a point where Hillary should fall in behind him for the cmpaign.

[Hatter]

Neither Obama nor Clinton have enough pledged delegates to win.
To win, they must have enough superdelegate votes on top of their pledged delegates ... and the superdelegates (regardless of any early announcements) can change their minds at any time.

So, we have - what? - Obama with around 1,800 pledged delegates and Clinton with around 1,700. To win, each must have a majority of the superdelegates as well, to achieve the 2,150 vote mark.

So, we have a number of possibilities:

- Clinton may go ahead and concede
- Clinton may go into all out war
- Something in between
The first is likely, she'll lose support at this point if she takes it to a fight on the convention floor.

[GreyOne]

Atticus, you're the Lanny David of Kay Tastrophe.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Did anyone catch both Clinton and Obama's speeches?

Clinton's was fantastic, the best I've ever seen her give (which, admittedly, is a low standard) - but it was weird that she gave a victory ("On to the White House!") speech in these circumstance. That woman sure has chutzpah.

On the others side of the style/substance dichotomy, I got bored with Obama's empty oratory a long time ago, but am I the only one that found tonight's rendition of Kumbayah particularly nauseating? There's no doubt I'm baised on such a subjective question of whether a speech gives you a liberal clit-boner, but I swear I've seen Bush seem more genuine and authentic.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Prediction, FWIW.

McCain beats Obama in the general because:
- independents vote for McCain
- working class whites vote for McCain
- women over 40 stay at home

Obama racks up huge majorities in blue states (resulting in him coming very close to McCain in the popular vote) but loses the red and battleground states.

Despite McCain's win, the Democrats increase their majorities in both the Senate and the House.

When older women get asked how they could let the GOP back in when Roe v Wade was on the table, they respond, "I'm all done having kids - and its time the little sisters learned to appreciate what feminism is all about. Welcome to the barricades girls!"

Clinton emerges as a leading figure in the Senate, in many ways replacing Teddy Kennedy. But, to everyone's surprise, she does not run, and refuses to be drafted, in 2012.

[Limper]

why can't we elect that 3rd party candidate? http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Thats easy most of the third party candidates we've seen have been wackadoodles and nut jobs.

[obryn]

Did anyone catch both Clinton and Obama's speeches?

Clinton's was fantastic, the best I've ever seen her give (which, admittedly, is a low standard) - but it was weird that she gave a victory ("On to the White House!") speech in these circumstance. That woman sure has chutzpah.

On the others side of the style/substance dichotomy, I got bored with Obama's empty oratory a long time ago, but am I the only one that found tonight's rendition of Kumbayah particularly nauseating? There's no doubt I'm baised on such a subjective question of whether a speech gives you a liberal clit-boner, but I swear I've seen Bush seem more genuine and authentic.
I think you're ... well ... nuts.

I watched all three speeches last night, with Obama being the last one. McCain was horrible - really, he should have stayed home tonight. Clinton had a chance to start bringing the party back together, but instead she repeated basically what she's been saying for the past few months. She's also keeping up with her crazy vote math that has no basis in reality, and after she's already lost, she's sticking to her platform that she's the better candidate. Obama didn't particularly break any new ground - but he reaffirmed my belief he'd make a great president, and gave a speech in which he was very gracious to both Clinton and McCain.

My expectation is that - especially after tonight - Clinton will not get the VP nod. Obama can't look weak or wishy-washy, and after her speech that basically said "Screw him, I'm still the better choice!" picking her would be akin to giving in to blackmail.

What I expect to see is something I haven't seen a candidate do before. Obama's been talking about Clinton and other opponents having important roles in his administration. He has to convince people that he's a decent judge of character as well, and that if he isn't experienced, he'll at the very least have experienced advisors. I'm expecting - eventually - that he will announce both VP and cabinet simultaneously, and that Clinton will be in the latter group, along with at least a handful of Republicans.

-O

[Hatter]

Clinton should go for a SCOTUS nomination instead of a cabinet position.

Also Atticus, are you sucking her dick or something? Jesus Christ, I've not met a more fervent supporter whose vote actually counted.

[Singularity]

Clinton should go for a SCOTUS nomination instead of a cabinet position.

Also Atticus, are you sucking her dick or something? Jesus Christ, I've not met a more fervent supporter whose vote actually counted.

No kidding. Even when I did support her, I was never as much of a fanboi as Atticus is.

[obryn]

No kidding. Even when I did support her, I was never as much of a fanboi as Atticus is.
As GreyOne said, he's this board's Lanny Davis.

I was dead-set against her as a VP nod, then when she toned down the rhetoric I was great with the possibility, and after last night I'm back to wanting her far away from the presidency. I don't think "I'm the better candidate for President and people like me better" is a good argument towards a VP position.

People have accused Obama of being unrealistic. I don't get that impression - I think he's idealistic, but knows that there are some major fights up ahead. She, however, is not grounded in reality right now. She's inventing her own electoral math, changing the goalposts, and pretending America hasn't made a decision through the electoral process.

Last night, she urged people to go to her website and tell her whether or not she should run.

So, I went to her website to say no. Astonishingly, the only option was "I'm proud of you Hillary, and I'm proud of everything we're fighting for!" There was no place to put, "Please work with Obama towards beating McCain in November, because you're no longer helping." You could add a comment, but do you really think anyone will read the tens of thousands of comments? I don't.

-O

[Singularity]

Hey, at this point, if Hillary steals the nomination by manipulating the superdelegate count, my decision as a voter is easy. I'll vote for McCain.

[obryn]

Hey, at this point, if Hillary steals the nomination by manipulating the superdelegate count, my decision as a voter is easy. I'll vote for McCain.
I won't. I'm still a Democrat, and I'd rather have her than McCain. Policy is more important than personality.

I'd push for a major overhaul of party rules, though.

-O

[Limper]

I won't. I'm still a Democrat, and I'd rather have her than McCain. Policy is more important than personality.

I'd push for a major overhaul of party rules, though.

-O

I'm curious as to why? You have property and I'd guess a decent income and are probably accruing assets... why vote for the party that makes that harder or wants to punish you for trying to get ahead?

[obryn]

I'm curious as to why? You have property and I'd guess a decent income and are probably accruing assets... why vote for the party that makes that harder or wants to punish you for trying to get ahead?
You're so cute when you're snarky. :blowkiss:

-O

[Name Lips]

I'm curious as to why? You have property and I'd guess a decent income and are probably accruing assets... why vote for the party that makes that harder or wants to punish you for trying to get ahead?

As opposed to the party who stomps on the people who are left behind? :tongue:

[Limper]

You're so cute when you're snarky. :blowkiss:

-O

So I take it from that, that you haven't thought of why?

[Limper]

As opposed to the party who stomps on the people who are left behind? :tongue:

The easy solution to that is don't fall behind.

[Name Lips]

Ah, the "those who fall behind must deserve it, because it's their own fault they didn't get ahead" philosophy.

[Trainz]

The easy solution to that is don't fall behind.

Heh.

You're so cute when you're all rednecky and shit.

:cool:

[Singularity]

The easy solution to that is don't fall behind.

Yeah, right. Like the average person can control whether or not the company they work for is going to downsize. Like any of us have any control over the price of gas, food, the number of jobs with health benefits, or the wage that they're willing to pay. Sorry, but not falling behind doesn't take reality into account. The plain and simple fact is that this country currently has a culture of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Why support the party that has made this possible when we could try to get things back into balance and make sure that all people have the right to a decent life?

And yes, I did just say that I would consider voting for McCain if Hillary manages to steal the nomination. McCain has proven himself to be a moderate time and time again, often transcending the party's interest for what he believes is right.

In short, I don't think we can lose in this election with the candidates we have to pick from. I just don't like the way Hillary is conducting herself.

[Limper]

Yeah, right. Like the average person can control whether or not the company they work for is going to downsize. Like any of us have any control over the price of gas, food, the number of jobs with health benefits, or the wage that they're willing to pay. Sorry, but not falling behind doesn't take reality into account. The plain and simple fact is that this country currently has a culture of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Why support the party that has made this possible when we could try to get things back into balance and make sure that all people have the right to a decent life?

