Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Zell won by just over 2% against Guy Milner in 1994.

Good catch, although that's the only close call between the 70's & Perdue (and the 70's is me being generous to Hal Suit's 60-40 loss to Carter).

Meanwhile, I hadn't thought about Buddy Darden in a while. For those who don't have the foggiest who we're talking about, he first went to Congress to fill the unexpired term of Larry McDonald who died in the KAL Flight 007 shootdown. He then served five more terms in the House before losing to Bob Barr.

And on the point about the conservative nature of that district (both before & after redistricting), consider that McDonald was a Democrat who was also the President of the John Birch Society while serving in Congress.

Pretty interesting trip down memory lane there (for me at least), and a real reminder of why I don't mind admitting that I used to be a (D) and am not one anyone.

[Galaxy]

I have held "independent" views for a while now and until recently had voted with the "lesser of two evils/3rd party vote is a waste" mindset. But I heard a Liberterian canidate put in best about the wasted vote theory.

If I vote Obama mostly because I don't like McCain and don't like the current system or I vote for McCain mostly because I don't like Obama and the current system then I am really voting to continue the current system which is exactly the opposite of my stated reason for my vote.

You won't give the third parties a chance to build support and get regular ballot access unless we give them the votes to do so. We'll just have the same two party system unless we change. One should vote for the best candidate, not the "lesser than the two parties". Massachusetts is a becoming a pretty interesting state with the moderation of some of the economic policies (just think if the proposition gets passed to repeal state income and capital gain, which I don't think it will) and increasing wealth in Boston. I've read some place that Massachusetts has a growing 5-6% Libertarian base? However, Barr is not on the ballot at this point in the state. I guess they are suing for access.

[Galaril]

So, what the fuck is wrong with the women in comfortable shoes in Hilaries posse that can't get over their girl losing? Now since they didn't get their way they are going to pout and vote fro McCain? This is why the damn Dem party is so screwed up. They just can get all their disparate parts to compromise in order to beat the Repubs. If Clintons pissed off disciples screw this up and McCain gets elcted because of it I will chnage my party status to the Republicans next election for good. Who the hell would want these bickering bozos runningthe government they can't even run a party. So disgusting.

[gstelmack]

I loved Biden calling McCain privileged. Pot, kettle. Like anybody involved in this race actually shops for their own groceries...

[Fighter of Foo]

As a moderate independent who leans conservative on economic issues and leans liberal on social issues, I don't mind the Biden pick as a VP choice. Prior to the VP choices, I felt I had already decided that I likely was going to vote for Obama pending any changes based on stances (or lack there of) taken on various issues over the next couple of months.

Well you should. Any conservative economic policy by definition dictates reducing government debt and spending. Unfortunately, Biden is one of the more hawkish Senators and has never seen an American intervention he didn't support. It's kind of hard to hold down spending while doling out military contracts to anyone who's ever donated to your campaign.

In terms of social issues, Biden's been one of the biggest proponents of the War on Drugs, a program I'll leave for others to analyze should they wish. he's also an unabashed racist, giving a public eulogy for Strom Thurmond earlier this year.

Other than that though, great choice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now since they didn't get their way they are going to pout and vote fro McCain?

But how many would actually vote for McCain vs how many just won't bother at all?

Oddly, it's a similar scenario that McCain faced right up until Obama got the nomination. I can't say I've heard anybody say "doesn't really matter" since then.

And I can't help but chuckle a little (at myself included) at how the worst possible imaginable scenario ("President Hillary") was suddenly dramatically less unthinkable with the lukewarm feeling McCain inspired ... until a far worse scenario popped up.

If the D's lose, it won't be because Hillary's supporters stayed home, it'll be because they managed to present a candidate the R's wanted to defeat far more. Clinton would have cakewalked past McCain if she had survived the battle with Obama, not a landslide mind you, but a relatively easy 55-45 type win. Instead, the D's opted to run a candidate that would have me willing to get off my deathbed to vote for McCain even though I don't think he's worth a bucket of warm spit.

[ace1914]

that would have me willing to get off my deathbed to vote for McCain even though I don't think he's worth a bucket of warm spit.


Im sorry but that's doesn't make any sense to do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Im sorry but that's doesn't make any sense to do.

Sure it does ... just so long as you consider the alternative far worse than the aforementioned bucket of warm spit.

And lest anybody think I'm trying to be all partisan & stuff in an otherwise relatively discussion oriented thread, it's easy enough to flip the script & create the same dynamic. An Obama supporter might not have given a flip whether Hillary or McCain won in November ... unless (just say) Huckaby or Romney had managed to get the nomination instead. At that point it's easy enough to see them having a whole different view of the importance in getting Hillary elected.

It's pretty easy to stay home if you're "meh" about both choices. But if one you consider one of the choices unspeakably bad then it puts the other in a completely different light.

[Vegas Vic]

In the past, candidates have averaged a 5-point bounce after naming their VP running mate, but Obama got no bounce whatsoever, and he is in a statistical dead heat (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109792/Gallup-Daily-Race-Tied-Democratic-Convention-Starts.aspx) with McCain on the first day of the Democratic Convention.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure you'll be able to isolate any VP bounce this year as both picks will far closer to the convention than is normal. I think the real measure will be Friday or Saturday's numbers. If those are flat and if it isn't delayed a few days that could be a problem. Honestly I don't think we can look at the numbers and make any judgments until the at least a week after the Republican convention. The compression of major events is unprecedented and I don't think you can assume the same bounces in this case.

[Vegas Vic]

I'm not sure you'll be able to isolate any VP bounce this year as both picks will far closer to the convention than is normal. I think the real measure will be Friday or Saturday's numbers. If those are flat and if it isn't delayed a few days that could be a problem. Honestly I don't think we can look at the numbers and make any judgments until the at least a week after the Republican convention. The compression of major events is unprecedented and I don't think you can assume the same bounces in this case.

