# Clinton's options: Lose gracefully or win ugly



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I came across this op-ed from the Philadelphia Enquirer yesterday which I think pretty accurately sums up Hillary Rodham Clinton's current dilemma.


> Now that her dreams of a Democratic coronation have been dashed, Hillary Rodham Clinton is left with only two options: Lose gracefully, or win ugly.
> 
> It's hard to envision the former. Losing gracefully is not in the Clinton DNA. So let's consider the latter, and the collateral damage that may ensue.
> 
> Realistically, the only way she can win the nomination is by flexing some old-school muscle, thereby infuriating millions of grassroots Democrats who have long assumed that the stench of backroom deal-making had dissipated decades ago.


Some might still argue that HRC still has a fair chance to come out ahead, but short of completely unlikely double-digit landslide wins in the remaining large states like Texas and Ohio she will go to the convention with fewer committed delegates than Obama.

There's some evidence that the Clinton campaign has already chosen the win-ugly scenario in the last couple of days, airing negative TV ads against Obama ahead of the upcoming Wisconsin primary and accusing Obama of plagiarism in a speech. The plagiarism charge has been proven erroneous, since the words in question were used after the author, a close friend of Obama, had given full permission and even insisted on their uncredited use.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sadly I think HRC will say and do anything to win. I don't think she is a very principled politician. Her record on Iraq is baffling and inconsistent. Her record on health care is equally strange in that she fought hard for it ten years ago only to go on as one of the leading recipients of lobbyist money from HMOs and pharmaceuticals. 

I think Obama would rather not have her in a VP role because she is so polarizing. She probably knows this very well and has little to lose by going negative.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Obama, Edwards Meet in N.C.; No Nod Yet
> 
> By NEDRA PICKLER – 23 hours ago
> 
> ...


Terrific ticket - Hillary best suited to Senate Leader.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lose ugly.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would tend to agree with Vandave's view on the current situation re HRC. I don't see her as the VP on a "dream ticket". I would rather see John Edwards as VP, or even Al Gore, with Obama as President. Of course, I would support an Al Gore/Obama as VP ticket, but I don't see that in the cards. I have not seen as much young people support and activism since 1968 when I was one of those who supported Gene McCarthy when he was the Don Quixote against LBJ. If this nomination is taken from Obama by the superdelegates, I think that this wave of Democratic voters becomes disillusioned, and remains home on voting day. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why I’m Switching from Hillary to Obama
> by silver spring
> Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM PST
> 
> ...


There's more - good read.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain is the candidate who has one of the smallest chances of motivating Republicans to go to the polls. The Republican turn-out will hinge entirely on which presidential candidate the Democrats choose. Hillary will motivate them considerably, while Obama will not. If Hillary wins "dirty" she will motivate even some Democrats to support McCain.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Clinton is toast. She was not pulling these attack adds and mild mannered speech around Obama when she was winning or more or less tied. She knows she's up against the ropes and she's going to lose.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Win, lose or draw, she will always be ugly...

Sorry, couldn't help myself


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"McCain is the candidate who has one of the smallest chances of motivating Republicans to go to the polls. The Republican turn-out will hinge entirely on which presidential candidate the Democrats choose. Hillary will motivate them considerably, while Obama will not. If Hillary wins "dirty" she will motivate even some Democrats to support McCain." I am not sure about Macfury's final point, but I do agree with his contention that Clinton will bring out more Republicans to vote for McCain because they dislike her more than they dislike him. Still, I shall vote for either of them, although I have sent in my donation to Obama and intend to support his nomination in any way I can. I actually have convinced two other Americans here in St.John's to register and to vote for Obama. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: My last statement is based on the fact that McCain is offering a platform indistinguishable from that of a conservative Democrat. Fairly easy to hold your nose and make a protest vote for McCain with a platform like his. With the last two elections settled by hair's breadths, anything is possible.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> Sadly I think HRC will say and do anything to win. I don't think she is a very principled politician.


And you can not ignore the fact that the Clinton's had their adviser (and Hillary's former law partner and illicit lover) Vincent Foster executed in a staged "suicide" because they thought he might blow the whistle on the Whitewater Affair.

Bush is scary enough, staging 9/11 with his little buddy Osama bin Laden (aka Tim Osman, who 'worked' for the Department of Agriculture) in order to get him off the hook with the Chinese over the Spy Plane Affair that has threatened to derail his Presidency.

But if the Clinton's get back in, these are the things I would expect: a renewed genocide in the Balkans, more ethnic cleansing in places like Rwanda and Somalia, executions of anyone still alive that was connected to Whitewater, a scandal involving young interns being molested in the Oval Office, a reinvigorated Intifada to hasten the Second Holocaust, and who knows what other buffoonery that Carpetbagger Clinton can get in to. These are all things that they previously supported, though Canada is not clean of it because we allowed Mulroney to "support" the Serbs in their ethnic cleansing because Mila is a Serb herself.



> I think Obama would rather not have her in a VP role because she is so polarizing.


The polite way of saying it. She is about the most disgusting political hack I have ever seen. If I had to choose between Sheila Copps and Hillary Clinton, Copps would win my vote if only because Sheila is less of a slime ball. I think Obama is smarter than that, he would want a VP that could actually do the job. I'd expect him to pick Edwards simply because Edwards is pretty smart (which is why he can not win the nomination for the Democrats because they rarely vote in smart people, barring Truman and FDR...)

Everything would be solved if they could bring back Calvin Coolidge...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> McCain is the candidate who has one of the smallest chances of motivating Republicans to go to the polls. The Republican turn-out will hinge entirely on which presidential candidate the Democrats choose. Hillary will motivate them considerably, while Obama will not. If Hillary wins "dirty" she will motivate even some Democrats to support McCain.


I would tend to agree with those predictions. I think she has the capacity to re-energize GOP voters, because she has been hated by many of them for years as the embodiment of the prototypical liberal. Ironically her attempts since becoming a Senator to counter that perception, with an eye to making a run for the Presidency, is what has turned off so many Democrats and those on the left, including myself.

In attempting to be seen as strong on defence and the military, she took stances that were calculated to make her seem like a safe centrist, such as her willingness to go along with the Iraq adventure. She went along with the bulk of the Dems in caving in to the Bush administration at every turn. Now that the Bush policies have finally been repudiated by most Americans and shown to be an abject failure, she will have to wear it. Her attempts at trying to explain those positions in a tightly nuanced way seem similar to her husbands semantic discussion about what constituted sex.

I don't entirely blame her for the way it turned out. She made what at the time seemed like a safe bet, buying into the cynical triangulation strategy that appeared to be so successful for Bill. This has been my main beef with the Dems for a long time, they appear to stand for nothing. When Bush was going against Kerry, I felt that Americans were already becoming queasy about Bush's actions in the first term, but enough of them looked at the 2 of them and judged Bush to be at least someone who didn't appear to be compromised by doubt.

This is where I think Obama is a remarkable politician. He radiates self-confidence and inner strength, so much so that people who really don't even agree with many of his policies will support him. I think it is these intangibles that win elections, certainly not dry policy.

If Clinton manages to get the Democratic party machinery to back her even if she doesn't have the committed delegates, she will cause many Dems to stay home in November and independents who might have swung to Obama will go to McCain.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: My last statement is based on the fact that McCain is offering a platform indistinguishable from that of a conservative Democrat. Fairly easy to hold your nose and make a protest vote for McCain with a platform like his. With the last two elections settled by hair's breadths, anything is possible.