Don't spend more than you make, live beneath your means and work hard and don't give up and you will succede. The culture doesn't steal from the poor the culture is to spend like you haven't a clue in your head and bitch when things go bad for you. The culture of irresponsibility.

And yes, I did just say that I would consider voting for McCain if Hillary manages to steal the nomination. McCain has proven himself to be a moderate time and time again, often transcending the party's interest for what he believes is right.

Moderates are better than zealots.

In short, I don't think we can lose in this election with the candidates we have to pick from. I just don't like the way Hillary is conducting herself.

I see it as we lose regardless in this election just like every election I can remember. Republicans and Democrats are both derelict in their duties and should be tossed out on their ears.

[obryn]

So I take it from that, that you haven't thought of why?
Of course I've thought of why.

I want him elected because I expect he install a mosque in the white house, force all senators to swear on the Koran, make Jeremiah Wright the secretary of state, dismantle the military, force every woman to have at least 1 abortion, make everyone marry everyone else, and then bathe in the blood of all the Christians he's sacrificed to his dark Kenyan tribal gods as a celebratory measure.

What's not to love?

-O

[Limper]

Ah, the "those who fall behind must deserve it, because it's their own fault they didn't get ahead" philosophy.

As compared to the "I shouldn't have to try very hard to get everything I want out of life" philosophy.

[Limper]

Of course I've thought of why.

I want him elected because I expect he install a mosque in the white house, force all senators to swear on the Koran, make Jeremiah Wright the secretary of state, dismantle the military, force every woman to have at least 1 abortion, make everyone marry everyone else, and then bathe in the blood of all the Christians he's sacrificed to his dark Kenyan tribal gods as a celebratory measure.

What's not to love?

-O

If that was the platform I'd vote for him for the humor of it.

[Limper]

Heh.

You're so cute when you're all rednecky and shit.

:cool:

French Canadian Hippy!

[Singularity]

Don't spend more than you make, live beneath your means and work hard and don't give up and you will succede. The culture doesn't steal from the poor the culture is to spend like you haven't a clue in your head and bitch when things go bad for you. The culture of irresponsibility.

Personal experience has shown me that this is not always possible. Also, how do you live beneath your means when they are constantly increasing the cost of living without increasing wages? What might have been possible a year or two ago may not be possible today because of the stagflation we currently have going on and the limited job opportunities that presently exist. To say that it is possible for every person to succeed who tries their hardest is to deny the fact that there are currently a lot more people in this country than there are good jobs. There are more working people in this country than there are jobs with health benefits. The Republican party wants you to deny reality so that they can continue to reap the rewards of social irresponsibility.

Moderates are better than zealots.

I totally agree.

I see it as we lose regardless in this election just like every election I can remember. Republicans and Democrats are both derelict in their duties and should be tossed out on their ears.

After the last eight years, I have a hard time seeing our situation getting worse because of bad leadership. The people we have as candidates are competent enough to turn things around and undo the damage of 8 years of Bush. I think we would have the greatest results with a president that is ideologically opposed to Bush, which is why I support Obama. McCain would be a step in the right direction, but probably not a step far enough.

[Name Lips]

As compared to the "I shouldn't have to try very hard to get everything I want out of life" philosophy.
The Republican philosophy always fails to address people who work very hard their whole lives, and get nothing for it. They're at the bottom of the pile not because they're lazy, but because they're simply mediocre people who aren't going to get anywhere no matter how hard they work.

Republicans look at these people and say, "You don't deserve to be healthy. You don't deserve to be happy. You deserve poverty, disease, and the scorn of your betters. If you just worked harder, you'd be like me. Superior."

And they wonder why the lower class harbors resentment...

[Hatter]

I think McCain would make a fine president, but I'm still undecided. If Hillary pulls a coup somehow it'd be easy for me to switch my vote to the Republicans.

[Singularity]

The Republican philosophy always fails to address people who work very hard their whole lives, and get nothing for it. They're at the bottom of the pile not because they're lazy, but because they're simply mediocre people who aren't going to get anywhere no matter how hard they work.

And people who have to contend with circumstances beyond their control such as ongoing health issues.

Republicans look at these people and say, "You don't deserve to be healthy. You don't deserve to be happy. You deserve poverty, disease, and the scorn of your betters. If you just worked harder, you'd be like me. Superior."

And they wonder why the lower class harbors resentment...

Exactly. Nevermind the fact that since they control the deck, they stack it in their favor, thus keeping people on the bottom, no matter how hard they might try to improve their lives.

[Limper]

The Republican philosophy always fails to address people who work very hard their whole lives, and get nothing for it. They're at the bottom of the pile not because they're lazy, but because they're simply mediocre people who aren't going to get anywhere no matter how hard they work.



Dubbya made it to the White House and never did a day of work in his life... so tell me again how the mediocre don't get anywhere.

[Singularity]

Dubbya made it to the White House and never did a day of work in his life... so tell me again how the mediocre don't get anywhere.

He came from wealth. Wealth begets wealth and power. Now if he had started out as lower middle class, then that might mean something.

[Hatter]

And they wonder why the lower class harbors resentment...

Much of the lower class votes republican on the social conservative plank.

[SpikeyFreak]

As compared to the "I shouldn't have to try very hard to get everything I want out of life" philosophy.
That's a really, really, ignorant and selfish post.

-- :boggle: Spikey

[Limper]

That's a really, really, ignorant and selfish post.

-- :boggle: Spikey


Did I just expose your inner beliefs and crush your aspirations... or lack there of?

[Name Lips]

Man, I love these conservative/liberal slapfests. Reminds me of the good ol' days. :D

[Space Cadet B^3]

I got my new Obama bumper sticker yesterday and put it on my new truck. :)

[Limper]

I got my new Obama bumper sticker yesterday and put it on my new truck. :)

Obama on a gasguzzler.... I love it!

[Limper]

Man, I love these conservative/liberal slapfests. Reminds me of the good ol' days. :D

Same here. Sadly I think I'm the last conservative on the board and to be honest I'm not that conservative... all my right wing buddies call me an ultra libretarian, which I guess is the original roots of conservativism in the US (small gov, low taxes and leave me and everyone else alone).

[doc]

I heard on NPR they (O'Bama and Hill Bitch) spoke after a function, Obama said they had a "short" conversation about what was best for the party.

[Limper]

I heard on NPR they (O'Bama and Hill Bitch) spoke after a function, Obama said they had a "short" conversation about what was best for the party.

Hopefuly the words 'fuck off bitch' came from his mouth.

[doc]

Hopefuly the words 'fuck off bitch' came from his mouth.

If he was dumb enough to have her as his running mate and was lucky enough to win with her on the ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if he lasted till 100 days

[Space Cadet B^3]

It was on one, but I made a trade for a 96 Mazda pickup. Not nearly as ass-raping to drive. :)

[Limper]

It was on one, but I made a trade for a 96 Mazda pickup. Not nearly as ass-raping to drive. :)

Good show on having less redass.

[doc]

All he needs is an akita in the back and he'll be a riceball redneck

[Space Cadet B^3]

Ah... a Mazda B2300 is the same as a Ford Ranger, only different.

[doc]

Ah... a Mazda B2300 is the same as a Ford Ranger, only different. That's like saying I'm like Harrison Ford but different

This just in sort of Obama names a Kennedy to help pick veep By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago



WASHINGTON - Barack Obama turned in earnest to the general election and the hunt for a running mate Wednesday, embraced by Democratic leaders who signaled forcefully and sometimes impatiently to Hillary Rodham Clinton that her marathon duel with Obama was over. Clinton kept her silence in public, while supporters made a case for her as Obama's No. 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

Obama himself moved to link himself more closely with a young Democratic hero of a half-century ago, picking President Kennedy's daughter Caroline to help him choose a vice president.

While Clinton still wasn't conceding, even after Tuesday's primaries and a flood of "superdelegate" endorsements of Obama sealed the nomination, there were signs aplenty that she was closing shop. She began bidding campaign staff members farewell, and a number were told not to come to work after Friday. Last paychecks were expected to go out June 15.

