OT: 2008 Elections

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:53 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:
XXXIV wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote: What are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not a huge fan of any of the candidates, but I'm voting for Obama.
I have no idea what Im talking about ...afterall Im an idiot....
Oh just go have another beer, it will be okay, even if a woman gets elected.

I wouldnt mind a woman...is there one running?...

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:19 am

The hate towards Clinton is slightly irrational.

And it looks like she may have barely took Texas. And won R.I. and Ohio convincingly. Looks like going negative worked, Obama still in good position but it's not over. And Rams fan is getting closer to imploding.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:33 am

Why so happy then?....gloating even?...your guy lost????

Voting for Obama?

Anyone else hate liars?

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Rams fan is getting closer to imploding.

and dont you mean idiot ?

EDIT: Have your night clinton boy...Obama will win in the end.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:52 am

I hope Obama does win in the end. But I'll live if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm not one of those people who think she's the anti-christ. I'm finding it funny how threatening she is to so many people.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:18 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I hope Obama does win in the end. But I'll live if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm not one of those people who think she's the anti-christ. I'm finding it funny how threatening she is to so many people.

The problem I have with Clinton is she is polarizing. We need someone to bring this country together and it certainly isn't Hillary. Also, she will have a hard time beating McCain, so if you are a Democrat and you vote for Hillary, you are basically giving the Presidency to the Republicans.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:21 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I hope Obama does win in the end. But I'll live if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm not one of those people who think she's the anti-christ. I'm finding it funny how threatening she is to so many people.

Clinton doesn't threaten me at all. I just know first-hand, as a lifelong resident of upstate New York, how ineffective she is as a legislator.

My state and our country can do a F*CK of a lot better than Hillary Clinton. She brings a last name and female reproductive organs to the political table, and little else.

Take care,
PK

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:43 am

pk500 wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I hope Obama does win in the end. But I'll live if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm not one of those people who think she's the anti-christ. I'm finding it funny how threatening she is to so many people.
Clinton doesn't threaten me at all. I just know first-hand, as a lifelong resident of upstate New York, how ineffective she is as a legislator.

My state and our country can do a F*CK of a lot better than Hillary Clinton. She brings a last name and female reproductive organs to the political table, and little else.

Take care,
PK

Yeah and that's fine, but there have been more than a few empty-suites run our country. I think many people scrutinize her more than they would if she was less well known. I mean if her name wasn't Clinton she would get attacked less, although if her name wasn't Clinton she wouldn't be here right now.

TheHiddenTrack · Post by **TheHiddenTrack** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:48 am

JackB1 wrote:
TheHiddenTrack wrote:I hope Obama does win in the end. But I'll live if Clinton gets the nomination, I'm not one of those people who think she's the anti-christ. I'm finding it funny how threatening she is to so many people.
The problem I have with Clinton is she is polarizing. We need someone to bring this country together and it certainly isn't Hillary. Also, she will have a hard time beating McCain, so if you are a Democrat and you vote for Hillary, you are basically giving the Presidency to the Republicans.

And I agree with that logic. Although, I think whoever has to deal with Republicans through a heated election season is going to come out tarnished some. If Obama somehow gets through the Clinton machine he will then have to go up against crap that is going to make the stuff Clinton pulled look like a high school election. However, I don't think Clinton will fair any better, they will take the gloves off and do what they can to take her down and she is more polarizing already and she has a past that they will go after. It's already gotten ugly and it's just getting started. And then the "swift-boating" of Clinton/Obama will commence, we'll all find out if it works this time.

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:38 am

JackB1 wrote:The problem I have with Clinton is she is polarizing. We need someone to bring this country together and it certainly isn't Hillary.

And Obama isn't? He's playing this "koombayah" card a little heavy, as if he's the ONLY one who can "bring this country together." Give me a break. He may have good intentions, but honestly he doesn't seem to generate the aura of someone who could do this. And it's not up to him; it's a function of how Senators and Representatives play together.

pk500 wrote:Clinton doesn't threaten me at all.

She brings a last name and female reproductive organs to the political table, and little else.

Isn't that a bit of a chauvinistic comment? So what, Obama brings nothing more than a funky name and black face? McCain brings a WASP attitude? Color, sex, etc, shouldn't even enter into this.

But since we don't live in an ideal world, color and sex often do enter. Deep down I think America is ready for a non-white President, but not a female President. Obama doesn't strike me as the first potential non-white President (too bad a bad ass like Colin Powell isn't in the mix - a man of character with great service to our country). Hilary has that strong character, but the Clinton history leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:49 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:
And I agree with that logic. Although, I think whoever has to deal with Republicans through a heated election season is going to come out tarnished some. If Obama somehow gets through the Clinton machine he will then have to go up against crap that is going to make the stuff Clinton pulled look like a high school election. However, I don't think Clinton will fair any better, they will take the gloves off and do what they can to take her down and she is more polarizing already and she has a past that they will go after. It's already gotten ugly and it's just getting started. And then the "swift-boating" of Clinton/Obama will commence, we'll all find out if it works this time.