Except now McCain is sucking up to the GOP extremists. He is now on record as supporting waterboarding, which is a remarkable flip-flop considering his life-long repudiation of torture, given his POW experience in Vietnam. He has also tried to make nice with the Moral Majority types who he had previously denounced as "agents of intolerance".

It's interesting that now he is publicly criticizing Obama, because he knows that Clinton is the one he wants to face in the election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDaddy said:


> Win, lose or draw, she will always be ugly...
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself


Funny, I always thought she was an attractive woman, and she has held up quite well even though she is 60. It's the plastic personality that comes out when she speaks that I find unattractive. But that's something that affects almost all politicians. The really good ones sometimes can appear to be genuine.

That said, her looks, or lack of them, would not be under discussion if she was a man. They would certainly affect things and a talented good-looking male politician will always have an advantage over a talented goofy-looking male politician, but for female politicians it's often a trickier proposition. There's still a lot of buried sexism floating around in our culture.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce: Believe it or not, Hillary just began letting people know that she is a "duck hunter" from way back. Talk about pandering!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, the only time I have freely and willingly voted for a Republican was for John Lindsey when he ran for Mayor of New York City. He was a liberal Republican, and he was up against a conservative Democrat. He won.

I agree with GA when he says that there might be Dem. voters who stay home, but I don't think that they will vote for McCain, not with is stand on Iraq. We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sauce: Believe it or not, Hillary just began letting people know that she is a "duck hunter" from way back. Talk about pandering!


Yeah, that seems pretty far-fetched. I hope she knows enough to not play with guns while drunk, unlike Cheney.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, the only time I have freely and willingly voted for a Republican was for John Lindsey when he ran for Mayor of New York City. He was a liberal Republican, and he was up against a conservative Democrat. He won.
> 
> I agree with GA when he says that there might be Dem. voters who stay home, but I don't think that they will vote for McCain, not with is stand on Iraq. We shall see.


Yeah, John "A hundred years in Iraq" McCain or John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, ... Bomb, bomb Iran***" McCain wouldn't be a real choice for most Dems, I would think.

***Unbelievable, but he actually said this during a Q & A after a speech, to the tune of the famous Beach Boys song. That's some "Straight Talk Express" he's got goin'.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CNN just declared Obama a winner in Wisconsin.....about as white bread as it comes. 

Good on Obama :clap: - nine straight wins and likely 10 given Hawaii is birth state.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> And you can not ignore the fact that the Clinton's had their adviser (and Hillary's former law partner and illicit lover) Vincent Foster executed in a staged "suicide" because they thought he might blow the whistle on the Whitewater Affair.


The tin foil hat contingent is chiming in.  



> I'd expect him to pick Edwards simply because Edwards is pretty smart (which is why he can not win the nomination for the Democrats because they rarely vote in smart people, barring Truman and FDR...)


Edwards has the Kerry-loser taint on him, and I doubt anybody will want to take him on for a second round. 

OTOH, he would make a fine cabinet member, particularly heading the Dept. of HEW.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ten for ten - Obama nails Hawaii as well but what a huge win in Wisconsin - almost 20% above HRC


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> The tin foil hat contingent is chiming in.


Funny how all of the Clintonites make the same case. From what has been witnessed, expect much of the same shenanigans and lack of class from Hillary. I have no respect for her because she did not have the guts to stand for election in her own state, but rather, carpetbagged her way into the Senate through a Democrat-friendly New York. And she has shown consiently that she is a poor Senator with little content. Like a parrot that can spout the dogma of libertarianism, she say speak the words but does not understand them. She was in on the whole Vincent Foster "suicide", and who knows what other scandals. If she was President, whould she utter the same number of lies that her husband uttered, or would she go one better. She is a disgracer, and the Democrats are a disgrace for having cultivated this loser in the first place. How many people will have to be slaughtered in foreign lands if she becomes President?



> Edwards has the Kerry-loser taint on him, and I doubt anybody will want to take him on for a second round.


I do not think Edwards is tained, but then again, I do not think that Kerry is actually tainted, considering the fact that Kerry actually did win the election, if the votes in Ohio had actually been counted correctly. Just like Gore, Kerry was a victim of the same scam that has lead to the violence in Keny, and that lead to fourteen years of civil war in Liberia. If Kerry-Edwards had actually been swept out in the vast majority of states, a la Mondale-Ferraro, then I would think that there would be a taint. . But I think that, considering the situation, the false ballots, lost or miscounted over and under votes, hacked voting machines, faulty voter registration lists, fraud, intimindation, and a lack of international observers (that the US itself imposes upon other countries) - Edwards is only tainted by the fact that he is a Democrat.


OTOH, he would make a fine cabinet member, particularly heading the Dept. of HEW.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Ten for ten - Obama nails Hawaii as well but what a huge win in Wisconsin - almost 20% above HRC". Not so fast, MacDoc. According to CNN, "The senator from Illinois also won the caucuses in Hawaii, his native state, over Clinton 76 percent to 24 percent, with all precincts reporting." Thus, Clinton can claim a moral victory for keeping Obama under the expected 90%. If she can somehow make it illegal for anyone of African-American descent to vote in Texas and Ohio, as it once was the case, she will ride on to victory at the convention. 

Now, were did I put that tin foil and my strainer for that hat???????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not partial to the Democrats, but I would enjoy seeing Hillary pilloried and drummed out of politics.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

I know that everyone except hardline Republican/Christian Fundementalists are tiptoeing around the fact that Obama is black and was raised for 4 years as a muslim but i personal find that with these 2 facts when he does become president it will open up a lot of people's minds and clear away a lot of racial and religious bigotry that has run wild within' the U.S borders for far too long. It will show the U.S and even the rest of the world that Racial hate is unjustified and can be overcome. Plus he makes an awesome leader


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Black: Obama isn't a shoe-in to win by any means. Remember, he hasn't said anything yet.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

I believe he will make it. There's my faith in him.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just got this email. Not sure how they got my address because I have only contributed to the Obama campaign and the Canadian Green party. Not sure what she means about a "level playing field", since she had a huge "war chest" at the onset of the primaries.

"Dear Friend,

Here's what you need to know this morning. We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4 to 1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4.

If we want to win in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, we've got to even the odds. We can't let the Obama campaign overwhelm us financially. Today, I am calling on you and other online supporters to act together, making sure we have the resources to create a fair, level playing field on March 4.

In the last few weeks, thousands upon thousands of people have contributed to my campaign. With so many people acting together, any donation you make today -- even as little as $5 -- makes a difference.

Contribute $5 now to help us level the playing field.
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=1612&utm_source=1612&utm_medium=e&ta=zep3ds

Let this remarkable two-person contest for the Democratic nomination be determined by the strength of our ideas, the quality of our leadership, or the depth of our experience. But whatever you do, don't let the outcome of these crucial March 4 contests be decided by a lopsided spending advantage for the Obama campaign.

Only you -- our incredible online community -- can act quickly and decisively enough to create a level playing field. And with everything on the line, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do.

We're putting everything on the line. Contribute $5 now.
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=1612&utm_source=1612&utm_medium=e&ta=zep3ds

There are just two weeks left before voters go to the polls in one of the most crucial days of voting yet. We must make sure we can hold our own against an avalanche of Obama TV ads, direct mail, phone calls, and online advertising.