The primary rivals ran into each other backstage at a hall where both spoke to Jewish leaders, but Obama said there was no mention of how or when she would formally end her long campaign to become the nation's first female president.

Obama showed no impatience, merely smiling and accepting congratulations from colleagues in both parties as he returned to the Capitol for a Senate vote. But other Democrats urged her to get out of the way.

"I don't see why we don't get on with it and endorse" Obama, said Rep. Charles Rangel, a congressman from Clinton's home state of New York. He said it was only a matter of time before he and other Clinton supporters formally back Obama.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Obama supporter, said Clinton's non-concession "creates a pretty delicate situation here, an awkward situation."

"I don't want to push her. Nobody is going to push her," Durbin said on MSNBC. "But the sooner she does, I think the more likely we're going to be organized and ready to win in November."

Obama began focusing on who will join his ticket in the fall. His campaign said the vetting of potential running mates was to be managed by a three-person team of Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and longtime Washington insider Jim Johnson.

Clinton has told lawmakers privately that she would be interested in the vice presidential nomination. Obama was noncommittal after his chat with her behind the scenes at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

"We're going to be having a conversation in coming weeks, and I'm very confident how unified the Democratic Party's going to be to win in November," he told reporters after a vote in the Senate where he received congratulations from all sides.

Meanwhile, the dam holding back endorsements broke from coast to coast on the day after the primary elections concluded.

Seven senators who had stayed out of the matter said they were giving Obama their commitment and would work toward uniting Democrats for the election, now exactly five months away.

In Nashville, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen was joined by two other superdelegates to say they hoped to bring the party behind Obama even though Clinton won their state. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who had been a Clinton supporter, announced he was backing Obama.

It hardly mattered in terms of delegate math — after months of struggle, Obama had more than enough to prevail at the party convention in Denver in August. But Obama's new backers were also sending a message to Clinton that her race was over.

Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, was lobbying members of the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Obama to place Clinton on the ticket. He said he was doing so with her blessing.

Rangel, a founding member of the caucus, expressed doubts that Johnson's approach would work. "I don't really think that the way to get Obama to (choose) Clinton would be to put pressure on him. I think it would have the opposite effect," Rangel said.

The Obama camp's disclosure about the three-person veep vetting team was an effort to change the subject from the long, divisive primary campaign toward the general election.

Kennedy's name came as a surprise, although she endorsed Obama at a critical time last winter, saying he could be an inspirational leader like her father. She also campaigned for Obama.

Holder is a former federal prosecutor and District of Columbia Superior Court judge who held the No. 2 job at the Justice Department under President Clinton.

Johnson is widely known among Democrats for having helped previous candidates, including John Kerry four years ago, sift through vice presidential possibilities. He is a former chief executive officer for the mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

Clinton visited her campaign headquarters in suburban Arlington, Va., where she thanked staff members for their work. Aides said she was also phoning superdelegates and supporters, and planned to host an 89th birthday celebration at her Washington home for her mother, Dorothy Rodham.

Several high-dollar fundraisers who had spoken to the former first lady described her as upbeat and realistic about what she faced.

"She's very resolved, but open minded about whatever's coming. She's going forward with an optimistic eye," said Susie Tompkins Buell, a San Francisco-based fundraiser who flew from New York to Washington early Wednesday morning.

Some lawmakers showed deference to Clinton, an indication of the political and fundraising power that she and her husband still wield.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, an uncommitted superdelegate, said he will be supporting Obama but declined to make a formal endorsement. "I expect Mrs. Clinton to say some things over the next couple of days and I think that's appropriate for her to do. And I expect her to say that, at which time I may make a more formal" announcement, Hoyer said.

[Space Cadet B^3]

That's like saying I'm like Harrison Ford but differentI don't think so Doc, here's the cover of the repair manual for evidence.

[doc]

Ok and you know I look damn good in a fedora too :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Its not so much that I'm a Clinton fan - she has he flaws, though I'm very impressed by the way she's grown as a politician I this campaign; it's more that I'm just completely unimpressed by Obama as a candidate. He's a naïve empty suit with incredibly weak policies and almost zero experience. And his speeches - which, face it, are basically all he is - are getting so vacuous they make me miss Bush.

If only McCain hadn't sold out to the right. As it stands, there's basically no one to vote for in this election. The hypocrit or the empty suit? Stay home.

[Singularity]

If only McCain hadn't sold out to the right.

McCain only sold out long enough to get the nomination. Now he can go for the center, which is where he's always been.

As it stands, there's basically no one to vote for in this election. The hypocrit or the empty suit? Stay home.

I suspect that's exactly where you'll be staying, home. Aussie. :lol:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Australia's the 52nd state, didn't you know?

[Singularity]

Australia's the 52nd state, didn't you know?

That may be true, but we'll talk when you get voting rights. :lol:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That may be true, but we'll talk when you get voting rights. :lol:

What's the point, we'd only have about four electoral votes. Only if the US elected its president the way the Democrats choose a nominee would our votes matter.

And isn't that interesting. If the Democrats selected their nominee the way the US selects a president or the way Republicans select a nominee (i.e. winner take all form each state), Hillary would have sewn up the nomination on super Tuesday.

My guess is that Obama does "well" in the election the same way he did in the primaries - he gets a high popular vote, but most of it will be wasted in clear blue states or in doing well (but still losing) in clear red states. He doesn't have the support where in te swing states where it matters.

It could be a fun antithesis: the candiate who won the delegates but (arguably) lost the popular vote in the primaries will be the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses the electoral role in the election. I wonder how the Obama-maniacca will find a way to blame Hillary for that one?

[Teve]

Same here. Sadly I think I'm the last conservative on the board and to be honest I'm not that conservative... all my right wing buddies call me an ultra libretarian, which I guess is the original roots of conservativism in the US (small gov, low taxes and leave me and everyone else alone).

It's funny I get accused of being a liberal, and of being an ultra conservative. But it just depends on who does the accusing. The ones who stifle our right to our own money, or the ones who stifle our right to live our own lives...
My beliefs = SMALL GOVERNMENT, leave me AND my money alone!!

[Bregh]

.

[Varaj]

I tend towards fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Right now our two party system has one group that tends towards fiscally liberal, socially liberal
and another that is that tends towards fiscally liberal, socially conservative

[Teve]

I tend towards fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

Right now our two party system has one group that tends towards fiscally liberal, socially liberal
and another that is that tends towards fiscally liberal, socially conservative

You Libertarian you! :shock:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

fiscally conservative, socially liberal

Sounds like the Clinton adminsitration - welfare reform, budget surpluses, blowjobs from interns...

[Atticus_of_Amber]

BTW, did anyone notice that Hillary won South Dakota - a state Obama was supposed to win? AND she won it after everyone was saying the race was over. That has to be a warning sign.

[Merganser]

What's the point, we'd only have about four electoral votes. Only if the US elected its president the way the Democrats choose a nominee would our votes matter.


Funny thing about that. Australia has about 21,300,000 in population, apparently. That would give Australia approximately 32 electoral votes, making you 3rd in terms of number of votes. Between Texas (almost 24,000,000) and New York (19,200,000).

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Funny thing about that. Australia has about 21,300,000 in population, apparently. That would give Australia approximately 32 electoral votes, making you 3rd in terms of number of votes. Between Texas (almost 24,000,000) and New York (19,200,000).

Yowza! I have to admit I hadn't done those numbers.

Makes sense, i suppose - in land area we are nearly as big as the whole continetal US itself (though teh middle is a barren desert).

Though I imagin you'd insist we join as seven states (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory).

[Trainz]

All he has is symbolism, and taking her would tarnish his rep with naive fools who support him. His only other choice would be to take her and adopt most of her policies [...]

:what:

Buddy, I'm gonna ask you a big favor. Could you please start beleiving in God?

Seriously... you make us atheists with a brain look bad.

How come you christians on the board don't have a crazy cook to tarnish your posts?

It's not fair...

:(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm against Obama for the same reason that I'm an atheist. I require EVIDENCE before I'll believe in something.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Indeed, the whole "audacity of hope" thing looks dangerously like faith to me. The whole Obama phenomenon has creepy religious overtones from what I can see - real "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" stuff...