You make some good points; however, I've seen enough election cycles to know that given the horrible state of the economy and the public's weariness of the Iraq war, the generic democratic candidate should be well ahead of the generic republican candidate at this point.

[Toddzilla]

I loved Biden calling McCain privileged. Pot, kettle. Like anybody involved in this race actually shops for their own groceries...Do you have any clue whatsoever as to the relative wealth of McCain and Biden? It does not appear so....

[Flasch186]

I assume that gstelmack's 'rich' line is lower than $5 million hence his stance.

[albionmoonlight]

You make some good points; however, I've seen enough election cycles to know that given the horrible state of the economy and the public's weariness of the Iraq war, the generic democratic candidate should be well ahead of the generic republican candidate at this point.

That's a good point. I read it to mean that if Obama were to win, it would be a strong affirmation of the Democratic Party platform. Because, as you have pointed out, the personalities involved give McCain a 5-10 point edge.

[JPhillips]

You make some good points; however, I've seen enough election cycles to know that given the horrible state of the economy and the public's weariness of the Iraq war, the generic democratic candidate should be well ahead of the generic republican candidate at this point.

I'll give you that.

I'll go out on the line and predict a 3-4 point bump by the weekend offset by enough of a bump at the end of next week to have McCain up a point or two. State polls will remain basically unchanged, but safe states will shift even safer. All in all we'll be in the same place in two and half weeks that we're in today. The deabtes are going to be the deciding factor.

[molson]

Do you have any clue whatsoever as to the relative wealth of McCain and Biden? It does not appear so....

Should I base my vote on who the poorest candidate is? Poorest average net worth across the ticket? That seems to be what the Dems are arguing but I can't say I'm convinced.

It's like McCain's people arguing that Obama is too popular, filling up stadiums an so forth.

Isn't being successful in life, or being popular good things?

[SFL Cat]

Sounds like Ted Kennedy was able to make it to Denver and will be in the house tonight for the tribute. Nice touch by the party.

Will Mary Jo Kopeckny also be making an appearance? Makes you wonder what kind of tribute she'd have for ol Teddy. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

The deabtes are going to be the deciding factor.

If you're right, then it's over & Obama wins going away (barring him suddenly being afflicted with some sort of ill-timed bizarre mental breakdown that turns him into Jim Carey). I'm not sure McCain could debate a mannequin & win decisively.

For McCain to have a chance in November, he has to make sure that he doesn't completely meltdown during the debates & then win on message in the media & in the ads.

[SFL Cat]

Should I base my vote on who the poorest candidate is? Poorest average net worth across the ticket? That seems to be what the Dems are arguing but I can't say I'm convinced.

It's like McCain's people arguing that Obama is too popular, filling up stadiums an so forth.

Isn't being successful in life, or being popular good things?

I wouldn't willingly vote for either of them...but in my book, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

[SFL Cat]

If you're right, then it's over & Obama wins going away (barring him suddenly being afflicted with some sort of ill-timed bizarre mental breakdown that turns him into Jim Carey). I'm not sure McCain could debate a mannequin & win decisively.

For McCain to have a chance in November, he has to make sure that he doesn't completely meltdown during the debates & then win on message in the media & in the ads.

Actually, McCain seems to do better with unscripted stuff. When he delivers prepared speeches...OMG.

Obama does charismatic speeches but starts sputtering and stammering and saying really unintelligent sounding bites when things get off script.

[Flasch186]

Should I base my vote on who the poorest candidate is? Poorest average net worth across the ticket? That seems to be what the Dems are arguing but I can't say I'm convinced.

It's like McCain's people arguing that Obama is too popular, filling up stadiums an so forth.

Isn't being successful in life, or being popular good things?

We are in agreement, you shouldnt base your vote on one aspect only, say like, abortion rights...

[Flasch186]

If you're right, then it's over & Obama wins going away (barring him suddenly being afflicted with some sort of ill-timed bizarre mental breakdown that turns him into Jim Carey). I'm not sure McCain could debate a mannequin & win decisively.

For McCain to have a chance in November, he has to make sure that he doesn't completely meltdown during the debates & then win on message in the media & in the ads.

Fuck me, we agree too. I just looked and it hasn't frozen over outside either, weird day.

[SFL Cat]

We are in agreement, you shouldnt base your vote on one aspect only, say like, abortion rights...


...don't. I also throw in things like taxes, environmental wackism, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Actually, McCain seems to do better with unscripted stuff. When he delivers prepared speeches...OMG.

Unfortunately for him "better" is relative. He has a knack for sounding briefly like he knows what he's talking about off the cuff but in reality ... sigh. That's a weakness that I felt strongly led to the whole how-many-house gaffe, I'd bet somebody has made him paranoid about getting something simple like that wrong & he froze because of it.

Obama is the one who starts stuttering and stammering when things get off script.

I have every anticipation of him being so rehearsed for these that it'll take a real unexpected moment for him to get too far out of sorts. If it happens, I think that would tell me a lot about the (lack of) quality of his handlers, even more than it would say about him.

I mentioned this up the thread many pages ago I think but I'll say it again: at this stage of the game, I'm impressed that either candidate can remember their own name much less be letter perfect during even a short burst.

[Flasch186]

Well that's good. I wish more Americans would look at ALL facets before voting instead of just hanging there hat on the easy targeted sound bites and spin, like Abortion rights, Gay marriage rights, Immigration reform, etc. etc.

Jon, we agree again to your point that at this point they must have so much shit in their heads and so many people pulling at them for 20 hours a day that it's a wonder that someone doesnt have a breakdown.

[Vegas Vic]

Actually, McCain seems to do better with unscripted stuff. When he delivers prepared speeches...OMG.

There's no question about that. McCain has actually done very well in his prior debates. He is absolutely horrible when he is trying to read a prepared speech from a teleprompter.

[JPhillips]

He's gotten better at prepared stuff since switching teams. That speech in front of the green background was one of the worst I've seen from a prominent politician.