I have total confidence that, as long as we have the resources to compete, March 4 will be a day of dramatic victories for our campaign. Let's make it happen.

Thanks,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

P.S. I am counting on your leadership and financial support. Please do all you can -- and act as quickly as possible.
https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=1612&utm_source=1612&utm_medium=e&ta=zep3ds





If you feel you have received this message in error, we apologize. You can unsubscribe at any time: HillaryClinton.com - Unsubscribe

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President

Contributions to Hillary Clinton for President are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. Corporate contributions are prohibited by law.

All content copyright 2008 Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 "


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Oh Hillary.

I don't like the idea of Hillary getting large support from Unions and large companies. I can see them in the future if Hillary would have became president going 'Hey we helped you out in the election, how about cutting some slack on us' *nudge nudge*. It's a very greasy move by Hillary. This is another reason i am FOR Obama in the sense that he does not have large coorporations holding his hand and has funded his campaign mostly on small donations here and there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

in my mail on the other hand



> David --
> 
> Today, the people of Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly in favor of a new kind of politics.
> 
> ...


I wonder how much Obama is raising from outside the US


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Fascinating question, MacDoc. I wonder indeed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

After yesterday's wins, I think it's pretty clear that Clinton has practically no chance to win this except through arm-twisting of superdelegates as well as somehow rigging things so that the Michigan and Florida primaries will unfairly count. There are now many calling for her to gracefully bow out, but nobody really think they'll heed that advice. Apparently "fight until the last dog dies" is a Bill Clinton motto.

Mathematically, Clinton would have to win by massive double-digit margins March 4th in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to even out the delegate count with Obama. This is not going to happen. She may win in those states but that is now looking more unlikely also. She is only slightly ahead in the polling and Obama has closed the gap quickly in the last few weeks. Chances are that by March 4th he could well overtake her and win all 3.

I think the racism aspect is really a moot point in Obama's case. Racism will always exist in the US, but I think it now relegated to the fringes and for the mainstream it is not in general a huge factor anymore. Those who are still so hate-bound that they would never vote for a black man, for the most part would never vote for a Democrat anyway.

As far as the "Muslim" issue, this could be a larger factor. Obama is not a Muslim, nor was he raised as a Muslim, but this bit of urban legend seems to be sticking around. The whispering campaign that he would take the oath of office with Qua-ran seems to have surprising staying power. Again, I'm not sure how many beyond the fringe would buy into this, but if anything I think that anti-Muslim prejudice, and by extension anyone who is branded a Muslim, might be a greater factor than anti-black prejudice.

Still, short of any kind of unforeseen successful "swift-boating" campaign by the party of Rove, I think Obama would easily kick McCain's warmongering ass.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, I got the same email, but then again, both my wife and I donated to his campaign. She cannot vote in the US, but both my son and I shall be eligible to vote in the State of Georgia.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think the racism aspect is really a moot point in Obama's case. Racism will always exist in the US, but I think it now relegated to the fringes and for the mainstream it is not in general a huge factor anymore.


I think those who practice racism would be more inclined to vote for a Black man than to vote for a woman, who by their measure, should be barefoot, pregnant, and be cooking some steaks for her hubby... Or perhaps they would just avoid the whole communist pinko Democrat soviet and stick with Huckabee...

Plus, it is ironic that the Democratic Party who, in 1864 derided Blacks with their slogan song; will in 2008 select a Black for their candidate - while the Republicans, authors of the Emancipation Proclamation, can not find it reasonable to put Colin Powell on the ticket...



> Still, short of any kind of unforeseen successful "swift-boating" campaign by the party of Rove, I think Obama would easily kick McCain's warmongering ass.


I never understood the whole Swift Boat thing. For myself, I could care less if Kerry was jetting around 'Nam in a boat, or if he preferred to spend his days shacked up with prostitutes. At least he was in 'Nam, unlike Bush who spent his days smoking weed, snorting dust and getting drunk and disorderly in general. Neither Obama or Hillary were in 'Nam either, but Obama at least lived in the war zone known to the world as Chicago...

Obama would not have a chance, once McCain had a flashback of the Hanoi Hilton. That dude would freak out like John Rambo. Crazy thing is that many Black voters don't like Obama because he is "from" Kenya, and not from the west of Africa where most Black Americans were "from"...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Those who are still so hate-bound that they would never vote for a black man, for the most part would never vote for a Democrat anyway.


Closer scrutiny of that idea might be necessary. You would be surprised, I think.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

First of all, I just wanted to state I don't particularly care who wins that race or the U.S. presidency for that matter.
Having said that, can anyone explain to me why Obama is regarded as some kind of a saint by the media?
Has he ever really had his past actions/decisions scrutinized as closely as his opponents have?
I understand he is a pretty good orator, but, so what? So was Hitler ( and no, I'm not comparing St. Obama to Hitler).
Anyway, I just wondered if someone with more knowledge of him than me can tell what's so great about the guy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Shades of the 60s Dr. G........



> *Thousands of Students March 7 Miles To Vote*
> By: Nicole Belle on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 at 7:15 PM - PST
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Cole Slaw said:


> First of all, I just wanted to state I don't particularly care who wins that race or the U.S. presidency for that matter.
> Having said that, can anyone explain to me why Obama is regarded as some kind of a saint by the media?
> Has he ever really had his past actions/decisions scrutinized as closely as his opponents have?
> I understand he is a pretty good orator, but, so what? So was Hitler ( and no, I'm not comparing St. Obama to Hitler).
> Anyway, I just wondered if someone with more knowledge of him than me can tell what's so great about the guy.


Obama gave hope to the people first on his very first speech and used the word 'Change'. Thereafter all of the other candidates stole the term from him after they saw how affective it is.

He's popular for bringing hope and promise of REAL change, change we can believe in etc. He also brings out a lot of young voters as he's wet behind the ears.


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

Don't they all (politicians) throw the word "change" around in pretty much every political campaign?


----------



## Cole Slaw (Aug 26, 2005)

MacDoc:
Politicians who can really bring out the crowds don't necessarily impress me.
Here, I've attached a picture of a REALLY big political rally.
So a politicians' ability to draw large crowds doesn't necessarily make him or his message right in my opinion.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Cole Slaw said:


> Having said that, can anyone explain to me why Obama is regarded as some kind of a saint by the media?


I'd like to know what kind of media you've seen that regards him as a "saint". Maybe you're just exaggerating a bit, eh? The media has been noting that there's an awful lot of excitement around the candidate that has given him a lot of political momentum.



Cole Slaw said:


> Anyway, I just wondered if someone with more knowledge of him than me can tell what's so great about the guy.


Google be your friend - read, Slaw, read & decide for yourself: barack-obama - Google News


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I have no respect for her because she did not have the guts to stand for election in her own state, but rather, carpetbagged her way into the Senate through a Democrat-friendly New York.


Being a "carpetbagger" is a far reach from murdering Vincent Foster, which is what you accuse the Clintons of. While I have no love for some of their history, the Clintons were far better than the regime we have now. If she is to be the nominee, I will vote for her. If Obama is to be the nominee, I will vote for him. There is little difference between them, other than a matter of style. 

The carpetbagger thing doesn't stick too well in NY anyway, which is reflective of the culture. NY'ers welcome people from all over the place, the historic entry port of the US. Ellis Island, anyone?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

What Americans want ... regardless of their political philosophy ... is the POLAR OPPOSITE of George W. Bush. If Bush went zig, they want zag.