[Limper]

Yowza! I have to admit I hadn't done those numbers.

Makes sense, i suppose - in land area we are nearly as big as the whole continetal US itself (though teh middle is a barren desert).

Though I imagin you'd insist we join as seven states (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory).

Nah. If you come to us to join you can be one big state... thats how Texas pulled it off.

[Dacke]

Atticus, you're the Lanny David of Kay Tastrophe.
I'd like him better if he was Lanny Barbie.

[Merganser]

Yowza! I have to admit I hadn't done those numbers.

Makes sense, i suppose - in land area we are nearly as big as the whole continetal US itself (though teh middle is a barren desert).

Though I imagin you'd insist we join as seven states (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory).

Well, that's Atticus for ya. Wild claims with nothing to back 'em up.

:D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Huh? Which specific claim have I failed to back up?

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm voting for hope.

[Xavier Lang]

Huh? Which specific claim have I failed to back up?

I believe he is referring to your comment about Australia getting 4 electoral votes when it should get many more.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Btw, I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong about Obama. A while ago I was prepared to accept that it all might just be a matter of style, so I read his speeches and policies and biography and tried to see the evidence that he was anyone deserving of all the adulation. And I came away with very little. He's a skillful politician with a great line in orotory, some reasonably (if vague) policies (except p health care)and a little experience in state politics. Ok. Fine. Make him a senator or a governor and are how he grows. But *president*? Now?!? You have to be joking. Biden? Yes. Clinton? Definitely. Edwards? Probably? But Obama?!? Against that field?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You do realise that was a joke right? Like let's just pull a number out of my ass for the sake of a tension relieving funny line? Humour? You do have that whee you come fro, right?

[Xavier Lang]

You do realise that was a joke right? Like let's just pull a number out of my ass for the sake of a tension relieving funny line? Humour? You do have that whee you come fro, right?

I believe the response was in jest as well, with the :D at the end and all that.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The above refers to the 53rd state line, btw. I need to stop posting from my blackberry, the browser six for messageboards...

[Hatter]

You do realise that was a joke right? Like let's just pull a number out of my ass for the sake of a tension relieving funny line? Humour? You do have that whee you come fro, right?

FWIW, I always assume you're joking.

[obryn]

Well, it's all academic now.

She's officially withdrawing on Saturday, and has emailed all her supporters to urge them to support Obama.

-O

[Limper]

Well, it's all academic now.

She's officially withdrawing on Saturday, and has emailed all her supporters to urge them to support Obama.

-O

And if there is truely a God this will be the last we ever see or hear from her.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Well, it's all academic now.

She's officially withdrawing on Saturday, and has emailed all her supporters to urge them to support Obama.

-O
NPR is saying she's suspending her campaign, but is likely to hold on to her delegates in hopes of a convention move or something. I don't know if she'll quit.

[Trainz]

I'm against Obama for the same reason that I'm an atheist. I require EVIDENCE before I'll believe in something.

Yeah, well I'm an atheist who beleives not ALL christians are crazy cooks. Look at Singularity, he married one.

And Kennedy was also a vote of hope, look how HE turned out.

If you wait to have all 100% evidence before you make some decisions, you won't get much done in life. You have to be willing to take some risks if you want to achieve great things. Last time people were afraid to take some risks, and they ended up with 8 years of Bush.

Michael Jordan, Albert Einstein... men who at the early stages of their careers were complete failures by their contemporary standards. They turned out OK.

[Limper]

And Kennedy was also a vote of hope, look how HE turned out.


A crappy preisdent who's greatest contribution to the nation and world was to die and become a martyr?

[Trainz]

A crappy preisdent who's greatest contribution to the nation and world was to die and become a martyr?

:boggle:

That's it? That sums up all that Kennedy was/did?

Oh! I get it, you're one of THOSE:

[Utrecht]

A crappy preisdent who's greatest contribution to the nation and world was to die and become a martyr?

In general I agree with this, Kennedy was a bad predident and his international naivte led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis (granted the Russians were stupid to push it - takes two to tang)

Tranz, your point about the moon landing is valid - and one of the reasons that I will not be unhappy if Obama gets elected. Hope and Vision are valuable commodities and ones that American needs.

[Limper]

:boggle:

That's it? That sums up all that Kennedy was/did?



Yep thats the sum of it. I guess I could have mentioned the near nuke fest with the Ruskies but didn't see much point to it.

He wasn't a very good president. He was shot and a lot of social programs were passed in his memry by Lyndon B. When JFK sympathy ran out then he had to sell us into Nam to get his platform passed.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I agree, Kennedy was a crap president - and most of his errors stemmed from him being naïve and inexperienced. I worry about Obama for the same reasons.

[Singularity]

I agree, Kennedy was a crap president - and most of his errors stemmed from him being naïve and inexperienced. I worry about Obama for the same reasons.

We've just had eight years of a far crappier presidency than Kennedy's. I'm willing to give Obama a chance. He won't be any worse than Bush.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

We've just had eight years of a far crappier presidency than Kennedy's. I'm willing to give Obama a chance. He won't be any worse than Bush.

After one inexperienced boob as president, you're prepared to risk another inexperienced (though clearly more intelligent) candidate? When you had Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Dodd and Edwards as altrnatives? Madness.

[Singularity]

Bush's problem was not his inexperience, it was his incompetence. Surround yourself with good advisors and actually listen to them, be a good statesman, and have legitimate concern for people, not only in your own country but in others as well, and you will have a good president. I think Obama is smart enough to do the first item on the list, and I think he has exhibited the other qualities. He'll make a good president.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Bush's problem was not his inexperience, it was his incompetence. Surround yourself with good advisors and actually listen to them, be a good statesman, and have legitimate concern for people, not only in your own country but in others as well, and you will have a good president. I think Obama is smart enough to do the first item on the list, and I think he has exhibited the other qualities. He'll make a good president.

Huh?!? How do you decide when your advisers disagree (and on the hard issues they always do)? How do your decide when your advisers' advice is coloured by their own personal agendas (and it almsot always is)? Why do we insist that company CEOs - who, after all, have armies of good advisers - have real experience running divisions or small companies in the past? Because that is what gives them the ability to judge the advice they're given.

Four years in the Senate - two of them spent running for president. Eight or so years as a state legislator. Several years experience as a civil rights organiser. A law degree and a few years teaching. That's it.

Stacked up against the experience of Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and even Edwards? This is a sick joke.

[Name Lips]

Some surprisingly good presidents have had very little experience. And some real lemons have been ones who, if experience was what mattered, should have been great.

Also, if you don't count Hillary's years as First Lady, which by all rights you shouldn't because it's not an official position in any way, she has even less experience than Obama. What exactly are her credentials? She's been married to a successful politician for a long time? She has connections, largely through her husband's success?

[Freedom Canadian]

A crappy preisdent who's greatest contribution to the nation and world was to die and become a martyr?

He also got the ball rolling on huge income tax cuts. I'd figure you would like him for that alone. :D

He also gave great speeches. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Some surprisingly good presidents have had very little experience. And some real lemons have been ones who, if experience was what mattered, should have been great.

Also, if you don't count Hillary's years as First Lady, which by all rights you shouldn't because it's not an official position in any way, she has even less experience than Obama. What exactly are her credentials? She's been married to a successful politician for a long time? She has connections, largely through her husband's success?

Oh come on! Anyone who worked in the white house would tell you she had the equivalent of senior adviser position. It would be like if Sam or Toby or CJ from the West Wing went on to do eight years in the Senate after the Bartlett adminsitration. Of course you'd say they had experience. She ran the health care campaigh, she was in on a lot of the meetings, she saw a lot of the briefing papers and she had unparallelled access to the president of eight years. She didn't jsut advise him, she saw what the job was doing to him. if you don't count that, you're a fool.

As for inexperienced president's turning out ok. Of course, sometimes a risk pays off. But also, have a closer look at those "inexperienced" presidents. Some, liked Kennedy, sucked. Others, like Linclon, were actually more experienced that might first appear (Linclon had a long behind the scenes role in back room Illinois politics).