[Young Drachma]

Luke Russert doesn't do a bad job.

[Young Drachma]

MSNBC coverage is just theatre. The interplay between Olbermann and Matthews is hilarious. Sooo awkward.

[samifan24]

[QUOTE=Dark Cloud;1815588 The interplay between Olbermann and Matthews is hilarious. [/QUOTE]

The state of Colorado is not big enough for both of their egos.

[Noop]

This speech is annoying and personally I find it tacky that they have a black speaker trying to sound like MLK and Co. did.

[Young Drachma]

Michelle Obama's Monday night keynote is coming on now.

[JPhillips]

It's been a while since I've agreed with Carville, but this has been a truly craptacular waste of a first night. Maybe we can get another ten minute cover band remix before Michelle takes the stage.

[Young Drachma]

MSNBC's coverage has been really strange too. Clearly they're working the kinks out. Well that and you can tell that none of them like Chris Matthews. It's hilarious. He does whatever he wants.

Wonder how well this will go for her. She seems really nervous and you can immediately tell that the teleprompter thing is awkward so far...should be interesting how it evolves.

[Young Drachma]

I gotta say. Seeing Biden up there as the running mate, I take back the stuff I said. He looks like he's raring to kick some ass and that's really what Obama needed was like a super surrogate to put a foot in someone's ass where no one else could before.

[JPhillips]

So Cindy McCain is going to Georgia and meeting with the President? I can only imagine the outrage if Michelle Obama did the same thing.

[Young Drachma]

So Cindy McCain is going to Georgia and meeting with the President? I can only imagine the outrage if Michelle Obama did the same thing.

Man...that's...just rich.

Is she gonna sell him drugs? I mean, really? What the hell are they gonna talk about it?

Ok, ok. I'm over it.

Juan Williams is crying on FOX News right now. Brit Hume has NO idea how to handle it, but he's asking Juan Williams to speak for all of black America.

[SirFozzie]

It was good for what it was... but they had a chance to draw the line a lot clearer then they did between Obama and McCain, and in that at least, I don't think you can consider day 1 a success by any means.

[Flasch186]

The critics will say that they weren't mean enough, or at least that's what im gathering but Im glad they didnt go with the divisive tactics today on the day where Ted Kennedy gave it his all to get up there. Eh, I thought the speech by MO was good, I thought Pelosi struggled and missed, and I thought the Kennedy stuff was heart warming...

[samifan24]

I caught the end of Michelle Obama's speech and thought it was pretty good. I heard she had some rough sailing at the beginning but became more comfortable as she went on, which I think is to expected given the fact that she's speaking in front of a very large crowd.

[Swaggs]

Well done by MO.

[Young Drachma]

Oh yeah, forgot about Pelosi. She looked really awkward.

[SFL Cat]

Oh yeah, forgot about Pelosi. She looked really awkward.

She's just pissed no one is buying her book.

[watravaler]

Does anyone else think the whole presidential election process is a huge slap in the face to the voters? Regardless of your choice of Coke or Pepsi? Thank heavens the president is only a figurehead...

[Mike D]

I gotta say. Seeing Biden up there as the running mate, I take back the stuff I said. He looks like he's raring to kick some ass and that's really what Obama needed was like a super surrogate to put a foot in someone's ass where no one else could before.

4 more years of Dick Cheney? Status Quo FTW! :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Oh yeah, forgot about Pelosi. She looked really awkward.

Agreed. Her speaking skills are terrible.

Did anyone else stay awake to watch Larry King Live after the speeches? He had 4 Republicans on the show. I wasn't really crazy about most of them, but Ben Stein made a lot of good points during the show and was much more level-headed with his comments than the others on the panel.

He noted that while the Pelosi delivery style was terrible, that she had some great attacking points on McCain's economic policies. He mentioned that he was shocked that the Democrats are spending more time attacking the Bush/McCain angle when they have a much better case against McCain if they just keep attacking the economic policies.

Another good point made was that there was no further clarification on how 'change' would be initiated, only that there would be change. Pelosi had a great opportunity to clarify how Congress would assist Obama as president, but she chose a more attacking tone to her speech against McCain. He believes it was an opportunity missed.

He also talked about the arrangement of the speakers and how it really detracted from the overall flow of the first night. He noted that the Ted Kennedy appearance, while it was a great emotional moment, provided a premature high point to the evening. As a result, Michele Obama's speech felt anti-climatic because the previous emotional high couldn't be matched.

[Young Drachma]

4 more years of Dick Cheney? Status Quo FTW! :)

Meh. Biden isn't trying to be the dark overlord, just super Secretary of State.

[Young Drachma]

Does anyone else think the whole presidential election process is a huge slap in the face to the voters? Regardless of your choice of Coke or Pepsi? Thank heavens the president is only a figurehead...

What do you want? IRV? Proportional Representation? A prime minister?

[JPhillips]

Agreed. Her speaking skills are terrible.

Did anyone else stay awake to watch Larry King Live after the speeches? He had 4 Republicans on the show. I wasn't really crazy about most of them, but Ben Stein made a lot of good points during the show and was much more level-headed with his comments than the others on the panel.

He noted that while the Pelosi delivery style was terrible, that she had some great attacking points on McCain's economic policies. He mentioned that he was shocked that the Democrats are spending more time attacking the Bush/McCain angle when they have a much better case against McCain if they just keep attacking the economic policies.

Another good point made was that there was no further clarification on how 'change' would be initiated, only that there would be change. Pelosi had a great opportunity to clarify how Congress would assist Obama as president, but she chose a more attacking tone to her speech against McCain. He believes it was an opportunity missed.

He also talked about the arrangement of the speakers and how it really detracted from the overall flow of the first night. He noted that the Ted Kennedy appearance, while it was a great emotional moment, provided a premature high point to the evening. As a result, Michele Obama's speech felt anti-climatic because the previous emotional high couldn't be matched.