So the Democratic Party doesn't get down and dirty? If you think so that's pretty naive. Clinton has been "swiftboating" Obama since he became a contender. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melbe ... 82756.html
If Clinton wins the nomination,watch how she plays the age card aginist McCain.

The problem with it is, it works. Our country is full of idiots that buy that kind of bullshit politics. We have voters that don't give a s*** about the issues at hand. They don't care that Clinton has done nothing for her constituates in upper state NY. (See PK's post's. He lives there.)

Your right. If her last name wasn't Clinton she wouldn't be in this election. That just shows how stupid many Americans are. They want to beat off to the fact she was on "Saturday Night Live". Or they feel pity for her when she whines on "Nightline" about how hard it is to run as a women. She plays to the heartstrings of the "American idol"idiots in this country better than that hillbilly strumming his banjo in "Deliverance".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE

I am voting for Obama if he wins the nomination. If it's Clinton vs McCain. I am voting for the better man. McCain.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:57 am

F308GTB wrote: Hilary has that strong character, but the Clinton history leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

Man you had me with your Colin Powell comment. Then you made me vomit when you said the same about Hillary.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:54 am

F308GTB wrote: the Clinton history leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

Boy, did it ever

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:25 am

TheHiddenTrack wrote:Yeah and that's fine, but there have been more than a few empty-suites run our country. I think many people scrutinize her more than they would if she was less well known. I mean if her name wasn't Clinton she would get attacked less, although if her name wasn't Clinton she wouldn't be here right now.

So it's OK if an empty pantsuit runs our country for the next four years because we've had vapid people in the Oval Office before?

Sorry, I want more than that. Our country is at a critical juncture, and it needs someone who puts the needs of the nation before their personal need for power. Hillary Clinton clearly is not that person.

TheHiddenTrack wrote:I think many people scrutinize her more than they would if she was less well known.

No offense, but that might be the "no sh*t" statement of the year so far at the DSP Forum. Of course she faces more scrutiny: She has been in the world's eye, for better or worse, for the last 16 years. Obama has been in the world's eye for less than four years.

Plus she is running on a platform of experience and readiness, so people thankfully are looking back at her body of work to see if those are legitimate planks for her. I don't think they are, obviously.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:29 am

F308GTB wrote:Isn't that a bit of a chauvinistic comment?

Call it what you will. I consider it to be fact. She brings no record of legislative success, and part of her appeal -- at least among older white women -- is that she is a woman.

The same can be said about Obama, changing the appeal from older white women to a vast majority of blacks.

McCain has a record of service to his country, both as a military man and as a legislator, that far exceeds the combined contributions of both Obama and Clinton. That doesn't mean he's an ideal candidate, but he definitely has more tangible substance behind him than either of the Democrats.

Take care,
PK

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:29 am

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS. Hillary can not beat John McCain! This is a dark morning.

(end impassioned plea)

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:29 am

JackDog wrote:
F308GTB wrote: Hilary has that strong character, but the Clinton history leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

Man you had me with your Colin Powell comment. Then you made me vomit when you said the same about Hillary.

"Character" is the wrong word. "Personality" is better. She's a strong, confident woman. Powell's character is certainly on a higher level than any of the candidates in my opinion, with McCain 1st on the list of current candidates.

You know, if anyone has a chance of fulfilling Obama's desire to get "everyone to work together" I would think McCain would be the one to do it. He's more reasonable and moderate than the typical Republican (heck, he's pissed off a good number of conservatives) and has clearly demonstrated through past performance that he has no qualms working with the other party. I'm not a huge fan of him (he smiles a litte too much like a shifty Sunday preacher), but I think he's the best of the three stooges.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:30 am

F308GTB wrote:but the Clinton history leaves a bad taste in a lot of mouths.

I agree. A bit salty, too.

With love,
Monica Lewinsky

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:36 am

Slumberland wrote:WAKE UP DEMOCRATS. Hillary can not beat John McCain! This is a dark morning.

(end impassioned plea)

Slumber is absolutely right. The percentages are overwhelmingly against Hillary earning enough regular delegates to get the nomination. She'll need to pull anywhere from 62 to 65 percent of the vote in all remaining primaries.

If she loses the Mountain West, Mississippi and North Carolina, which is expected, then those numbers climb to somewhere around 75 or 80 percent.

Hillary won by double-digits last night in Ohio and picked up a net of just seven delegates there. That's the climb she faces.