Look at the experience of the good presidents:
FDR - governor of NY, secretary of the navy
LBJ - Majority Leader of the Senate
Clinton - long standing governor of a state
Reagan (ish) - long standing governor of a state

Experience matters. It's only that that gives you the ability to judge and chose between what your advisers are trying to sell you.

Yes, some human beings are just incredibly talented and perform well in CEO roles with little previous experience. but you can't tell who those exceptional individuals ae going to be beforehand. And you can't tell someone has their ability from their possession of some other skill - such as Obama's unerring ability to turn on the naive and the gullible with speeches of nauseating vacuuousness. Maybe he is an incredible natural CEO - but that's not a risk I think the US should be taking at a time like this - particualry when the Dems had one of the most talented and experienced fields in history from which to choose.

The Democratic party has taken a massive leap of faith. I'm afraid faith just isn't my thing. I prefer an evidence-based risk assessment.

[Alpha Ralpha]

Same here. Sadly I think I'm the last conservative on the board and to be honest I'm not that conservative... all my right wing buddies call me an ultra libretarian, which I guess is the original roots of conservativism in the US (small gov, low taxes and leave me and everyone else alone).

did it ever occur to you at all that the Republican Party which held those views is in no way related to the Republican Party as it is currently led. They want to keep cutting taxes on the rich until the middle and poor classes start subsidizing them, Bush's reaction to any and every bit of economic news lately is "cut taxes". This administration has overseen an increase in government that is unprecedented in both scale and scope. And with that expansion comes a moves that starts down the slippery slope of watching what you do, at all times, and in all places.

[Trainz]

Sorry for the thread res, but...

I never thought it could be possible, but the Democrats really *are* going to throw away this election - and they'll have no-one to blame but themselves. You'd think the party that nominated Carter, Mondale and Kerry would have learned its lesson by now...

Clinton would be mad to join a losing ticket. She needs to campaign for him as hard as she can and then say "I told you so" when McCain whips his ass in November.

Hell, even if he stands a chance, he shouldn't taker her as a VP. All he has is symbolism, and taking her would tarnish his rep with naive fools who support him. His only other choice would be to take her and adopt most of her policies, but that would pretty much be admitting that she was right all along - and I just don't see "the precious" being big enough to do that (though Edwards might pressure him into doing so on health care).

McCain 08: Hey, at least he'll only serve one term.

Ahem. Atticus? Would you like ketchup or mayonnaise to go with that crow?

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Sorry for the thread res, but...



Ahem. Atticus? Would you like ketchup or mayonnaise to go with that crow?

You know, McCain was leading in most of the polls and cruising along before the whole housing fiasco reared it's ugly head. At the time, I'd say Atticus' words were pretty reasonable. People still considered McCain better on the War on Terror and a few other important items. It's just that the economy jumped to #1 in people's minds after the shit hit the fan.

[AZRogue]

I would have said Atticus was right, at the time. :)

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

You know, McCain was leading in most of the polls and cruising along before the whole housing fiasco reared it's ugly head. At the time, I'd say Atticus' words were pretty reasonable. People still considered McCain better on the War on Terror and a few other important items. It's just that the economy jumped to #1 in people's minds after the shit hit the fan.

Yup, but them's the breaks.

[obryn]

You know, McCain was leading in most of the polls and cruising along before the whole housing fiasco reared it's ugly head. At the time, I'd say Atticus' words were pretty reasonable. People still considered McCain better on the War on Terror and a few other important items. It's just that the economy jumped to #1 in people's minds after the shit hit the fan.
I think it would have been closer, but the Republican numbers started falling among Independents even before the crisis. I believe one of Fox's commentators said their numbers declined right after Katie Couric's interview of Palin.

-O

[Ascarel]

Gallup tells a different story. They have Obama and McCain trading their lead back and forth during the spring until June, when Obama's narrow lead began to increase. After that, McCain had the lead only once: after the short and expected RNC bubble, that expectedly went bust pretty fast. The collapse of Lehman Bros. and the financial markets sealed the deal.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Sorry for the thread res, but...



Ahem. Atticus? Would you like ketchup or mayonnaise to go with that crow?

If McCain hadn't nominated Palin, he might well have won. To put it another way, if I'd been a US citizen I would have voted for McCain until he nominated Palin. From that point on there was no choice, it had to be Obama.

(And the US financial system blowing up didn't help McCain much either...)

I still think Hillary would have been better, but I'm happy Obama won. His Choice of Rahm Emanuel - and his rather ruthless behind the scenes political skills - does give me some hope that he may not really be the naive idealist I thought he was. Hell, maybe he's really as much a bastard as Hillary was a bitch (but just hides it better). If so, I'll be happy.

[obryn]

I still think Hillary would have been better, but I'm happy Obama won. His Choice of Rahm Emanuel - and his rather ruthless behind the scenes political skills - does give me some hope that he may not really be the naive idealist I thought he was. Hell, maybe he's really as much a bastard as Hillary was a bitch but its just he hides it more. If so, I'll be happy.
His exterior is idealistic, his interior is deeply pragmatic. And hopeful, don't get me wrong, but he apparently understands what it takes to get his program done.

And, as you said, Rahm Emanuel is a big case in point. They are friends, but don't always agree. It's his way of showing Nancy Pelosi, "You're following my agenda. I am not following yours."

-O

[Atticus_of_Amber]

His exterior is idealistic, his interior is deeply pragmatic. And hopeful, don't get me wrong, but he apparently understands what it takes to get his program done.

And, as you said, Rahm Emanuel is a big case in point. They are friends, but don't always agree. It's his way of showing Nancy Pelosi, "You're following my agenda. I am not following yours."

-O

Rahm Emanuel is my kind of politician. He's a cunt. A vicious, vengeful, tribal, hate-filled prick with a desire to rub his opponents faces in their agenda going down in flames and and watch their anguish as his is being built. If Obama gets HillaryCare up, Rahm's pleasure will be primarily in watching is opponents cry. I approve.

The thing I like most about Obama picking Emanuel? It shows that Obama's lets-all-get-together-and-sing-kumbayah rhetoric was mostly bullshit to get elected. It gives me hope that Obama is really just Hillary in drag - but with a much higher charisma score.

"Unity" is a delusion. Politics IS division - and US politics is civil war fought by (barely) civil means. There IS a red America and a Blue America - and the Blue must humiliate the Red repeatedly until everyone is too embarrassed to admit they are a conservative even if they are. Emanual seems to know this in his bones.

Next test - does Obama demand Leiberman's head and balls on a platter or does he make nice? I imagine that depends on the final Senate numbers. But I'll respect Obama more if, sometime in the next eight years, he sends Holy Joe out in a fishing boat with a henchman at sunset and we hear a bang, a splash and then never hear from the former Democratic VP nominee ever again...

[Hatter]

I doubt Lieberman will get reelected again.

[Schizm]

If McCain hadn't nominated Palin, he might well have won. To put it another way, if I'd been a US citizen I would have voted for McCain until he nominated Palin. From that point on there was no choice, it had to be Obama.

(And the US financial system blowing up didn't help McCain much either...)

I still think Hillary would have been better, but I'm happy Obama won. His Choice of Rahm Emanuel - and his rather ruthless behind the scenes political skills - does give me some hope that he may not really be the naive idealist I thought he was. Hell, maybe he's really as much a bastard as Hillary was a bitch (but just hides it better). If so, I'll be happy.

I think you would be well served to do some research into obama's rise through Chicago Machine politics. Specifically how he managed to get elected to the state senate. It's vicious. You'll like it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think you would be well served to do some research into obama's rise through Chicago Machine politics. Specifically how he managed to get elected to the state senate. It's vicious. You'll like it.

I knew about boy-wonder's ruthless double-cross of what's-her-name beack in 2005. it was one of the many things that made me think Obama might have what it took to be Hillary's understudy. My hope is that that glimmer of Machiavellianism is enough to get the job done.

[GreyOne]

Ahhh. I've been away too long. So Atticus has come around on Obama?

[Singularity]

Ahhh. I've been away too long.

Indeed you have.

So Atticus has come around on Obama?

