OT: 2008 Elections

[XXXIV]

How I voted today:

http://www.zod2008.com/

[greggsand]

I think CNBC said so far that Obama has won 10 out of 17 states.

The trend lines look good for Obama, who looks to have gained his share of white voters, females and Latinos compared to two weeks ago.

Obama has a slight lead in delegates and may split CA.

Next 6 primaries will be more spaced out and he can do more retail politicking and build up momentum, which wasn't as easy to do with Super Tuesday states.

In January, he out-fundraised Clinton 3 to 1.

And I'm watching him give one hell of a speech on CNN right now. Good stuff...

[RobVarak]

And I'm watching him give one hell of a speech on CNN right now. Good stuff...

Maybe it's because I'm in ILL and see him every day, but that was his standard stump speech...albeit with a little extra juice because of the energy in the room. It was not one of his best, although that in itself says much about the bar that he's set for himself.

PS Lou Dobbs is an ignorant blowhard. Just had to get that out...again.

[greggsand]

And I'm watching him give one hell of a speech on CNN right now. Good stuff...

Maybe it's because I'm in ILL and see him every day, but that was his standard stump speech...albeit with a little extra juice because of the energy in the room. It was not one of his best, although that in itself says much about the bar that he's set for himself.

PS Lou Dobbs is an ignorant blowhard. Just had to get that out...again.

In CA, you don't see much of him. Actually, just saw my 1st Obama commercial last week. Just trying to imagine McCain having to follow him in a debate. I barely get through a McCain commercial without falling asleep.

[Jackdog]

I have a question for any Clinton supporter out there. Why??

Please give me a few reasons why you support her. Please make me understand. She is like the show American Idol to me. I don't get it.

Here is where I am today.

McCain vs Clinton. I am going with McCain.
McCain vs Obama. I am going with Obama.

Romney vs Clinton. I am going with Romney.
Romney vs Obama. I am going with Obama.

Huckabee vs Clinton. I am going with General Zod.

[pk500]

The difference between the Hillary and Obama speeches last night was startling. Hillary's usual shrill performance, with endless usage of "I." Meanwhile, Obama was inspiring, presidential, with repetitive usage of "we."

When I watch Hillary, I see the Oval Office as the completion of her master plan for power. I don't get the sense at all that she wants the job to help the country but instead to fulfill her manifest destiny, her insatiable hunger for power, control and to extend the Clinton Dynasty.

When I watch Obama, I see a ton of ambition, too. I see a guy who basks in the glow of a crowd. But I also see a guy who thinks the Oval Office is the means to a greater end, a way to really help America.

Power seems to be the byproduct for Obama; it's the only reason for being for Hillary.

Again, the difference between the two Democratic candidates couldn't be more striking, and I'm not talking the visual difference between a thin black man and a thick-thighed, peroxide-blonde woman.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Same game plan for me, Jack-diggity, except for a Romney-Clinton matchup. I'll look for third parties if that unlikely contest occurs, as the sheen from the faux veneer of those two candidates would be more blinding than putting a magnifying glass over your cornea and staring into the sun.

That would be the Carly Simon Presidential Election sponsored by Mickey's Big Mouth, as Romney and Clinton have massive mouths since each speak out of both sides of their respective pieholes so often.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

The difference between the Hillary and Obama speeches last night was startling. Hillary's usual shrill performance, with endless usage of "I." Meanwhile, Obama was inspiring, presidential, with repetitive usage of "we."

When I watch Hillary, I see the Oval Office as the completion of her master plan for power. I don't get the sense at all that she wants the job to help the country but instead to fulfill her manifest destiny, her insatiable hunger for power, control and to extend the Clinton Dynasty.

When I watch Obama, I see a ton of ambition, too. I see a guy who basks in the glow of a crowd. But I also see a guy who thinks the Oval Office is the means to a greater end, a way to really help America.

Power seems to be the byproduct for Obama; it's the only reason for being for Hillary.

Again, the difference between the two Democratic candidates couldn't be more striking, and I'm not talking the visual difference between a thin black man and a thick-thighed, peroxide-blonde woman.

Take care,
PK

Great analysis PK and I think you are right on the money here. Obama seems to want to be part of a team to help a bigger team (The American People)...while Hilary seems to want to "become President" because she believes it's part of her master plan.

I really hope Obama can beat her for the nomination. They said as of this morning they are in a "virtual dead heat" with no clear leader yet.

[Jackdog]

Same game plan for me, Jack-diggity, except for a Romney-Clinton matchup. I'll look for third parties if that unlikely contest occurs, as the sheen from the faux veneer of those two candidates would be more blinding than putting a magnifying glass over your cornea and staring into the sun.