As long as Pelosi didn't say we should all bow to Master Satan she's fine. Nobody was watching her and nobody will be talking about her today.

I thought the bigger problem with the Kennedy speech was that it was pre-network. It would have been much stronger to start with Kennedy instead of Leach. Of course I thought the theatrics and messaging were off all night long.

Oh yeah, Stein's still an asshole.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I doubt that Obama did himself any favors here in KC when he sat in a living room in KC and stated that he was in St. Louis. Nevermind the fact that there were no less than 3 prompting cards around the room with the words 'Kansas City' on them. That's the same as sitting in a house in Boston and stating you're in New York City.

[molson]

I doubt that Obama did himself any favors here in KC when he sat in a living room in KC and stated that he was in St. Louis. Nevermind the fact that there were no less than 3 prompting cards around the room with the words 'Kansas City' on them. That's the same as sitting in a house in Boston and stating you're in New York City.

He said he was in Iowa during a rally here in Idaho.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-feb0208-taco_bell.81b065ff.html

You get a pass on that stuff if you're young, but it's a "senior moment" and a sign of incompetency if you're old. Funny that Obama's all over McCain when he can't accurately describe his financial situation where Obama often doesn't even know what city he's in.

[Young Drachma]

Given the schedules that both of these guys are keeping and having folks 24/7 them, it's a miracle they know their own names.

[albionmoonlight]

If Missouri is in play, then Obama has probably already won the Kerry states, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia and is well on his way to picking out drape patterns for the Oval Office.

I think that Missouri is in the box with Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. Those are the states that will end up being the difference between an Obama win and an Obama blowout.

That said, his KC/St. Louis gaff just proves what someone above said about how it is amazing how these guys can remember their own names considering the pressure that they are under and the schedules that they keep.

The process is more unfair to McCain because of his age. Obama makes this mistake, people assume that it is a mistake. If McCain were to have done the same thing, there would be these hints of "The man does not even know what city he is in anymore." Very unfair to him, IMO.

edit--as I was typing this, the two posters above made the exact same point that I was making. The lesson seems to be that I am slow and unoriginal.

[SFL Cat]

Ha! I knew Hillary would pull this at the Convention...

YouTube - The Nightly Potato - Breaking News - Unity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKHL5j29SRU)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

edit--as I was typing this, the two posters above made the exact same point that I was making. The lesson seems to be that I am slow and unoriginal.

Just change your profile to reflect your 'brain age'. :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Couple new polls out today. A first time polling group in Colorado indicated a 5 point Obama lead. Most polls have Colorado as a dead heat or 1-2 point Obama lead, so probably a bit of error built into that result. Also, Michigan polled out at a 2 point Obama lead.

[Galaril]

Couple new polls out today. A first time polling group in Colorado indicated a 5 point Obama lead. Most polls have Colorado as a dead heat or 1-2 point Obama lead, so probably a bit of error built into that result. Also, Michigan polled out at a 2 point Obama lead.

I live in a fairly moderate city/area of Colorado and I have spoken to about 20 various people between last night and this morning. What is most surprising is alot more moderate republicans (liberatarians) seem to be leaning to Obama now. I guess it might just be bounce but if not ......

[BrianD]

Ha! I knew Hillary would pull this at the Convention...

YouTube - The Nightly Potato - Breaking News - Unity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKHL5j29SRU)

Can you give a brief synopsis for those of us that can't do videos at work?

[SFL Cat]

Computer animated video that starts with Brokaw and Matthews in the booth. Brokaw is saying that as many feared Hillary isn't following the script for her speech approved by the Obama campaign...Matthews is wearing his Obama button shaking his head sadly in a "how could she do this?" kind of way.

We go down to the floor where Hillary is saying "Shame on you Barrack Obama, enough with the speeches and the valley and yadda, yadda..."
There are cheers and boos from the factions in the crowd

Obama is sitting nearby looking perplexed and his wife is sitting next to him with a "if looks could kill, you'd be toast beeeatch" look on her face. She's also appears to be holding a remote and is repeatedly pushing a button on it.

As Hill continues the crowd noise gets louder..."Are you listening to me?" she yells... "shut up," she screams.

Back to Michelle. She is still pushing the button on the remote thingy she is holding and suddenly Hillary drops from view behind the podium. The camera dollies in over the top of the podium and we see Hill has fallen into a trap door. Unfortunately her posterior is too large to allow her to fall all the way through the aperture and is stuck.

The screen goes dark...then back up to Brokaw, where we hear someone OC saying "go to a break." In the background on the big screen down on the convention floor, we see Hill's bigggg behind stuck in the trap door. Brokaw, who looks clueless for a few seconds, finally starts talking about technical difficulties.

[Vegas Vic]

If Missouri is in play, then Obama has probably already won the Kerry states, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia and is well on his way to picking out drape patterns for the Oval Office.

McCain is up by 7 in Missouri (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_mccain_vs_obama-545.html), which is roughly where GWB stood in Missouri in 2000 and 2004 at this point.

[SFL Cat]

Honestly, I was expecting the Democrats to win big this election cycle...but at this point TPTB in that party can't be happy with the current polling numbers.

[Vegas Vic]

Honestly, I was expecting the Democrats to win big this election cycle...but at this point TPTB in that party can't be happy with the current polling numbers.

The Democrats will win big in this election cycle in the house and senate.

[SFL Cat]

I had thought so too, but I'm starting to get a feeling it won't be the slam dunk they think it is going to be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Given the schedules that both of these guys are keeping and having folks 24/7 them, it's a miracle they know their own names.

Several people, including me, have commented along those lines in this thread and it makes me wonder about a tangent ... are we just now picking up on this?
Or do we perceive the demands/pressure being worse now than in years past? Or am I just a latecomer to the party & you (anybody who has said similar I mean) would have said the same thing four or eight years ago?