Conservative Americans would prefer a Republican who zags, Liberal Americans want a Democrat who zags. The candidate who promises to be the least like Bush will win, it's just that simple. Real conservatives are even more bitterly disappointed in Bush than progressives, quite frankly.

McCain will either change his tone a LOT after he doesn't have to pander to the base anymore, OR he will lose in a landslide. Even if I'm wrong, the winner will have to deal with a (most-likely) veto-proof majority Democrat Congress, so in point of fact it hardly matters who actually wins the presidency.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ron Paul could run as an Independent and send the Republicans back to their caves for a generation by splitting the vote.

Bottom line tho - it's going to take a generation or more to fix what ails the US UNLESS the looming financial melt down is allowed to bloom fully and the nonsense asset bubble collapse completely. Let the dollar fall and get American's working again instead of this crazy economy based on consumer buying.

or...... a Manhattan level project to redo the nation's energy structure.

Personally I think the US will be more rudderless than Japan was under similar circumstances.......but without the deep savings Japan had.......it's gonna hurt real bad.

Obama just might have enough FDR/Truman in him to make some progress...if he really does pull the bases in many nations ie Germany that's a huge start on the path to a new balance in the world and repair of the US structural deficiencies.

It's really a shame that David Walker resigned last week.
Maybe Obama can lure him back and LISTEN to him.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MissGulch said:


> Being a "carpetbagger" is a far reach from murdering Vincent Foster, which is what you accuse the Clintons of.


Once a criminal, always a criminal. The Clinton's have no integrity, and have long got away with their various crimes. I mean, Bill even got away with the whole Lewinski thing, even though Bill's DNA was all over her dress. (Too bad Boris Yelsin smoked the cigar that would have been the second clue...) They should have never been allows to occupy the lofty office of the Presidency, considering all of the people that they fraudulently stolen from people in the Whitewater affair.

As for carpetbagging, if Hillary wanted to prove herself - she should have run in her home stake of Arkansas. But they don't like those kinds of people, and she would have lost to basically any candidate. They only bought a house in New York so that she could quailfy to run - she was never a resident of New York, nor does she understand anything of what goes on in New York.



> While I have no love for some of their history, the Clintons were far better than the regime we have now.


I don't know if the Bosnians would agree, considering that Clinton ordered their exectution because he loved the Serbs and entirely agreed with their policies of ethnic cleansing. He did nothing except chase the skirts around the Oval Office. And I would expect that his wife is made of the same stuff, and would gladly lie to Congress for a cheap thrill.

The current regime is run by baboons. The fact stands that the Greatest Generation were able to defeat both the Nazi German Empire and the Imperial Japanese Empire in the span of six years - while the current loosers can't seem to gain control over Spin Boldak in that time... It is sad that considering the cash spent on the military, they can not defeat even the most feeble of opponents. Of course, Osama would not have been able to order the destruction of the WTC if Clinton had actually taken the appropriate action during his Administration.



> If she is to be the nominee, I will vote for her. If Obama is to be the nominee, I will vote for him. There is little difference between them, other than a matter of style.


That is your opinion. If I had my choice, I'd vote for Colin Powell because he is the smartest among them all. At least Obama is not tainted by a lifetime of crimes like Clinton is.



> The carpetbagger thing doesn't stick too well in NY anyway, which is reflective of the culture. NY'ers welcome people from all over the place, the historic entry port of the US. Ellis Island, anyone?


What does immigration have to do with parachute candidates? No wonder why New Yorkers are so frustrated, having to rely entirely upon Chuck Schumer to do the job because she is clueless and does not even know where Yonkers is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

of course this might also happened 

YouTube - Lou Dobbs - NAFTA Superhighway 2/19/08

catch the cost number.......cost about ahem "public works"........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good sized sample










That's just about the percentage he's been winning by too. 

Vote: Time to quit the presidential race? - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Once a criminal, always a criminal. The Clinton's have no integrity, and have long got away with their various crimes. I mean, Bill even got away with the whole Lewinski thing, even though Bill's DNA was all over her dress. (Too bad Boris Yelsin smoked the cigar that would have been the second clue...) They should have never been allows to occupy the lofty office of the Presidency, considering all of the people that they fraudulently stolen from people in the Whitewater affair.
> 
> As for carpetbagging, if Hillary wanted to prove herself - she should have run in her home stake of Arkansas. But they don't like those kinds of people, and she would have lost to basically any candidate. They only bought a house in New York so that she could quailfy to run - she was never a resident of New York, nor does she understand anything of what goes on in New York.
> 
> ...


Your views are so misinformed and extreme I'm not going to waste my time arguing. This would not end well. FWIW, Hillary's home state is Illinois.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good plan 

––––––

Interesting take in Salon












> A new face for American diplomacy
> 
> *Barack Obama is perceived by Muslims abroad like no other candidate. He would begin a presidency with tremendous potential to heal U.S. relations with much of the world.*
> 
> ...


good read ( long )

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/02/21/obama_muslims/


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

MissGulch you took the words right out of my mouth. I'm from Illinois and have been involved with the Democrats since FDR. It amazes me that most Canadians are so ill informed on US politics. So far I have not been influenced by Obama as I feel he is a great orator, but his background in the Illinois Senate does not impress me.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

lotus said:


> MissGulch you took the words right out of my mouth. I'm from Illinois and have been involved with the Democrats since FDR. It amazes me that most Canadians are so ill informed on US politics. So far I have not been influenced by Obama as I feel he is a great orator, but his background in the Illinois Senate does not impress me.


Canadians know more about the U.S than the average American high schooler, i guarantee it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lotus the diplomat.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Black, I totally agree with you.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Sinc, I was not offended by Black's remarks, give the kid a break. I was lucky to have maternal Grandparents who were Canadian so I had a better understanding of both sides of the border. 

What are your thoughts on the presidential campaign?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice to hear from you again lotus.

My thoughts?

Well for one I sincerely hope the American people can rid themselves of the current administration and their war like ways.

Bush has been a disaster for both America and the world.

McCain is a Republican, so I am distrustful of him as coming from the same mold as the Bush regime.

As for the Obama/Clinton contest, I share your misgivings on Obama's record, but have equal misgivings on HRC's intentions.

It is a crap shoot, but at the end of the day, perhaps a black president would make a huge difference in the USA's world reputation, as would a first woman president.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Although I'm currently decided for Obama, the point I think too many people are missing is that the next Congress will probably be more Democrat-centric than it has been in a long time, maybe even super-majority (more than half in the House, more than 60 in the Senate) meaning that a Republican President will get NOTHING done, and even a Dem with too polarising a manner (coughCLINTONcough) could run into serious trouble.

Obama has the advantage of being a relatively clean slate. He has actually proven he can work with all sides without polarising them. For this ALONE he should be given the nod, but even more importantly I am now convinced that he's the ONLY person who can restore America's reputation in the world, and put the US back on STRONG constitutional footing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Let the dollar fall and get American's working again instead of this crazy economy based on consumer buying.


Yep, we wouldn't want an economy based on people buying things. That's CRAZY!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> ...even more importantly I am now convinced that he's the ONLY person who can restore America's reputation in the world, and put the US back on STRONG constitutional footing.