That would be the Carly Simon Presidential Election sponsored by Mickey's Big Mouth, as Romney and Clinton have massive mouths since each speak out of both sides of their respective pieholes so often.

Take care,
PK

I hear you man. If Romney-Clinton does happen I would like to see Joe Lieberman bust out as a third party candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said Monday a third-party candidate could emerge to shake things up in the 2008 presidential race unless the two major parties tackle the growing problem of partisan polarization that alienates many voters.

"I think the public is fed up," he said. "If the two major parties don't hear this going into '08, there is a real chance of an independent third-party candidacy -- and watch out if that happens," he said at a forum on civility and politics on Capitol Hill.

Extremists in both parties are driving the debate in the 2008 primary, said Lieberman, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000 and who ran unsuccessfully for the party's 2004 presidential nomination.

The fastest growing political party in America, he said, is "no party."

Citing the harsh, divisive tone of attack ads, bloggers, talk radio and cable TV news, Lieberman said most voters across the country are turned off by the partisan bombast and registering to vote as independents in greater numbers.

"The disease is partisanship," he said. "The lack of civility is one of the symptoms of that disease."

I like Joe a lot.

[JackB1]

I have a question for any Clinton supporter out there. Why??

Please give me a few reasons why you support her. Please make me understand. She is like the show American Idol to me. I don't get it.

I am with you JackD. I truly believe that the majority of Clinton's supporters believe that since the economy was great under Bill, it will be great under Hillary. Personally, I am tired of "polarizing" figures in the White House. If Hillary wins, we will have 4 or 8 more years of one half of our country happy, while the other half hates who's in charge. I'm tired of that. I want a uniter and Obama looks to be just that.

[pk500]

I can't stand Bush, but Hillary Clinton nauseates, enrages and infuriates me 10 times more than him.

Take care,
PK

[ScoopBrady]

And I'm watching him give one hell of a speech on CNN right now. Good stuff...

Maybe it's because I'm in ILL and see him every day, but that was his standard stump speech...albeit with a little extra juice because of the energy in the room. It was not one of his best, although that in itself says much about the bar that he's set for himself.

PS Lou Dobbs is an ignorant blowhard. Just had to get that out...again.

In CA, you don't see much of him. Actually, just saw my 1st Obama commercial last week. Just trying to imagine McCain having to follow him in a debate. I barely get through a McCain commercial without falling asleep.

I guess I take Obama's speeches for granted as well since they show so many of them locally. Last nights' speech was quite good though. I was all set to go to bed and made the mistake of flipping to WGN News which was playing his speech and I ended up staying up til the end. He was my favorite going into this whole thing and he has done nothing but make a bigger fan out of me over the past month.

[Slumberland]

My problem with Hillary is 33.4% Iraq vote, 33.3% her oratorial deficiencies, and 33.3% this:

"There is no doubt ... we hope and pray every night to run against Hillary Clinton," - Ari Fleischer

I still think she'd be a far superior President to Bush, if only because she might have a mind to get our finances in order.

Policy-wise, she and Obama are very similar. But I suspect she would unite and motivate a somewhat fragmented GOP in a way Obama can't... and I'd rather they remain in disarray.

[Slumberland]

Obama takes lead in delegate count?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

[pk500]

Democratic Party fat cats, who usually wine and dine and do little else at the national convention, could end up deciding the nominee in August at the convention in a very messy scenario:

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

As an aside, I really like Politico.com. Lots of good news, analysis and rumors from both sides of the aisle.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I have a question for any Clinton supporter out there. Why??

Please give me a few reasons why you support her. Please make me understand. She is like the show American Idol to me. I don't get it.

Here is where I am today.

McCain vs Clinton. I am going with McCain.
McCain vs Obama. I am going with Obama.

Romney vs Clinton. I am going with Romney.
Romney vs Obama. I am going with Obama.

Huckabee vs Clinton. I am going with General Zod.

First and foremost, I'm an Obama supporter. I wish he had more experience, but I think he presents a nice balance of progressive ideas with a diplomatic approach. I really, really hope he gets the nod. I agree with what a lot of others have said about the Clinton polarization issue and having 20 years of the same two families in the White House.

However, if it goes to Clinton, I will vote for her, mostly because the GOP candidates are too conservative for me. It's not a case of being pro-Dem as it is an ideology question. Huckabee is a kinder, gentler William Jennings Bryan and Romney is the conservative version of John Edwards. So they are right out.

McCain is a tougher question. I respect him, and he is definitely moderate on some issues, but the thing is he's much more conservative than I am. I simply line up more closely with Clinton's platform than McCain's. In particular, I have a fundamental disagreement with him about staying in Iraq, which is the most important election issue to me. I believe in fighting the war on terror and have always felt Iraq was a detour from that fight, not the main front. Our involvement there has allowed Iran and Pakistan to become bigger issues, not lesser ones, yet McCain seems prepared to stay the course in Iraq. That's a big problem for me. And, frankly, in the last eight years McCain has shown he's every bit the political opportunist that Clinton is accused of being.