For me, I can't say I recall having such a consciousness of that point until this particular election. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.

[molson]

Several people, including me, have commented along those lines in this thread and it makes me wonder about a tangent ... are we just now picking up on this?
Or do we perceive the demands/pressure being worse now than in years past? Or am I just a latecomer to the party & you (anybody who has said similar I mean) would have said the same thing four or eight years ago?

For me, I can't say I recall having such a consciousness of that point until this particular election. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.

I hear the stuff about miscues only on internet message boards. The media usually doesn't pick up on it and make it a story.

I distinguish the wrong city/yugoslavia stuff from the true "gaffes" that the media has loved as long as I can remember (Dukakis tank photo).

[BrianD]

Several people, including me, have commented along those lines in this thread and it makes me wonder about a tangent ... are we just now picking up on this?
Or do we perceive the demands/pressure being worse now than in years past? Or am I just a latecomer to the party & you (anybody who has said similar I mean) would have said the same thing four or eight years ago?

For me, I can't say I recall having such a consciousness of that point until this particular election. Maybe I'm just slow on the uptake.

Right or wrong, I view the demands/pressure now being worse than in years past. Any time these candidates speak they have prospective bloggers with phone-cameras at the ready. Any stutter or slip of the tongue is being sent across the country instantly. A candidate used to be able to craft their message or their speaking style to the group they were talking to. With everything now being national, they have to gear up for being in front of a national audience all the time. That has to be a bit trying.

[ace1914]

He said he was in Iowa during a rally here in Idaho.

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-feb0208-taco_bell.81b065ff.html

You get a pass on that stuff if you're young, but it's a "senior moment" and a sign of incompetency if you're old. Funny that Obama's all over McCain when he can't accurately describe his financial situation where Obama often doesn't even know what city he's in.


Describing yourself as a "maverick" who understands the life of an everyday American and then forgetting you have seven houses is not even close to comparable to forgetting where you are in the US as much traveling as politicians have to do.

[molson]

Describing yourself as a "maverick" who understands the life of an everyday American and then forgetting you have seven houses is not even close to comparable to forgetting where you are in the US as much traveling as politicians have to do.

I don't think you know what "maverick" means.

And I haven't seen McCain making an issue of Obama being "out of touch" economically with regular Americans. Obama started that, based on McCain's house thing.

I guarantee you Obama doesn't manage his own finances. Do you know who's "in touch" with Americans' financial situations? Me. I shouldn't be president though.

[ace1914]

I don't think you know what "maverick" means.


Wow.

Describing yourself as a "maverick" and one who understands the life of an everyday American and then forgetting you have seven houses is not even close to comparable to forgetting where you are in the US as much traveling as politicians have to do.

Do you feel better now?

[molson]

Wow.

Do you feel better now?

No, you clearly don't know.

The "maverick" label refers to him going against party lines. It has abolutely nothing to do with being in touch with anyone. Still waiting for your evidence that McCain has made an issue of him being more in touch, economically, with Americans than Obama.

Obama started the "I have less money" pissing contest, that we should vote for him because he has less houses.

[JPhillips]

I think Ace went over the top, but of course McCain is arguing he's more in touch. That's what the celebrity ads are all about. If you don't like those there's an economic ad that says something like,

"Celebrities don't have to worry about a budget, but we do."

[ace1914]

No, you clearly don't know.

The "maverick" label refers to him going against party lines. It has abolutely nothing to do with being in touch with anyone. Still waiting for your evidence that McCain has made an issue of him being more in touch, economically, with Americans than Obama.

Obama started the "I have less money" pissing contest, that we should vote for him because he has less houses.

I'm aware origin of the "maverick" label. The guy is the same ol', same ol'. McCain touted himself as this "rebel" who looks out for every American and understands the issues that a normal American has. The guy knew how many houses he had, and knew there wasn't a line to walk on between having seven houses and saying you understand the economic crisis that we're facing.

Also, I did no comparison about Obama/McCain and one being more in touch than the other. I was comparing on-camera gaffes.

[BrianD]

Describing yourself as a "maverick" who understands the life of an everyday American and then forgetting you have seven houses...

Does anybody else think this is getting too much play? If you are rich enough to have multiple investment properties, and you marry into money, doesn't it seem reasonable to not know exactly how many properties you have? It isn't like he is forgetting how many houses he has that he lives in...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm aware origin of the "maverick" label. The guy is the same ol', same ol'. McCain touted himself as this "rebel" who looks out for every American and understands the issues that a normal American has. The guy knew how many houses he had, and knew there wasn't a line to walk on between having seven houses and saying you understand the economic crisis that we're facing.

Couldn't disagree more than claim that you just made that he knew how many houses he had. He and his wife keep their finances separate. Most of their property is in her family's name. He deferred to his staff because he wasn't sure given their separate finances. With that said, I think it's relatively clear that outside of the Democrat voting base, not many people seemed to care. I think it's the same with the attacks by McCain's group on Obama. Obama's numbers aren't sliding because of the attack ads. They're sliding because he still hasn't clearly defined how he plans to create 'change'.

[ace1914]

I'll have to agree to disagree.

[ace1914]

Couldn't disagree more than claim that you just made that he knew how many houses he had. He and his wife keep their finances separate. Most of their property is in her family's name. He deferred to his staff because he wasn't sure given their separate finances. With that said, I think it's relatively clear that outside of the Democrat voting base, not many people seemed to care. I think it's the same with the attacks by McCain's group on Obama. Obama's numbers aren't sliding because of the attack ads. They're sliding because he still hasn't clearly defined how he plans to create 'change'.

His numbers are sliding because of a constant(justified or not) bombardment on his lack of experience. The ads as well as the poorly-timed Russian-Georgian conflict amplified this fact. Obviously, I am an Obama supporter, and as such, I see the potential that Obama can bring to the country. Again in my opinion, there is substance there, but using rational arguments based on policy stances is not the path to victory in American politics.