So it would appear. I just find it amusing that Atticus said that Obama couldn't win the election. Shows how much he knows. :tongue:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Indeed you have.



So it would appear. I just find it amusing that Atticus said that Obama couldn't win the election. Shows how much he knows. :tongue:

Wrong again.

I still think Clinton would have been better.

And I strongly suspect that without the insane disqualifying choice of Palin as running mate and the financial crisis in the middle of the campaign (and Obama's admittedly and admirably clever political use of it), McCain might have won.

Hell, just before the conventions I had decided that, if I were a US citizen, I'd vote McCain. Then he chose Palin and it was all over as far as I was concerned: I don't care how many doubts I might bave had about wonder-boy, Palin is a disqualifying choice and Obam had to win be default. Seems Colin Powell and quite a few conservatived agreed with me.

While Obama ran a good campaign, he didn't win this election - McCain lost it.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think you would be well served to do some research into obama's rise through Chicago Machine politics. Specifically how he managed to get elected to the state senate. It's vicious. You'll like it.

I've been aware of that since 2006. It was one of the few things that indicated wonderboy might not the be Carter-clone he appeared to be.

As I;ve said before, I always thought Obama had talent and was a future presidential contender. but i thought it was WAY too early this year and way too much of a risk for the Democrats to take with the fate of the free world. Clinton was a much safer choice.

At the moment, it looks as if the gamble paid off. Good. But it was a reckless and unnecessary gamble nevertheless.

[Trainz]

As I;ve said before, I always thought Obama had talent and was a future presidential contender. but i thought it was WAY too early this year and way too much of a risk for the Democrats to take with the fate of the free world. Clinton was a much safer choice.

At the moment, it looks as if the gamble paid off. Good. But it was a reckless and unnecessary gamble nevertheless.

The U.S. wasn't built on safe choices, and it's refreshing to see that today's american denizens still remember that.

[Name Lips]

Continually choosing the "safest" choice will always, eventually, lead to stagnation.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Oh just listen to yourselves, you're justifying gambling with the future of the free world. It was an insane gamble of Iraq war proportions. Breathtakingly immature and irresponsible.

But, I agree, it appears to have paid off.

Similarly, the Iraq war might have paid off. If it had, and democratic dominoes had happened all over the Middle east just like in PNAC's wet dream, I'd still be saying that it was a insane gamble, though. I'd be glad it paid off (as I am glad Obama appears to have) but I'd still think it was an unnecessary, immature and irresponsible risk.

Obama is a great illustration of two things about the US - bottomless talent and bottomless immaturity. We can only hope that, as seems to happen, the first saves the US and the world from the consequences of the second.

In fact, here's another irony. The Democratic party behaved like John McCain: it went for the Hail Mary pass when a safe play was available and likely to succeed. The irony is that Obama is starting to look like one of the most un-American politicians ever in that sense: he's disciplined and ruthless and cynical as hell and, it would appear, almost completely untouched by his own soppy romantic rhetoric. In short, he's mature in exactly the way US culture is not. I'm starting to like the cunt.

[Varaj]

Oh just listen to yourselves, you're justifying gambling with the future of the free world. It was an insane gamble of Iraq war proportions. Breathtakingly immature and irresponsible.

But, I agree, it appears to have paid off.

Similarly, the Iraq war might have paid off. If it had, and democratic dominoes had happened all over the Middle east just like in PNAC's wet dream, I'd still be saying that it was a insane gamble, though. I'd be glad it paid off (as I am glad Obama appears to have) but I'd still think it was an unnecessary, immature and irresponsible risk.

Obama is a great illustration of two things about the US - bottomless talent and bottomless immaturity. We can only hope that, as seems to happen, the first saves the US and the world from the consequences of the second.

In fact, here's another irony. The Democratic party behaved like John McCain: it went for the Hail Mary pass when a safe play was available and likely to succeed. The irony is that Obama is starting to look like one of the most un-American politicians ever in that sense: he's disciplined and ruthless and cynical as hell and, it would appear, almost completely untouched by his own soppy romantic rhetoric. In short, he's mature in exactly the way US culture is not. I'm starting to like the cunt.

Your cute

[Trainz]

In fact, here's another irony. The Democratic party behaved like John McCain: it went for the Hail Mary pass when a safe play was available and likely to succeed. The irony is that Obama is starting to look like one of the most un-American politicians ever in that sense: he's disciplined and ruthless and cynical as hell and, it would appear, almost completely untouched by his own soppy romantic rhetoric. In short, he's mature in exactly the way US culture is not. I'm starting to like the cunt.

If you like "facts", here's one; out of 270 electoral votes needed to win, you have:

Obama: 364
McCain: 163

So what you're basically saying, is that the introduction of Palin in the rep campaign cost 54 electoral votes.

You're deluded. Palin didn't help, but it's the GOP's failures that cost McCain his elections, not her. Some of us were aware of that.

[The Winslow]

Oh just listen to yourselves, you're justifying gambling with the future of the free world. It was an insane gamble of Iraq war proportions. Breathtakingly immature and irresponsible.
lol

Elections are an immature and irresponsible gamble.
Obama's campaign was like the Iraq War.

lol


Just lol.

[Singularity]

If you like "facts", here's one; out of 270 electoral votes needed to win, you have:

Obama: 364
McCain: 163

So what you're basically saying, is that the introduction of Palin in the rep campaign cost 54 electoral votes.

You're deluded. Palin didn't help, but it's the GOP's failures that cost McCain his elections, not her. Some of us were aware of that.

Actually, I know a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama because of Palin. I also think that Palin, who reminded too many of the non-committed voters of Bush, also sided with Obama because of Palin. I think this would have been a much, much closer election had Palin not been part of it.

[there_is_no_bob]

Actually, I know a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama because of Palin. I also think that Palin, who reminded too many of the non-committed voters of Bush, also sided with Obama because of Palin. I think this would have been a much, much closer election had Palin not been part of it.

I think that if Clinton had been nominated, Palin would have been unnecessary - the base would have been sufficiently rallied by opposing Clinton to allow for choosing a more reasonable candidate.

But what the hell do I know?

[The Winslow]

I also think that Palin, who reminded too many of the non-committed voters of Bush, also sided with Obama because of Palin.

:boggle:

I also think that Palin [...] also sided with Obama because of Palin.

[Singularity]

:boggle:

Eh oops. I meant undecided voters.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

If you like "facts", here's one; out of 270 electoral votes needed to win, you have:

Obama: 364
McCain: 163

So what you're basically saying, is that the introduction of Palin in the rep campaign cost 54 electoral votes.

You're deluded. Palin didn't help, but it's the GOP's failures that cost McCain his elections, not her. Some of us were aware of that.

McCain was ahead in the polls before he nominated Palin and the trend was going his way. A LOT of moderates and even some liberals were, like me, seriously considering voting for McCain. The choice of Palin crippled him. The financial collapse (and his insane reaction to it) finished him off. We were one crazy Caribou barbie and a financial collapse away from the vindication of Hillary Clinton.

After Palin, even the sensible Republicans (David Brooks, Colin Powell, that chick who got death threats for dissing Palin, etc) started endorsing Obama.

BUT, to be fair, Obama really showed his quality in the wake of the Palin/WallStreet fiasco. His calm manner and behind the scenes ruthless manipulation of the situation were masterful and showed what we always knew, wonderboy has serious talent and potential. Now we just have to hope he doesn't make too many immature mistakes. Admittedly, his record looks pretty good so far. But man, I'd still rather have Hillary at the helm for what is going to be a tough, tough decade.

[Trainz]

BUT, to be fair, Obama really showed his quality in the wake of the Palin/WallStreet fiasco. His calm manner and behind the scenes ruthless manipulation of the situation were masterful and showed what we always knew, wonderboy has serious talent and potential.

This is what you don't get; many saw those qualities in him when he was facing Clinton.

Hence, why he won against her.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This is what you don't get; many saw those qualities in him when he was facing Clinton.

Hence, why he won against her.

Yes, he showed he was a better at finding the Democratic Party clitoris than Clinton. But I already knew that back in 2004. Why I supported Clinton was because I thought she would be better at fighting the GOP smear machine and, most of all, better at governing.