What has Obama said to convince you that he will put the US on STRONG constitutional footing? He's said so little as yet, so I'm curious.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What has Obama said to convince you that he will put the US on STRONG constitutional footing? He's said so little as yet, so I'm curious.


I should have qualified my remark to say that "of the remaining candidates, he is the one most likely to." Ron Paul would have done more to restore the constitution to its proper place in our government, because he's obsessed with the topic (and his interpretation of it is a little nutty).

Having said that, Barack may have a thin record on the topic but he does have one, and of course he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail things that indicate support for constitutional issues:

• He has repeatedly crafted, sponsored, and voted for laws that would increase the transparency of government workings.

• He declared in his stirring 2004 democratic convention keynote speech that the greatness of the United States is predicated on the Declaration of Independence.

• He voted NO on activist judges Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

• Believes signing statements (and George Bush's behaviour in general) is an abuse of the executive branch's duties as laid out in the Constitution.

• He voted for a bill limiting gun purchases to one per month.

• Has voted against all recent attempts to change/modify the Constitution.

• Voted (and has spoken strongly about) the need to restore Habeas Corpus.

(by the way, I wrote the above based on reviews of his positions at ontheissues.org and democrats.com, I did not "cut and paste" any of that from somewhere.)

But to be more specific about his view of the constitution, we can recall that he was a constitutional law professor in Chicago. Here's a good article (though biased from a libertarian perspective) on Obama's record in this regard. The author doesn't agree with Obama's views in all matters, but respects that he has at least thought about his view and developed his interpretation.

In opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales (another tick in his "right the first time" column), he said that the attorney general must put the Constitution ahead of the president's agenda.

And finally, Barack Obama (unlike Hillary Clinton) signed the American Freedom Pledge. It reads as follows: "We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people's phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from attack by any President." That's the entire pledge.

And Hillary Clinton didn't sign it. Of course no Republicans signed it either (except Ron Paul, obviously).

Nuff said.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Good post chas_m.

I came across this post on DailyKos yesterday ( "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype" ) that takes a detailed look at Obama's legislative accomplishments as a Senator. It's quite clear that Clinton and now McCain's use of the "empty suit" talking points to describe Obama is not at all true.

Obama obviously has worked hard for the causes he believes in and speaks from a place of authenticity, unlike about 90% of politicians. I think he's also a great political talent, in that he seems to be able to play the game very skilfully, picking up on the right issues and then communicating his views with a force that is rare to see these days. 

At this point, I just wonder how Democrats could even be questioning that he would be the best nominee. Clinton's only hope now is that in the next week or so he makes some major gaffe or they somehow ferret out some major dirt on him. I'm sure the Clinton team and the McCain team has full time units on the case, probably trading notes.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Damn-NATION I wish I had known about that diary before I did all that research! This would have saved me a CRAPLOAD of time!!



Seriously, thanks for the link. I'm forwarding it widely (and cleaning my oven!) as I type this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

chas_m said:


> Damn-NATION I wish I had known about that diary before I did all that research! This would have saved me a CRAPLOAD of time!!


 

If I've learned anything about the 'net in the last few years it's that someone else has always already done the research, probably 6 months before I had ever thought of the subject. And also that I always find that person's research only after I've spent at least half a day poring over arcane web sites.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MccCain is starting to feel the backbite from his media pals with intimations of a lobbying scandal--a story that might have been released at any time during the crucial Republican primaries but wasn't. 

I see this guy as a temporary media darling, built up initially by the media at large because they see him as a likely loser in a presidential election. Now that the Republicans have followed suit and chosen a loser, the media feeding frenzy will begin.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think Clinton might have blown the Texas debate by not accepting Obama's explanation of using his campaign manager's words in a speech......AT THE CAMPAIGN MANAGERS SUGGESTION 

She got rightly booed and it smacks of desperation. Accept the situation and move on - she didn't and likely won't.

If she really had the party and nation's best interest at heart she'd bow out after 10 straight sizeable losses.

She's got far too much of a Bush smirk and I think people recongnize she's not the level of inspirational leader the US needs.

Hell McCain is a better leader figure than HRC and the polls show Obama does far better against McCain than Hillary.

Bottom line out it all.......the US is so screwed for the next term and beyond that most of this is idle rhetoric. 

•••

McCain will just shrug it off - he could rightly care a rat's ass about the media.

The choice of running mate for both will have a pretty big impact on the centre.
The ridiculous right will whine and complain and rant and rave but end up voting for McCain anyway - mindless drudges or money leeches both.

My bigger concern about the 2008 election is how to break the stupid gerrymandering as no matter how strong the president is - without legislative power it's all talk.

Look at Pelosi's dismal 100 days.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> McCain will just shrug it off - he could rightly care a rat's ass about the media.
> 
> The choice of running mate for both will have a pretty big impact on the centre.
> The ridiculous right will whine and complain and rant and rave but end up voting for McCain anyway
> ...


McDoc--McCain does care. He's already in damage control mode. In a sense he doesn't care because he'll get his shot at the White House, but his honeymoon with the media is over now that he's the clear Republican frontrunner. His famous temper will take over now that he's in the hot seat.

You are dead wrong about Conservatives blindly supporting McCain . He is a party favourite, but will not inspire massive voter turnout. Count on it.

Pelosi's dismal 100 days are the result of Pelosi being a dismal politician.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He doesn't care about the media.

Where did I say anything about inspired turnout??....those on the rangy right that'll vote will vote despite their headshaking.
Just like the Sun readers will vote for Harpo despite his big gov goofs.
Lap puppies all......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> He doesn't care about the media..


Sure. He and his campaign just pretend that they care:


> John McCain became big news yesterday when the New York Times printed an article, which suggested that the presidential candidate had an inappropriate relationship with a 40-year-old female lobbyist, who is not his wife.
> 
> McCain quickly refuted the claims in a press conference earlier today, saying, "I’m very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It’s not true."
> 
> ...



Access Hollywood



MacDoc said:


> Where did I say anything about inspired turnout??....those on the rangy right that'll vote will vote despite their headshaking.


I don't understand the point then. Those on the loony left will also vote for any Democrat. However, neither the loons nor the rangs will be able to swing an election on their own.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Having a moderate like McCain and either Obama or Clinton in the White House is simply refreshing to have happen.

Ron Paul could very well be a spoiler like Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain will be a spoiler all his own. He simply won't energize enough traditional republican voters.

Calling McCain a moderate is over-simplified however--he is hawkish on Iraq and has consistently voted against abortion. More fractured in philosphy than moderate.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hm. I wonder how soon is too soon to start talking about Obama's potential running mates.... 

M


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Hm. I wonder how soon is too soon to start talking about Obama's potential running mates....
> 
> M


It's not too soon, but it would be presumptuous of Obama to listen to you at this point.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> McCain will be a spoiler all his own. He simply won't energize enough traditional republican voters.
> 
> Calling McCain a moderate is over-simplified however--he is hawkish on Iraq and has consistently voted against abortion. More fractured in philosphy than moderate.


Macfury has it exactly right, I think. The conventions will tell the story -- the Repubs will be going through the motions compared to the Democrats (even if Hillary somehow wins) because they can smell defeat on the Repub side and because either way they will have Congress (and probably substantially more of it than they do now).

All the Democrats have to do is remind the rank and file that McCain is pro-Bush on his three most unpopular (with them) points -- Iraq, immigration and Social Security.