The other thing relates to what PK said about Clinton. I think she's used her Congressional terms to shape a run to the White House, and has experience on a lot of issues related to the presidency. Her record on Iraq is disappointing but at least she's not pushing the same approach McCain is. I think she has very good ideas about health care, which is probably the #1 domestic issue facing working Americans. And despite being a "polarizing" figure, she's actually been fairly bipartisan on a number of issues and has worked with political figures who once called for her husbands head. If you look at her record and experience, she has a better Presidential profile than Bush did in 2000 (which is not saying much, but still).

The last thing I would say (and this is not directed at anyone here) is that the reaction of a lot of men to Clinton surprises me. We always accuse women of being emotional in their logic and reasoning. Yet I see so many men with an almost pathological hatred of her that defies her record or stance on the issues. We've pointed out a lot of good reasons to disagree with her. I have issues with her. I see why a lot of people would vote against her. But the shrillness and amplitude of that criticism seems increased by this emotional reaction. She also gets a lot of extra criticism because she's a woman and she's a Clinton.

If McCain wins, I can live with it and will feel like he will do his best to serve the country. I will certainly disagree with him on a lot of points but I won't feel like he and his cronies are bending us over like the current administration. I just hope he gets to run against Obama because I will feel much better about casting my vote.

I am Brando and I approved this message.

[Slumberland]

Democratic Party fat cats, who usually wine and dine and do little else at the national convention, could end up deciding the nominee in August at the convention in a very messy scenario.

Maybe there will be an Anchorman-like brawl.

Ron Burgundy: Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.
Champ Kind: It jumped up a notch.
Ron Burgundy: It did, didn't it?
Brick Tamland: Yeah, I stabbed a man in the heart.
Ron Burgundy: I saw that. Brick killed a guy. Did you throw a trident?
Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.

[pk500]

She also gets a lot of extra criticism because she's a woman and she's a Clinton.

False on the former. True on the latter.

She is a Clinton, which means she is addicted to the notion of gaining power at any expense, including the absence of honesty and decency.

And I believe her bipartisan work the last seven years again was designed more to build her presidential credentials than to be a unifying force for the common good. The only reason she chose New York as a home state in 1999 was that Moynihan was leaving his Senate seat, and a presidential bid could easily be launched from a Senatorial position in one of the most influential and well-connected states in the Union. If you think she chose New York for any other reason, you're naive. It was all political gain; she didn't even know the people of New York let alone give a rat's ass about them.

Everything is calculated with a Clinton. Everything is governed by polls and focus groups. Nothing is based on principle or idealism.

Everything a Clinton does is designed to increase their power and stature, and if the common good is a by-product, that's fine and dandy. But power and control remain the dual primary goals. Always have, always will.

I suppose every politician has the same goals, but the Clinton's unabashed thirst for them is offensive.

Plus I'm nearly a lifelong resident of New York state, and I can see little that Hillary has done for the Empire State -- especially upstate -- during her seven years as a U.S. Senator. She has been an empty pantsuit for most people around these parts.

Every time I meet a friend or relative around town who supports Clinton's presidential bid, I ask them one simple question: "Name me one thing she has done for upstate New York during her tenure in the U.S. Senate."

Not one supporter has been able to provide me an answer, and I've asked the question to low double-digit amounts of people.

Regardless of whether you think she's a whack job, Arianna Huffington simply nailed the difference between Obama and Hillary in a post Tuesday morning in The Huffington Post. She said presidents are supposed to challenge us to be better than we are, to inspire us to reach further for goals for this nation than we think are possible.

Barack Obama clearly has that effect and vision; Hillary Clinton does not.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

I still think she'd be a far superior President to Bush, if only because she might have a mind to get our finances in order.

She talked about another Clinton cleaning up after another Bush.

But with the latest $3.1 trillion budget and push for more tax cuts or making the tax cuts permanent, the problem may be intractable.

Deficits as far as the eye can see.

Since McCain has turned around and is now saying Bush's tax cuts should be made permanent, maybe it would be best for the GOP to make the budget worse, since they no longer think deficits matter.

[pk500]

You make a very good point, WCO: Isn't it ironic that the leader of the party of fiscal conservatism has just proposed the first $3-trillion budget in U.S. history?

If that's fiscal conservatism, I'd hate to see what Bush thinks is liberal spending.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I suppose every politician has the same goals to some extent, but the Clinton's unabashed thirst for them is offensive.

I just don't see it that way. There's no question they enjoy the power and will fight hard to retain it. But I don't see them as more ruthless than many politicians, particularly Hillary Clinton.