[JPhillips]

Does anybody else think this is getting too much play? If you are rich enough to have multiple investment properties, and you marry into money, doesn't it seem reasonable to not know exactly how many properties you have? It isn't like he is forgetting how many houses he has that he lives in...

Given the "kept-man" attacks on Kerry because of his wife, I have very little sympathy.

I should add that I wish last week's big story didn't focus on houses, but on the timetable that seems to be agreed upon by the US and Iraq. But to paraphrase, you campaign on the stories the media finds important, not on the stories you wish were important.

[albionmoonlight]

McCain up +2 in latest Gallup tracker.

[molson]

His numbers are sliding because of a constant(justified or not) bombardment on his lack of experience. The ads as well as the poorly-timed Russian-Georgian conflict amplified this fact. Obviously, I am an Obama supporter, and as such, I see the potential that Obama can bring to the country. Again in my opinion, there is substance there, but using rational arguments based on policy stances is not the path to victory in American politics.

If Obama loses this election, part of the reason will be what is perceived as a lack of substance. He won't lose because he has fewer houses than McCain. So why not try to focus on the former instead of the latter? (Unless you want to distract voters from substance, which is what appears to be the intention).

But maybe I shouldn't doubt the Democratic election machine, they're obviously untouchable.

Or in other words, when an undecided moderate hears about this house stuff, do you think that's a plus or minus for Obama? It's 100% clear to me that it's a minus for him. But (some) Democrats are just obsessively concerned with riling themselves up. The idea is to convince others.

[Galaxy]

I'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree to disagree that you agree to disagree. Don't ask..

[Vegas Vic]

McCain up +2 in latest Gallup tracker.

This is unheard of. I don't think there's ever been an election where the opposing party got a bounce during the other party's convention.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

McCain up +2 in latest Gallup tracker.

***Hillary smirks while Bill pats her on the back***

[JPhillips]

If Obama loses this election, part of the reason will be what is perceived as a lack of substance. He won't lose because he has fewer houses than McCain. So why not try to focus on the former instead of the latter? (Unless you want to distract voters from substance, which is what appears to be the intention).

But maybe I shouldn't doubt the Democratic election machine, they're obviously untouchable.

Or in other words, when an undecided moderate hears about this house stuff, do you think that's a plus or minus for Obama? It's 100% clear to me that it's a minus for him. But (some) Democrats are just obsessively concerned with riling themselves up. The idea is to convince others.

I completely disagree. The isuue isn't house, but initiative. If Obama is going to win he needs to take back the initiative from the McCain camp. They've been very good over the past month at setting the rules for discussion. The general schedule has been McCain ad, TV discussion, Obama response. As long as that's the way the campaign runs McCain can win.

If, however, Obama can turn that around and put McCain on the defensive he'll be in a very strong position. Policy discussions aren't going to do it IMO. Look at this from an admittedly small focus group reported by Joe Klein,

Given a list of 31 personal attributes the next President might have and asked to pick the eight most important, "Accountability" finished highest with 13 votes, next was "Someone I can trust" with 12, "honest and ethical" was third with 11. "Agrees with me on the issues" got one vote.

I don't doubt that issues are important to you, but you're in the minority. Most independents are going to base their vote on much less substantive grounds. The house issue works in that it puts McCain on the defensive and damages his likability. I doubt it's enough, but like the celebrity stuff, it works.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is unheard of. I don't think there's ever been an election where the opposing party got a bounce during the other party's convention.

I believe there actually was one. I know the range of 'bounces' in past elections have had the following range.......

Democrats: -1 up to +13
Republicans: +2 up to +12

The article I read didn't mention which election had a -1 bounce.

[Galaxy]

His numbers are sliding because of a constant(justified or not) bombardment on his lack of experience. The ads as well as the poorly-timed Russian-Georgian conflict amplified this fact. Obviously, I am an Obama supporter, and as such, I see the potential that Obama can bring to the country. Again in my opinion, there is substance there, but using rational arguments based on policy stances is not the path to victory in American politics.

Of course. But I also think people are wondering what exactly Obama's message of change means. I think people want to see what his substance is beneath the style. The Democrats kept playing this card, using Hollywood and the glitz and glam that they like to play. They need to provide the independent and moderate voters reason to vote for them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here you go. Here's a table with the convention bounces going back 40-some years.......

HOW THE CONVENTION BALL BOUNCES, Crystal Ball, U.Va. (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008082101)

[JPhillips]

This is unheard of. I don't think there's ever been an election where the opposing party got a bounce during the other party's convention.

It's certainly not good news for Obama, but given that the poll was conducted almost entirely before evening coverage of the convention I don't think you can assign any connection to the convention. Tomorrow's poll will be the first sign of convention effects.

[molson]

Here you go. Here's a table with the convention bounces going back 40-some years.......

HOW THE CONVENTION BALL BOUNCES, Crystal Ball, U.Va. (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008082101)

Wow, I wonder if the 1992 Democratic Convention really had anything to do with that crazy bounce.

Edit: Never mind, I missed that footnote about Perot

Definitely a downward trend on both sides. The conventions are just speeches now.

[Vegas Vic]

Wow, I wonder if the 1992 Democratic Convention really had anything to do with that crazy bounce.

Edit: Never mind, I missed that footnote about Perot

Definitely a downward trend on both sides. The conventions are just speeches now.

Those 1992 numbers are very interesting, especially when the urban legend about Perot costing Bush the 1992 election get regurgitated (even though exit polls don't support it). When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton's numbers shot up, while Bush's remained relatively flat. Likewise, when Perot re-entered the race, Clinton's numbers dropped over time, Perot's numbers rose over time, and once again, Bush's numbers remained relatively flat in the upper 30's.