McCain will try to claim that Obama (or Hillary) will let gay Muslim immigran terrorists marry and indoctrinate our children (or some such nonsense), but Hillary can point to her record and Obama can point to his church and it's clear no such thing will happen.

The bottom line is Republicans have nothing to run on but fear, and that's no longer working as well as it used to. Fear vs. Hope is a movie we've seen before, in 1992. Despite Bill Clinton's faults (both personal and political), the 90s were really good to the US and people do actually remember that. The Dems have a reason to turn out and vote, the Repubs not so much.

Lastly, just to annoy MacDoc  , I'm going to defend (very lightly) Ms. Pelosi. She did, in point of fact, get some good bills through Congress in the first few months. She missed the key stuff we'd have liked to have seen, like impeachment, defunding Iraq and Habeas, but she did get a lot of smaller (but important) stuff done. It's her lacklustre performance SINCE THEN that I'm unhappy with ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) The Republican party will say all those things.....I doubt McCain will participate - to his credit.

b) Pelosi's term has a lower support rating at 11% than even Bush now at an unprecedented 19%.

c) the problem with Pelosi is evoking FDRs 100 days super activist legislation - SHE set the bar........she failed to launch at all.
Small successes do not count for much when big claims are made.
The populace in general in my view is quite aware Washington is broken and that's one aspect of Obama that echoes with moderates and independents - clean house.

Obama would do well to partner up with Edwards solely on Edwards firebrand anti lobbyists - clean up Washington creds. Truman was set that same task by FDR to clean up the military corruption which he did very well.

Edward's is convincing on that basis and has enough legal clout to go about it.
Obama can play the statesman and inspirational leader while Edwards focuses on gov. cleanup.

The macro economic stuff is really beyond any administration to fix and Bernake is independent.

If Obama can start dialogue and repair relations internationally and Edwards cleanup and repair in Washington I'd judge them successful.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Obama would do well to partner up with Edwards solely on Edwards firebrand anti lobbyists - clean up Washington creds. Truman was set that same task by FDR to clean up the military corruption which he did very well." Amen, MacDoc. This is why I think that Pelosi's 100 Days failed -- too many politicians, of both parties, were too much "in bed" with lobbyists and corportate interests.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McCain is Bob Dole for a new generation. They're just giving him the position so he can fall on his face gracefully while they prepare some new leadership for 2012.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Well, I voted for Hillary, but the campaign ran out of cash because they squandered it on party platters and lavish ballrooms.

Outta Dough

This is a very bad precedent, and I think given the wasteful attitude they deserve to lose.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"But some Democrats are now asking if the money spent on a campaign that appears to be sputtering — $106 million so far — was worth it." Miss G., I found the article interesting. My wife and I have both sent money to the Obama campaign, although only my son and I can vote in the State of Georgia for whomever. Paix.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gmark2000 said:


> Ron Paul could very well be a spoiler like Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan.


... Or quickly forgotten, like bow tie wearing Paul Simon that tried so many times. I think RuPaul would have a better chance, at least in the Village...



Macfury said:


> McCain is Bob Dole for a new generation. They're just giving him the position so he can fall on his face gracefully while they prepare some new leadership for 2012.


Jeb Bush??? Perhaps with the Recession, the Republicans want to get the Democrats in, so they can be unpopular! Out of all of the Senators, I think they should run Chuck Schumer because he was THE MASTER of the dirty attack ads. As President, he could produce all kinds of ads, attacking pertty much all of the enemies of Chuck Schumer.

Too bad Arnold is not eligible to run because he would win easily. None of this fooling around with armies and occupation, Arnold could flex some muscles and kill all of the dictators of the world in less than two hours - just like he killed Richard Dawson. Of course, the Democrats would have to counter with Stallone, who would have none of this saving guns in armouries crock. He would reason that if they exist, they need to be used, and like Arnold, he could kill all of the dictators of the world in five convenient episodes of 90 minutes...

Perhaps the best Administration would be a Bronson - Eastwood ticket, with Chuck Norris as Sec. of Defence, Hulk Hogan as Sec. of State, Paul Newman as Sec. of HUD, the dude from Walking Tall as Sec. of Justice, and Don Rickles as Special Envoy to the Middle East...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.

The consumer advocate will appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Nader launched his 2004 presidential run on the show."

Ralph Nader does not feel as if a "progressive candidate" will be nominated for either party. Thus, he is once again, considering a run for the presidency. We shall see.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> a) The Republican party will say all those things.....I doubt McCain will participate - to his credit.


You're thinking of the John McCain with some integrity left -- that was years ago. Today's John McCain is a "pander bear" and I *guarantee* he will attack gays, reverse his stance on immigration (which, to his credit, he's held firm on so far), and complete his flip-flop on torture because that's all the Republicans have to run on. If he doesn't get into line with the super-right base, he'll get nobody coming to vote for him and be buried in a landslide.



> b) Pelosi's term has a lower support rating at 11% than even Bush now at an unprecedented 19%.


This is reflective of Congress' general very low approval more than singling her out specifically, but there's also a factor of misogynist Republicans in there as well. She's certainly no worse than her predecessor.



> c) the problem with Pelosi is evoking FDRs 100 days super activist legislation - SHE set the bar.


Completely agree. She overpromised and underdelivered.



> Obama would do well to partner up with Edwards solely on Edwards firebrand anti lobbyists - clean up Washington creds.


While Edwards has made it clear he's not going to accept a vp slot, it's become clear that he would be given an important job in either an Obama or Clinton administration. I wish he *would* accept the Obama VP slot, though, because he'd make a great President of the Senate.



> Edward's is convincing on that basis and has enough legal clout to go about it.
> Obama can play the statesman and inspirational leader while Edwards focuses on gov. cleanup.


Good cop/bad cop, eh? This is so crazy it just ... might ... work! 



> The macro economic stuff is really beyond any administration to fix and Bernake is independent.


Bernake is about as independent as Puerto Rico.



> If Obama can start dialogue and repair relations internationally and Edwards cleanup and repair in Washington I'd judge them successful.


Bingo!!! Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I *guarantee* he will attack gays, reverse his stance on immigration (which, to his credit, he's held firm on so far)


Though I support his reversed stance on immigration, perhaps you haven't been listening very closely.



chas_m said:


> Bernake is about as independent as Puerto Rico.


Stop calling him that. It's Bernanke--damned Canadians!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> While Edwards has made it clear he's not going to accept a vp slot,


citation on that???

••

We'll have to disagree on McCain and it will soon play out - I suggest he will not risk losing the fragile inroads to the moderates and independents by pandering to the slavering attack poodles.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: You're dreaming here. The moderates can't sustain McCain. Only candidates who campaign hard on conservative issues have a chance to win a Republican presidency. The moderates are warmed over leftovers who will abandon him in a second, while the so-called independents are largely disaffected Democrats.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> citation on that???


He said it in one of the Democratic debates, in response to a direct question on that topic. He basically said, "been there, done that, no thanks" to the offer to be one of the other two's vp.

That's not to say that he couldn't change his mind, but I don't see it. This is the new "I mean everything I say" John Edwards, and so far he's stuck to his word.



> We'll have to disagree on McCain and it will soon play out - I suggest he will not risk losing the fragile inroads to the moderates and independents by pandering to the slavering attack poodles.