I believe she does get extra criticism, maybe not so much because she's a woman, but because she is a female politician who refuses to act like a female politician. She is more reviled than Bill Clinton, yet she never f***ed around on her spouse, never perjured herself, stuck by her spouse when he did those things, and also tried to tackle a serious problem (health coverage) instead of being White House window dressing as a First Lady. Her health plan was extremely flawed, but she was crucified for even trying.

The worst thing she was ever formally accused of was the Whitewater deal, which never came close proving she did anything wrong despite millions of dollars spent on the investigation. Yet no one brings up McCain's much more clear involvement as one of the Keating Five in the 1980s, which led to a formal rebuke by the Senate.

Finally, more than any other public person in America, everyone becomes a Ph.D. in psychology from Armchair University when it comes to the Clintons. The "calculated" theme is a dogma that gets repeated over and over again, when it's not really based on anything other than perception. She stayed with Bill for her career, she laughed because of her career, she cried because of her career. How does anyone really know why she does what she does? But again, if you took all of her experiences and reactions and put them in Elizabeth Dole, no one would say a thing about it.

I'm not trying to make her look like a saint and I have criticisms about her myself. I just think she receives more criticism than she deserves.

[wco81]

The last thing I would say (and this is not directed at anyone here) is that the reaction of a lot of men to Clinton surprises me. We always accuse women of being emotional in their logic and reasoning. Yet I see so many men with an almost pathological hatred of her that defies her record or stance on the issues. We've pointed out a lot of good reasons to disagree with her. I have issues with her. I see why a lot of people would vote against her. But the shrillness and amplitude of that criticism seems increased by this emotional reaction. She also gets a lot of extra criticism because she's a woman and she's a Clinton.

If McCain wins, I can live with it and will feel like he will do his best to serve the country. I will certainly disagree with him on a lot of points but I won't feel like he and his cronies are bending us over like the current administration. I just hope he gets to run against Obama because I will feel much better about casting my vote.

I am Brando and I approved this message.

I also would like to see Obama win and I used to think if Clinton wins the nomination, she would more match my views than McCain. But lately, I'm thinking that the next presidential term or the one after that isn't going to be some great prize.

The Hilary hate is irrational. On Bill Maher's show, some moderate GOP congressman tried to explain why Hilary was polarizing and he couldn't in a convincing way.

She's polarizing for who she is, nothing particular that she's done.

Maher said, "If you hate Hilary, you hate yourself" meaning that you project your worst tendencies on this figure.

Groups have raised a lot of money using her name so there's a financial incentive to stoke up the hate.

The things people try to cite are not specific to her. There are many politicians as ambitious or more ambitious than her.

There are more substantive criticisms, like she's raised more money from lobbyists than any candidate in either party.

[pk500]

She's polarizing for who she is, nothing particular that she's done.

That's true, because she's done little to nothing, at least as U.S. Senator. She is far from alone as a vacuous U.S. legislator, but she's using her "vast experience" as a major plank of her campaign.

Experience achieving what, may I ask?

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

Obama's made up huge amounts of ground in a very short time. He's on his way up and Clinton is on the way down.

McCain's not very endearing. First, there was the nitpicky parsing of Romney's "timetables for Iraq" statement, and then there was his "I'm so offended" routine with the Dole thing. I hate it when politicians act outraged and offended to score points, because you know they really don't give a sh*t and they don't even have feelings like normal human beings. Still, he's the only one on either side besides Ron Paul who will limit wasteful spending. And of course I'd like to see more Supreme Court justices who follow the Constitution as it's written instead of how they wish it was written.

Obama, he seems like a nice guy, doesn't put people down. I like his style but not his policy positions. I'm torn between wanting Hillary to win so that McCain has an easy ride in November and wanting Obama to win because he's going about his business the right way, unlike most of the other candidates.

[Jared]

That's true, because she's done little to nothing, at least as U.S. Senator. She is far from alone as a vacuous U.S. legislator, but she's using her "vast experience" as a major plank of her campaign.

Experience achieving what, may I ask?

Take care,
PK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_car ... am_Clinton

There seem to be quite a few N.Y. specific things in here as well, such as working to get redevelopment funds for NYC after 9/11, working to increase manufacturing jobs in the state by cosponsoring the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (which provides incentives for completely domestic manufacturing companies). Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of bills that she's co-sponsored, supported, etc., in her time in the Senate. I'm no Senate expert, so I have no idea if what she's done is more or less than other comparable senators. Are there any studies or comparisons of Clinton's "output" as a senator compared to others, to support the claim that she's done little to nothing as a Senator?

And I was surprised to see that she has such a high approval rating (64%) as a Senator...higher than Schumer (58%) actually.