[Galaril]

Not too thread jack but......... I saw a news video on a local channel here in Denver of Hilary with Chelsea and wow! When did Chelsea become a hottie? I mean she won't be in the next Miss America pageant but she has sprouted into a fine looking young woman. However, I am sure she has been helped by some serious plastic surgery (as Robin Williams calls it:the Clinton money). In any case I wouldn't toss her out of the sack.

[JPhillips]

The audio is terrible. Too much hall echo and crowd noise. For the love of God with all the Hollywood folks in the party I don't understand why the Democrats can't put on a TV show.

As for message, you'd think after getting our asses handed to us enough times we'd learn that Kumbya won't get it done.

[SirFozzie]

TRAIL BLAZERS Blog | The Dallas Morning News (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/charlie-wilson-said-what.html)

Charlie Wilson (yeah, the Ex-Texas Democratic Party Representative.. the guy they made the movie about) with the biggest WHOOPS of the year, speaking at an anti-war rally.

"We should be led by Osama bin Laden," he said, then quickly corrected himself. "I mean Obama and Biden."

[Young Drachma]

Hillary's speech is a home run.

[Young Drachma]

They need to stop regurgitating the whole "John McCain is my friend. He served the country honorably..." because they're just keeping the war hero thing alive. It's as if they're waiting to be accused of "not caring about veterans" if they don't kiss his ass.

That said, she's kicking his ass. Any media story that wants to say "Clinton folks voting for McCain" has been rendered useless. They'll still try, but she's erasing any doubt that she's trying to undermine this thing.

[JPhillips]

Can she speak again tomorrow?

[larrymcg421]

The Gallup tracker that shows McCain ahead is a 5 day rolling average, so it is still including data from before the convention.

[Young Drachma]

Can she speak again tomorrow?

You think Bill is gonna do worse? C'mon now. Slick Willy is ready to play ball.

[JPhillips]

I'm just thankful I don't have to hear Warner or Leach again.

[Vegas Vic]

Meh, she ran her whole campaign on trying to make gender a non-issue (I'm just as qualified as the guys to be commander in chief), and now she spends 75% of her speech talking about how she did so much for the womanhood of America.

[Flasch186]

hmmm, interesting take on CNN...Perhaps she did TOO well? I saw an interview with a Clinton supporter wherein she hung her hat on Clinton's ability based on what 'you saw' in her speech. Is it possible that the speech was so good that it will embolden the Clinton delegates to raise a ruckus?

[Warhammer]

Are they comparing this to HRC tonight to Regan at the 76 Republican Convention?

[ace1914]

Hillary was awesome and I am very proud of her. I think if Bill closes the deal about being ready to be the man for Barack, its a lock for Obama & Co.

[Young Drachma]

hmmm, interesting take on CNN...Perhaps she did TOO well? I saw an interview with a Clinton supporter wherein she hung her hat on Clinton's ability based on what 'you saw' in her speech. Is it possible that the speech was so good that it will embolden the Clinton delegates to raise a ruckus?


I think the Hil-Bill duo is meant to give the country a "gee, weren't the 90s so great?" feeling...with Barack getting the relay baton on Thursday night to win the last leg of the race.

I don't think the hype is nearly as big as the AP/CNN/MSM gulag are trying to pass off to us, related to the whole yay Hillary contingent. Obviously November will tell us the truth, but I'm not buying it.

[Vegas Vic]

Are they comparing this to HRC tonight to Regan at the 76 Republican Convention?

She mentioned Obama ten times during her speech. Reagan did not mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once during his 1980 speech.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A couple of things I noticed in Hillary's speech last night...........

1. She talked through the applause A LOT. Perhaps someone told her to make sure the speech didn't run too late, but it was terribly annoying that she gave very few dramatic pauses.

2. Her presentation style was pretty good. I think it was better than anything she had done in the campaign.

3. She didn't give Barack Obama any praise at all. Her lone praise for the ticket was given to Biden. Michele Obama only received a nod as 'someone who would be a good first lady'. Barack didn't even get that. Every comment was that people should support Barack followed by comments about her platform and why it should be supported. That speech was all about Hillary with a few weak nods to unity. All I saw was a lady who was setting herself up for a run in 2012 and using Obama's convention as a way to pave that path.

4. Bill Clinton was borderline smug for most of the speech. He knew exactly what she was doing and was glowing in the thoughts of a run in 2012. Meanwhile, several shots of Michele Obama showed a tense or worried look on her face. I've read several books about non-verbal communication. Michele Obama was not comfortable at all with the situation. I can only imagine the tension in the hall when Bill steps to the podium tonight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OK, so I wasn't the only one to notice the lack of Obama praise. Noticed this article linked over at Electoral-Vote.com after I put up my thoughts......

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/08/no-personal-touch-in-clintons.html

[JPhillips]

She did exactly what Obama needed. She couldn't have been clearer to her supporters that they should support Obama, especially with the what are you in it for section. She also took some good shots at McCain. She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

She did exactly what Obama needed. She couldn't have been clearer to her supporters that they should support Obama, especially with the what are you in it for section. She also took some good shots at McCain. She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

She attacked conservative policies more than she attacked McCain, just as she supported liberal policies more than she actually supported Obama. It was all about her, to the point where she even evoked her husband's legacy at one point. Bill remained seated as a weak nod to the fact that it's Obama's convention, but you know he wanted to pop right up and stroke his ego.

You're correct that she told the supporters to support Obama, but she couldn't have done any less to actually define him as a person or as a candidate. After watching that speech last night, all I could think was that if she was the candidate, that speech wouldn't have been nearly as restrained as it was.

[JPhillips]

I guess my ESP isn't as strong as yours.

They're rivals, not friends. She couldn't come out and pretend the primaries didn't happen. I have no idea if it will make a difference in the polls, but she did far more than similar politicians in this situation. One speech can't be everything to every person. Her primary mission was to heal the rift in the party and I think she did that about as well as she could have.