I originally saw it your way -- that McCain would be smarter to adopt MUCH more moderate positions after the primaries are over. If Hillary turns out to be the nominee, that might even be his plan. But since it looks now like Obama is the nominee, appealing to moderates won't work, Obama's already got them (even Republican ones) locked up. He'll HAVE to go to the attack poodles because only THEY will show in large numbers to vote for him. IMO.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Though I support his reversed stance on immigration, perhaps you haven't been listening very closely.


I was commenting on MacDoc's post, not any of your comments. I'm certainly not in a position to know what "the answer" on immigration is, but as I understand it nothing from the Republicans addresses employer culpability, which I think is the real key. Under Clinton, the US did a very effective job shutting down job mills for illegals, under Bush they've literally turned a blind eye.



> Stop calling him that. It's Bernanke--damned Canadians!


Oops. Sorry. I should really know better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> He'll HAVE to go to the attack poodles because only THEY will show in large numbers to vote for him. IMO.


They'll show up in large numbers anyway...more if he snags a virulent running mate.....his wrestling match is in the moderates and independents - that's where the swing will be.
HE got to the nomination because moderates are fed up with the edge dwellers.

He must try and hold that ground...futile as it's likely to be against Obama.

As I mentioned - I'm far more concerned about gerrymandered districts which just about guarantee same old same old encrusted entrenched interests get voted in again.

One of Obama's first tasks should be to address that - I've not even heard it mentioned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: There's no point McCain going full bore after the moderates, if it completely undermines any traction he has with Conservatives. I believe that McCain is already sufficiently poisoned by delusions of power that he no longer has any objective positions on any of the issues, but he'll have to decide on one approach or the other.

Meanwhile, his campaign is becoming increasingly sensitive about the media, putting him in full damage control mode and limiting access to him by the press.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Great news for McCain... Nader's throwing his hat into the ring again.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Great news for McCain... Nader's throwing his hat into the ring again.


Few people take him seriously anymore, and he'll get far fewer votes than he used to. While I used to admire him, no more, as it's become obvious he's just an election flasher. He could just as well drop his pants and open his coat for the press. 

The idea that Obama may actually represent us is very exciting. It hadn't totally registered before, because I was really looking at the issues and not at him too much personally. 

Won't the US have a better image abroad if BO is out there representing us with his genial manner and toothy smile?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting to see what might hapen if Ron Paul runs as an independent.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Few people take him seriously anymore, and he'll get far fewer votes than he used to. While I used to admire him, no more, as it's become obvious he's just an election flasher. He could just as well drop his pants and open his coat for the press.


I think he's sincere and honorable... but wrong. The real villain though, there and here, is the electoral system. If they had the Transferable Vote then people could support candidates like Nader without worrying about splitting the vote and letting their opponents (in this case the Republicans) win.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> Few people take him seriously anymore, and he'll get far fewer votes than he used to. While I used to admire him, no more, as it's become obvious he's just an election flasher. He could just as well drop his pants and open his coat for the press.
> 
> The idea that Obama may actually represent us is very exciting. It hadn't totally registered before, because I was really looking at the issues and not at him too much personally.
> 
> Won't the US have a better image abroad if BO is out there representing us with his genial manner and toothy smile?


I hope you like the state he leaves Iraq in after the quick withdrawal--if he isn't just like every other politician lying about planned changes.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Speaking of Iraq, I think it's time to recognise that ANY politician talking about ANY plan at the moment is pure speculation. Once in office, they will listen to the Pentagon and the commanders on the field (if they're Democrats) and demur to a plan that uses the president's preferred *approach* but will ultimately be worked out by the military.

If a Republican somehow gets in, he'll also pull troops out of Iraq -- because he'll need them for the war in Iran (and Syria, and Jordan, and Lebanon, etc).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Way back when, I always wanted to be a "Nader Raider". After the election of 2000, I still can't see why Ralph Nader is deciding to run once again for the presidency. I think he would hurt Clinton more than Obama if she was the candidate. Still, it is a wild card that can only be trumped if the religious right runs its own third party candidate. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: The candidate need not be religious--merely conservative. John McCain isn't.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, my guess is that McCain will pick a fiscal conservative as VP, leaving the religious right out in the cold. Thus, a candidate with religious values as the basis of their platform, another party could field a candidate. We shall see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A you say, we shall see--but McCain has raised the most ire among what should have been his base through "McCain-Feingold" and some very bizarre pronouncements on illegal immigration, not strong religious issues. McCain has been the most stalwart on the war in Iraq and abortion, the two issues that appear to be the most important to the religious component.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

The religous right will _never_ run their own independent candidate ... this will never happen no matter _how_ unhappy they get with the Republicans.

Why? Because when their candidate gets his ass handed to him, they can no longer claim that "gawd" is on their side. They can't deal with reality, so they just won't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas-m: Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee and many other overtly religious candidates have already run in primaries, but I have never heard their supporters suggest that God had abandoned them in the primaries. I think there's an understanding that a candidate running primarily on a religious platform has no hope of winning outside of the two-party system.

John Anderson, Ross Perrot, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan are object lessons in the failure of third-party candidates to be anything but spoliers.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> chas-m: Pat Robertson, Mike Huckabee and many other overtly religious candidates have already run in primaries


As Republicans. We were discussing a third-party, hard-core religious candidate. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been one, at least not in from the 20th century to the present.

Republicans (and Democrats) are inherently assumed to be ungodly. 

A pure religious candidate -- not a politician -- running on a widely-supported fundamentalist platform -- who failed as miserably as they would could only blame two things for their failure: god, or the godless public. Either would point out the emptiness of faith, so it will never happen.



> John Anderson, Ross Perrot, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan are object lessons in the failure of third-party candidates to be anything but spoliers.


Not at all. Though it's been a while, America has had several third-party presidents. The most recent was (I believe) Teddy Roosevelt, who ran on the "Bull Moose" (Progressive) Party platform. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but it could be said that there was a third-party President within (barely) living memory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas: That was a REALLY long time ago. So long ago that you didn't quite get it right. Roosevelt had already served as a Republican President before running on the "Bull Moose" ticket--and acting as a spoiler by siphoning votes away from the Republican Party.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Macfury said:


> chas: That was a REALLY long time ago. So long ago that you didn't quite get it right. Roosevelt had already served as a Republican President before running on the "Bull Moose" ticket--and acting as a spoiler by siphoning votes away from the Republican Party.


Doh! You are right. My mistake.

That would make America's most recent third-party president ... well, George W. Bush really. 

I mean, he calls himself a Republican, but what's conservative or traditionally Republican about him? Nothing as far as I can tell ...

Okay, okay ... seriously, America's most recent third-party president appears to have been Andrew Johnson, the guy who succeeded Lincoln (and was his vp) running on the National Union ticket. America's last _elected_ third-party candidate was Lincoln.

It is worth noting, however, that America had four Whig presidents, four "Democratic Republican" presidents (they were the opposition party to the Federalists) and one Federalist president (George Washington didn't have to worry about this crap, he had no political party!). So while it's been a good long time since a successful elected third-party president has come along, America's history of presidents is 25% third-party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yeah, chas--the spectre of Andrew Johnson still gives pause to many of today's candidates! 

I think conservatives were hoping that George Bush might be a closet conservative but he wound up being some sort of big government freak. It might be the same phenomenon that convinces Democrats they need to trundle out hunting anecdotes every four years like Hillary "I bagged a duck" Clinton and John "Where do I get me a hunting license" Kerry.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Yeah, chas--the spectre of Andrew Johnson still gives pause to many of today's candidates!