Obama did better than expected against the GOP smears - but he was helped enormously by the Palin/WallStreet fiasco (remember, he was LOSING before Palin).

Governing? That's the real risk. So far so good, but we've chosen the super-talented rookie here when we did have the choice of several grizzled veterans (Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, etc) ...

[Singularity]

Yes, he showed he was a better at finding the Democratic Party clitoris than Clinton. But I already knew that back in 2004. Why I supported Clinton was because I thought she would be better at fighting the GOP smear machine and, most of all, better at governing.

Obama did better than expected against the GOP smears - but he was helped enormously by the Palin/WallStreet fiasco (remember, he was LOSING before Palin).

Reality doesn't support that assertion. According to the Gallup polls, the picture you paint isn't exactly true. Over the course of a year and a half, they were running neck and neck, with Obama above McCain for much of that time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Reality doesn't support that assertion. According to the Gallup polls, the picture you paint isn't exactly true. Over the course of a year and a half, they were running neck and neck, with Obama above McCain for much of that time.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

I think you misunderstood me. I never denied it was close. I was pointing out that McCain was ahead before he selected Palin and it was only after that (and the WallStreet fiasco) that Obama drew clearly ahead.

It was Palin, WallStreet and McCain's crazy personality that gave the election to the wonderboy. Had neither event happened, the other night would have been very, very close. Indeed, my feel a few months ago is that McCain would probably have won - but then McCain showed himself to be a big fuckup and may McCain would have fucked t up even without the Caribou Barbie and Wall Street's chickens finally coming home to roost.

[Hatter]

So if the campaign were completely different it would have been closer. I guess I agree.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So if the campaign were completely different it would have been closer. I guess I agree.

No, if the campaign had continued the way to was going before the combined cluster-fuck of Palin and the crash, it clearly would have been different.

Look at the poll trends. McCain is going strong until he appoints Palin, he gets an initial jump from her boobies, then the Katie Couric interview happens and he starts to fall, then the crash happens he does his best Granpa Simpson impression (and Obama plays it very well) and its all over.

[obryn]

I dunno... While the economy certainly gave Obama a huge boost, the candidates' relative performances in the debates swayed a lot of independents.

Also, Palin did energize the base. While I have argued that the base would have turned out for McCain anyway (and still believe this, fwiw), another VP candidate might not have gotten as many evangelicals out to the polls.

-O

[obryn]

Also, if you had any doubt how brilliant Obama's political team was, and how well-thought-out their strategy was, check this out...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obamas-electoral-cushion.html

In other words, if you had subtracted 9.3 points from Barack Obama's margin in every state, he would still have tied the Electoral College -- even while losing the popular vote by almost 3 points. And if you had subtracted 8.6 points, he would have won the Electoral College outright, while losing the popular vote by 2.1 points.
:shock:

It really wasn't even close.

-O

[Name Lips]

It was a fairly clear mandate from the American people. Frankly it is my hope and wish that all presidental elections be more of a clear majority like this - it helps settle everybody down afterwards. Even Obama's critics can't fight the numbers -- America has elected Obama. Not liberals, not special interests, not blacks... but America. And even his one-time opponents are respecting that.

[Utrecht]

It was a fairly clear mandate

I must disagree - and I think people throw the word mandate around much to easily.

Further, before peoples hackles get to far up - Obama has a much better claim to the word Mandate than Bush ever did - but Obama is far from it - and if anything it was a madate of "not Bush"

Lets look at things a bit closer at the presidential level, Obma did pretty well - but lets not forget that 46% of the US voters voted for the "other guy" in an election when nearly EVERYTHING was stacked against him - not an overwhelming victory.

Further, the dems did well, but not as well as the hoped/expected in the house and senate races

Finally, look at the state ballot initiatives, they really did not go the Dems way even in such liberal states as California.

Now I agree, that the GOP is gutted right now and that some of the trends look very bad (18 - 29 year olds favored dems over GOP at 2-1 ratios - now that is a mandate) but mandate at the national level - no, not in my opinion.

[obryn]

Further, the dems did well, but not as well as the hoped/expected in the house and senate races
Well, fivethirtyeight.com was right on with the predictions, so far. Nate thought the most likely Dem gain would be 8 seats. The House gain was also expected somewhere in the 15-25 range, and so far it's at 20.

Finally, look at the state ballot initiatives, they really did not go the Dems way even in such liberal states as California.
But the pro-life ballots didn't go the Conservatives' way, either, in California, Arizona, or ... crap, I forgot the third one.

Now I agree, that the GOP is gutted right now and that some of the trends look very bad (18 - 29 year olds favored dems over GOP at 2-1 ratios - now that is a mandate) but mandate at the national level - no, not in my opinion.
I think the mandate talk is kinda silly because I think Obama's made it clear that he's not angling for Dems-Win-Reps-Lose kinds of policies. He's been clear he wants to lead from somewhere around the center (maybe a little left of center, but still).

-O

[Singularity]

If we ever see a true mandate in this country again, I'll be scared. I don't like one-party government, and I think that if everyone is buying into the same message, then either one party fielded a complete monkey, or too many people in the country are drinking the kool-aid. I really think that a 60/40 or 55/45 split is good. A 51/49 split is not so good because it implies stark social division.

[Name Lips]

lets not forget that 46% of the US voters voted for the "other guy" in an election when nearly EVERYTHING was stacked against him - not an overwhelming victory.


If 2000 taught me anything, it's that popular vote doesn't matter. Not a bit. It's completely irrelevant.

The only votes that matter are electoral votes, and that means Obama won with 67% of the vote, and McCain lost with 33%.

[Singularity]

If 2000 taught me anything, it's that popular vote doesn't matter. Not a bit. It's completely irrelevant.

The only votes that matter are electoral votes, and that means Obama won with 67% of the vote, and McCain lost with 33%.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college since it takes way the concept of one vote for one person.

[Hatter]

But the pro-life ballots didn't go the Conservatives' way, either, in California, Arizona, or ... crap, I forgot the third one.
-O

Colorado, but that was the worst idea to hit our ballot in 20 years. "Human Rights begin at conception"? So we're outlawing birth control pills? Fail. The voters here aren't quite that stupid. There can be good pro-life laws, but this was not one of them.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The margin was big because of the Caribou Barbie, the crash and McCain's Grandpa Simpson meltdown. Would wonderboy have won without that tail wind? We'll never know, but it's pretty clear it would have been much closer.

Obama (and the world) got lucky. But luck always has a big part in elections - without the luck of Ross perot, Bush the Wiser would probably have had two terms...

[Trainz]

The margin was big because of the Caribou Barbie, the crash and McCain's Grandpa Simpson meltdown. Would wonderboy have won without that tail wind? We'll never know, but it's pretty clear it would have been much closer.

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Check Obryn's link. Or go Lalala and don't.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

Check Obryn's link. Or go Lalala and don't.

I did look at his links. So what? They're irrelevant to my point.

The fact that Obama ran a good campaign doesn't change the fact of the poll numbers. Things were close before Palin. Obama fell behind in the Palin honeymoon. Then he caught up around the Palin-Couric interview. He finally pulled significantly ahead after the financial crisis.

Those are the facts. Deal with it.

[Random Encounter]

And I still say that it would have been a much closer race had the Dems picked Hillary. The republican spin machine has had 16+ years to make her one of the most divisive and demonized figures of the "liberal menace."
I think that's why so many right wing pundits like Limbaugh were pulling for her in the primary, they wanted a target they already knew they could smear successfully.
I think a lot of the swing voters that switched away from the repubs to vote against Palin would have never, in a million years, voted for Hillary. And more than that it would have motivated the republican base to vote without McCain needing a risky choice like Palin to get them there.

So I really, really disagree with you Atticus and think that Obama was the better choice to win this election and that Hillary might have pulled it off but it would have been a much tighter race.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So I really, really disagree with you Atticus and think that Obama was the better choice to win this election and that Hillary might have pulled it off but it would have been a much tighter race.