But she will continue. She will go on right to the convention, blasting the Democratic Party to smithereens in her vain power grab for superdelegates. Because as I've said ad nauseum, this election isn't about the American people for Hillary Clinton. It's all about a megalomaniacal lust for power, about her manifest destiny to sit in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, the Republicans will form a unified front, rally around McCain with a common message and show a maturity and leadership that the Democrats will lack during this petty groveling for superdelegates.

So if Hillary continues this vain wooing of superdelegates all the way to the convention, she will make the road much easier for a Republican victory in November. This time the Democrats can't point the finger at Ralph Nader if they lose after this possible superdelegate fight scenario unfolds -- they can aim their digit straight at Hillary Clinton.

Problem is, Howard Dean is spineless and toothless to deal with the Clinton campaign as Democratic national chairman. That's because the godfather/el patron of Clinton's campaign is famed shillmeister/FOB Terry McAuliffe (a native of Syracuse, embarrassingly), whom Dean succeeded as DNC chair. McAuliffe can call all the shots he wants.

Take care,
PK

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:41 am

The Democratic Party: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory Since 1994.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:14 am

Believe me, and I think you will, when I say I have no horse in this race...

But giving the nomination to Obama just because he leads in delegates is contrary to the entire system that the DNC has implimented. There is a delegate threshold and superdelegates for a reason. If Hillary wins PA, having already won the large and extremely heterogeneous states of CA, TX and OH, she has a very colorable argument in her favor.

It's kind of silly to suggest that she bail out just because she'll have fewer pledged delegates than Obama. She's got a valid claim to the party and she's entitled by the rules to go after those Superdelegates.

I also don't buy all this nonsense about harming the party. The party is having a vigorous debate about who it wants to be its nominee. There are about 1000 news cycles between now and the general election, and the party will be just fine.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:31 am

RobVarak wrote:I also don't buy all this nonsense about harming the party. The party is having a vigorous debate about who it wants to be its nominee. There are about 1000 news cycles between now and the general election, and the party will be just fine.

Yep...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:56 am

Clinton's claims on the big states are dubious. She is no more or less likely to win OH or PA than Obama in the general.

Those states will be fought for by both parties and the economy will have a big role. If McCain keeps saying NAFTA is great but he will support worker retraining, he will go down in flames in OH (BTW, how long have the pro free trade advocates been talking about worker retraining and how many of workers who lost jobs have transititioned into good jobs? Yes that's right empty promises)

TX is going to remain red and NY and CA will remain blue. Unless you think over 60% of Hispanics will support McCain over either Obama or Clinton.

It's going to be a 50/50 race, which is saying something, with an unpopular war and an economy faltering at the wrong time for the incumbent party.

Slumberland · Post by **Slumberland** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:01 pm

She's got every right, and boy I hope it helps the party. But I think people are falling for some stupid sh*t (i.e. the 'red phone' ad) and fail to realize how galvanizing a Hillary nomination would be to a relatively dispirited Republican party. Maybe Obama's got some serious skeletons in his closet and Hillary's got a whopper of a national campaign mapped out that would negate that sort of thinking, but I doubt it. Everything she's throwing at Obama (waffler on NAFTA, weak on national security) McCain will have on her TENFOLD. Which, by transitive property, means he'd have it over Obama as well, but I think Obama's unity message, rhetorical ability, and appeal to independents can trump McCain.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:15 pm

RobVarak wrote:I also don't buy all this nonsense about harming the party. The party is having a vigorous debate about who it wants to be its nominee. There are about 1000 news cycles between now and the general election, and the party will be just fine.

It may not harm the exterior of the party, the part that regular Americans see during those news cycles. But there's no doubt that a superdelegate fight or a brokered convention will form cracks and hard feelings among the party's leadership and infrastructure, which will weaken the party for the general election.

Howard Dean is just not a strong enough leader to unify the party after a brokered convention. Just look at the way he's doing nothing about the negated Florida and Michigan primary situations, hoping they just go away. Well, they're not going away and could play a pivotal role.

This is party politics, Rob. It's not some sort of evolutionary process, something organic, something cleansing and natural. It's all about backroom deals, as you well know coming from Daley country.

Hillary will need those deals to get the nomination, and the same deals can be made to keep the infrastructure of the party unified behind Obama, who can't lose the nomination by looking at the regular delegate math.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:27 pm

wco81 wrote:Clinton's claims on the big states are dubious. She is no more or less likely to win OH or PA than Obama in the general.

I agree, but maybe I wasn't clear. I think that she can and will reasonably argue that by winning the largest and most diverse states she is more entitled to be the nominee. Simply leading in delegates is not a dispositive factor in itself if you don't reach the magic number.

PK, if I were a democrat I wouldn't much enjoy seeing this brawl. But history is replete with examples where candidates overcome brutal nominating fights only to go on and win the general. The slate is very much wiped clean.

I agree wholeheartedly about Dean. The way the DNC has handled the MI and FL situation is terrible, and it will be one hell of a court battle.