Perhaps it is not far from the truth of the matter. Considering that in 2000, Americans were almost subjected to the Electoral Trial that saw Benjamin Harrison become President; and that Clinton was impeached as Johnson was. But there has been no precident for the Bush Administration, barring Jane Goodall's studies...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It looks like Obama's gentle campaign manner is making Hillary look like a villain.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It looks like Obama's gentle campaign manner is making Hillary look like a villain.


Hillary always looked like an evil witch, and her potty mouth is even worse than her ugly mug. She has even stooped to mocking fashion in Kenya, her hatred knows no bounds.

Obama, on the other hand, is just cruising to what will probably be an easy victory...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting that chas is somewhat correct here--since Obama has started to open up a little on his policies, some of the more influential conservative talk show hosts are plugging their noses and starting to hope that McCain picks a half decent running mate.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Hillary is hinting at a shared ticket (with her at the top, natch). What are your thoughts on this? I think it might work as the thing is closing to a draw and the Dems need their strength to run against McBush.

Hillary/Barack, Barack/Hillary?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

iMouse said:


> She might not like his hand up her ass, as much as George does DIck's. :lmao:


BEEP!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What is this, the World Wrestling Federation? A shared ticket? Obama needs to destroy that old witch NOW!

It's like Dracula trying to negotiate a settlement as a stake enters his heart at 5:59 a.m.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> Hillary is hinting at a shared ticket (with her at the top, natch). What are your thoughts on this? I think it might work as the thing is closing to a draw and the Dems need their strength to run against McBush.
> 
> Hillary/Barack, Barack/Hillary?


A Clinton / Obama ticket would be the best case scenario.

Clinton has the political experience a president needs. Obama has the charisma and vision the White House needs. If those two teamed up, they would easily crush McCain in the election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

With Hillary at the bottom of the ticket, perhaps.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> She might not like his hand up her ass, as much as George does DIck's. :lmao:


That is way out of line.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

MissGulch said:


> BEEP!!!





SINC said:


> That is way out of line.


Noted, and removed.

To bad about the quotes though.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I should have stuck with my original idea; 

Now there'll be a big fight on who rides in the back!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> Noted, and removed.
> .


Good decision. Thanks.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I reallllly don't think we'll see Obama as Hilary's running mate. He's young enough to make another run for it next time around, and, I mean, think about it. The VP slot under Hilary will be practically invisible, with the media circus focused on the first woman president and Bill Clinton, who will redefine "first spouse" (or, define "first husband").

No way would Obama want to be in the shadow of those two - being the first Black VP delivers no great historical moment in that context.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Hillary is hinting at a shared ticket (with her at the top, natch). What are your thoughts on this? I think it might work as the thing is closing to a draw and the Dems need their strength to run against McBush.
> 
> Hillary/Barack, Barack/Hillary?


I think the Democrats have now put themselves in a pickle, to say the least. If neither candidate backs down or has their support suddenly plunge, this could go all the way to the convention in August and end in a divisive fight for the superdelegates. In the meantime Bomb Bomb McCain is free to paint them as losers and use the manure that they dig up on each other as bombs to drop on them.

I think it is really unfortunate that Hillary's campaign of negativity appears to have worked. In my idealistic heart I had hoped that people were bigger than that, but I guess I should have known better. Fear is the big political motivator in the USA and is the tried and true recipe for winning.

I think John McBush would be an easy candidate for just about anyone to defeat, but with the Democrats tearing themselves apart he could actually beat them, no matter which one emerges in the end.

If Hilary is the winner I think she is the more compromised of the two and polling has shown that in a head to head against McCain she could lose. Like Kerry she will have to fight the Bush legacy, even though her voting supported it, so she'll get the flip-flopper charge in spades. Obama had a better showing in that poll, with a clear win, but who knows how electable he'd look after 6 months of extended vicious battling with Clinton's group.

I don't see how Obama could or would really want to accept an offer of VP without looking like a loser. After all he is the one with an insurmountable lead in delegates. I also don't know if he will want to go to the toxic campaigning that the Clinton camp has waged to win it. I read this morning that Bill Clinton actually appeared on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday, apparently in support of Limbaugh's call for Republican's to support Hillary and keep the battle going. I'm sure that action has disgusted at lot of Dems. I guess Bill was able to simply forget that Rush compared his daughter to a dog when she was still a child in the White House, if getting the help of guttersnipes like him and his followers could help them get another chance to live there.

I think this morning that Republicans are very happy. They probably think that Cindy McCain's White House drape measuring might actually be a reality. What a horrible development that would be, for the US and for the rest of the world.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Wanna see how happy the Republicans are this morning?

Bush tap dancing, smirking and generally yucking it up for the press.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

And now McCain has grovelled before the Bush, and the flood of Bush money will inevitably follow.

Hilliary should step aside, for the good of the country.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think this morning that Republicans are very happy. They probably think that Cindy McCain's White House drape measuring might actually be a reality. What a horrible development that would be, for the US and for the rest of the world.


Well, you must admit we're not a dull people.  

I saw the clip with Bush and McBush hugging and kissing, and Shrub-love can't be good (I already saw a negative ad about it). I, too, was hoping Hillary would lose, conbeep and beep done with it. Uh, I mean lose, CONCEDE and BE done with it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Sigh ... it looks like its pretty conclusive that the Clinton campaign is fully committed to the "win ugly" scenario, prophesied by the editorial from a month ago at the beginning of this thread.

The crap coming from Geraldine Ferraro in the last few days is pretty much classic Rove. Divide and conquer. There are those that will buy into Ferraro's theme that Obama is simply a beneficiary of reverse racism and that his ascendency is "largely" about the fact that he is part black. It's such a pile of bunk but many will respond to this attack nevertheless.

Ferraro on her soapbox with Fox news:


> FERRARO: "... the question was asked, 'So why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today, with all these candidates and all these delegates and all the rest of the stuff?' And I said, 'In large part because he is black.' "
> 
> YouTube - Ferraro to Obama: Don't Antagonize Me


Ferraro already made the same statement, with almost exactly the same wording in February, although that didn't hit the media. (Sorry, I lost the link, and don't have the time right now to search it, but I did read the interview transcript). This wasn't just an offhand observation to a reporter, this was a contracted hit. She also made almost exactly the same observation about Jesse Jackson's campaign in the '80s.

Clinton of course officially denies agreeing with it, and now Ferraro has unapologetically quit the Clinton campaign, but the damage is done. Heading into the big PA primary, they know the demographics of this and they know it will cause a swing in her direction in that state. No doubt a scorched earth strategy that she wouldn't go near if she was comfortably leading, but the Clinton's motto is: "Fight until the last dog dies."

If Clinton wins the nomination, she'll be losing to McCain. I think that's a pretty safe bet. And I think think now she has done enough to "bloody up" Obama (in the words of her new found supporter Rush Limbaugh), that his chances at winning are probably reduced too.

Funny how following US politics is so effective at wiping out any last lingering kernels of idealism in someone. XX)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean like "inducements"   ..only in Canada eh.....


••


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Just shows that no matter what the Democrats say in public they are still in it for their own personal aggrandisement.

God help the world if McCain gets in, although I do like the man, as an individual.

He will be corrupted, no doubt in my mind


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Funny how following US politics is so effective at wiping out any last lingering kernels of idealism in someone. XX)


AMEN TO THAT!!


----------