Not so sure about that. The GOP smear machine shot itself in the foot when it selected Palin because McCain's best argument - that Obam was severely inexperienced - was completely undercut by the choice of Caribou Barbie. Add to that the way any smear campaign was undercut by the crash and McCain's reaction to it, and you have some unique circumstances.

Obama ran a good campaign - but he was incredibly lucky: Palin, the crisis, McCain's Grandpa Simpson act? That's just amazing good fortune for a candidate.

[Utrecht]

Not so sure about that. The GOP smear machine shot itself in the foot when it selected Palin because McCain's best argument - that Obam was severely inexperienced - was completely undercut by the choice of Caribou Barbie. Add to that the way any smear campaign was undercut by the crash and McCain's reaction to it, and you have some unique circumstances.

Obama ran a good campaign - but he was incredibly lucky: Palin, the crisis, McCain's Grandpa Simpson act? That's just amazing good fortune for a candidate.


You realize that the experience thing was not sticking don't you?

It did not work for Hillary, and it was not working for McCain.

Further, it seems pretty challenging for you to accept that fact that Obama ran a damn fine campaign - and while I disagree with your assessment of the impact of Palin - the economy and Obama's reaction to it (with emphasis on reaction) sealed the deal.

Thus far, looks like the Dems picked the right person.

[obryn]

I did look at his links. So what? They're irrelevant to my point.

The fact that Obama ran a good campaign doesn't change the fact of the poll numbers. Things were close before Palin. Obama fell behind in the Palin honeymoon. Then he caught up around the Palin-Couric interview. He finally pulled significantly ahead after the financial crisis.

Those are the facts. Deal with it.
The point of the link was that Obama's strategists picked states where he could have lost about 8% of the popular vote margin and still won the election.

I agree - Palin had a big effect. So did the economy. I'd argue that both, together, lost McCain several points. This might have swung only 2-3 states (Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina) McCain's way. Obama still would have won the electoral count.

Remember that Obama's campaign took on the Clinton political machine and won the primaries. They did this through cunning strategy and clever tactics, enhancing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. It wasn't an accident - it was artfully done.

For the general elections, Obama used his campaign cash like he was playing Risk - making plays at states he had little chance of winning, just to force McCain to spend money there instead of somewhere it would do more good. (Case in point: Arizona.) He found a single message and stuck with it, instead of hopping from message to message.

-O

[Trainz]

You realize that the experience thing was not sticking don't you?

It did not work for Hillary, and it was not working for McCain.
Further, it seems pretty challenging for you to accept that fact that Obama ran a damn fine campaign - and while I disagree with your assessment of the impact of Palin - the economy and Obama's reaction to it (with emphasis on reaction) sealed the deal.

Thus far, looks like the Dems picked the right person.

Right. Absolutely. The bolded part. I didn't make that correlation, but reading it, it becomes obvious.

Come on Atticus, even Utrecht, who tends to be on the rep side, can see how this turned out.

[there_is_no_bob]

I agree - Palin had a big effect. I'm also of the opinion that the people who selected Palin would have fucked up something else if they hadn't fucked that up.

Whoever was making that choice was clearly not capable of making good choices, but was in a position to make large decisions - so they would likely have done something of comparable fuckupitude even if Palin had not been an option.

[Utrecht]

I'm also of the opinion that the people who selected Palin would have fucked up something else if they hadn't fucked that up.

Whoever was making that choice was clearly not capable of making good choices, but was in a position to make large decisions - so they would likely have done something of comparable fuckupitude even if Palin had not been an option.


While I am not defending Palin as a person - I will certainly defend Palin as a choice - again remember where McCain was before the pick - his own party was in a near revolt at his nomination - and the Palin pick made all of that go away.

For every vote that he lost because of Palin, he kept one because of her (there was a very real danger of many of the arch-conservatives just sitting this one out - and without them - McCain had no choice)

I know many on this board liked Leiberman (heck, I would have loved that ticket) but had McCain done that, the GOP would have dropped nearly all support for McCain.

[obryn]

While I am not defending Palin as a person - I will certainly defend Palin as a choice - again remember where McCain was before the pick - his own party was in a near revolt at his nomination - and the Palin pick made all of that go away.

For every vote that he lost because of Palin, he kept one because of her (there was a very real danger of many of the arch-conservatives just sitting this one out - and without them - McCain had no choice)

I know many on this board liked Leiberman (heck, I would have loved that ticket) but had McCain done that, the GOP would have dropped nearly all support for McCain.
I think a choice like Huckabee would have both energized the base and been less open to criticism.

Or, heck, Romney!

I'll also just note that the Republican "base" kind of sucks. Frankly, I think Republicans would do well to abandon the creepy anti-intellectuals who turned Palin rallies into miniature Klan rallies. You could pick them out with a quick questionnaire.

(1) Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

(1a) Are all Muslims terrorists?

(2) Did Obama bomb federal buildings with Ayers?

(3) Do you believe and compulsively forward email without checking its veracity?

(4) Is Barack Obama a communist?

(5) Can you spell "Muslim"?

Poof! Done!

-O

[Utrecht]

I think a choice like Huckabee would have both energized the base and been less open to criticism.

Or, heck, Romney!


In both cases, they were not sufficient to take away the change/media element - in many ways, it almost had to be something "new and different" to stop the Obama freight train


I'll also just note that the Republican "base" kind of sucks. Frankly, I think Republicans would do well to abandon the creepy anti-intellectuals who turned Palin rallies into miniature Klan rallies.

...

-O

I agree the far right of the party does suck - especially the anti-intellectual elements - but Palin appealed to a lot more than just those folks - and also feel that you are being inherently dishonest in your labeling of them (again, yes, they are people like them - but to paint all social conservatives in that brush is wrong)

[obryn]

I agree the far right of the party does suck - especially the anti-intellectual elements - but Palin appealed to a lot more than just those folks - and also feel that you are being inherently dishonest in your labeling of them (again, yes, they are people like them - but to paint all social conservatives in that brush is wrong)
I'm aiming for comedy, not honesty. :)

-O

[Varaj]

but to paint all social conservatives in that brush is wrong)

Social conservatives are poopy heads. Nothing wrong with being conservative on social issues but social conservatives are radicals that want to legislate their brand of morals and thus are poopy heads.

[Space Cadet B^3]

I'm all for looser morals, let's deregulate! :D

[bunny]

1) Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

(1a) Are all Muslims terrorists?

(2) Did Obama bomb federal buildings with Ayers?

(3) Do you believe and compulsively forward email without checking its veracity?

(4) Is Barack Obama a communist?

(5) Can you spell "Muslim"?

Poof! Done!

-O

1) No, apparently he's a good, family man. The two are apparently mutually exclusive.

2) I can neither confirm nor deny that I was there or who I saw that day.

3) And how! My email provider only has a fwd button. I also try to get as many of these things >>>> and email addresses at the top as possible.

4) Yeah, he admitted that one. He was a community organizer. You don't get much more for the commune than that.

5)mus... musli? muslem! DAMN IT! So close.

[obryn]

1) No, apparently he's a good, family man. The two are apparently mutually exclusive.

2) I can neither confirm nor deny that I was there or who I saw that day.

3) And how! My email provider only has a fwd button. I also try to get as many of these things >>>> and email addresses at the top as possible.

4) Yeah, he admitted that one. He was a community organizer. You don't get much more for the commune than that.

5)mus... musli? muslem! DAMN IT! So close.
5/5! Here's your Palin/Limbaugh 2012 sticker!

-O

[there_is_no_bob]

While I am not defending Palin as a person - I will certainly defend Palin as a choice - again remember where McCain was before the pick - his own party was in a near revolt at his nomination - and the Palin pick made all of that go away.But it couldn't have been that many of them, could it? Otherwise, how'd he end up on top?

So, by picking Palin, they chose a person who would guarantee them a small portion of "their" votes and alienate a portion of the available voters. Plus made it even more likely that anyone in the Democrat camp that might have been undecided, or apathetic, would show up and vote against her. I imagine she probably got a number of people who might have said "Fuck this, they're both about the same" to change that to "Fuck this, she's awful!".


To me, she was at best a wash - that ain't a good choice, IMO. 'Course there may have been no good choices...