[Young Drachma]

Her job wasn't to define Obama. He needs to do that for himself. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to win. Hillary's job isn't to deliver him to the White House, if it was, he'd have picked her as his running mate. I agree with JPhil, she did far more than was expected of her and was laudable and I think said enough of the right things that his side can't complain about being undermined by Team Clinton anymore, even as the media will pound this angle into the ground because it's more interesting to them than just talking about coronation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Her primary mission was to heal the rift in the party and I think she did that about as well as she could have.

Today's roll call will be very telling. Reportedly, the Hillary supporters want a full roll call without any suspension of voting. Anything less won't be acceptable, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary jump to the front of the New York delagates and request a suspension of voting in yet another move to draw more attention to herself.

I disagree that she did anything close to as well as she could have. If she would have spoke at a more personal level about Obama as a candidate, THEN she would have done as well as she could have.

BTW, the video introduction by the DNC was pretty interesting. They didn't paint her as the worthy advisary who nearly won the nomination. Rather, they painted her as a women's rights hero. I have no doubt that she found that a bit condescending. She deserved more than that given her role in the party and this election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Her job wasn't to define Obama.

Your phrasing brought to mind an interesting distinction that I think might be made.

Her job may not have been to define Obama, but doing so very well could be how she would have helped him the most.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Your phrasing brought to mind an interesting distinction that I think might be made.

Her job may not have been to define Obama, but doing so very well could be how she would have helped him the most.

Which is precisely the point that is being discussed. She provided exactly what was asked of her and not a single thing more. It was in her best interest regarding her political future to do that.

[ace1914]

Hillary did a great job. They portrayed Hillary as a larger than life female hero, which is what was necessary to subdue the angry, suburban women who personally identified with Clinton's wins and losses. She was very definitive in her questioning of the motives of these scorned, democratic women voters. What I took out of it is, "if you like the same things that I do, vote Obama, because McCain won't do it."

Now, Bill needs to come on stage and say what qualities he and Obama have in common that will make him a good president and what qualities Bush and McCain have in common that will make McCain a bad president.

[ace1914]

I have another question with the polling. Now I've been out of school for a couple of years now, but how can you call a poll valid if the difference between the candidates is less than or equal to the margin of error?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hillary did a great job. They portrayed Hillary as a larger than life female hero, which is what was necessary to subdue the angry, suburban women who personally identified with Clinton's wins and losses. She was very definitive in her questioning of the motives of these scorned, democratic women voters. What I took out of it is, "if you like the same things that I do, vote Obama, because McCain won't do it."


Interesting. My mom is a Hillary supporter and she reacted quite differently. She had said earlier in the year after Obama finally wrapped it up that she would probably vote for McCain. After last night's speech, she sent me an e-mail saying that speech convinced her that the Dems picked the wrong candidate and that she would vote for McCain so that Hillary could run in 2012. Logic is a bit warped IMO, but I'm sure that she's not the only 'scorned' female baby boomer thinking that same thing.

[John Galt]

Logic is a bit warped

Must be genetic.

[Passacaglia]

I don't see why Hilary can't just run in 2016 if Obama wins. That seems more amenable than trying to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.

[ace1914]

Must be genetic.

:lol:.......:popcorn:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Must be genetic.

Now see, an attack on McCain even close to something like that from Hillary last night would have been much better than what she did, at least from Obama's perspective. :)

[Vegas Vic]

She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

As I said before, she mentioned Obama ten times during the speech. Ronald Reagan did not even mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once in his 1980 speech. Ted Kennedy never even endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Her primary was the closest, hardest fought primary in modern history, and she has gone much farther in her endorsement of Obama than past candidates in other hard fought past primaries have done for their nominee.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't see why Hilary can't just run in 2016 if Obama wins. That seems more amenable than trying to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't McCain said on more than one occasion that he would only be a one-term president?

[JPhillips]

Today's roll call will be very telling. Reportedly, the Hillary supporters want a full roll call without any suspension of voting. Anything less won't be acceptable, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary jump to the front of the New York delagates and request a suspension of voting in yet another move to draw more attention to herself.

I disagree that she did anything close to as well as she could have. If she would have spoke at a more personal level about Obama as a candidate, THEN she would have done as well as she could have.

BTW, the video introduction by the DNC was pretty interesting. They didn't paint her as the worthy advisary who nearly won the nomination. Rather, they painted her as a women's rights hero. I have no doubt that she found that a bit condescending. She deserved more than that given her role in the party and this election.

To paraphrase, not all white people have the taint of the Illuminati.

As for the video, you're reaching too far, the Thomason's produced it.

[BrianD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't McCain said on more than one occasion that he would only be a one-term president?

I've heard it talked about that he was going to announce this, but I don't think I ever heard an official announcement. Even so, getting in the way of a Democratic nominee now to try to become the Democratic nominee in 4 years sounds like a terribly risky plan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I've heard it talked about that he was going to announce this, but I don't think I ever heard an official announcement. Even so, getting in the way of a Democratic nominee now to try to become the Democratic nominee in 4 years sounds like a terribly risky plan.

Does she have any other option? She's not getting any younger. She'll be 69 years of age in 2016.

[JPhillips]

The one term talk has largely gone away since McCain's team change. It seems like a terrible plan IMO. Why would you want to start from day one as a lame duck especially given that you'll be fighting a hostile Congress?

[albionmoonlight]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Clinton's numbers only went up when Obama and McCain stopped attacking her and started attacking each other (and Clinton kept attacking Obama). She hasn't been attacked in any real sense since early March.

If she had won the nomination and McCain had been blasting the airwaves with negative stuff about her and Bill and no one had attacked Obama for the last two months and you had all of these young Obama supporters talking to the media saying "I'm just going to stay home on election day because it is the same old shit," we would be having the opposite discussion right now. We would all be saying "How the hell could the Dems have nominated the most divisive Democrat of the last 20 years when they had the chance to nominate the liberal Regan?"

The runner-up in these situations is like a backup quarterback. You forget the flaws when they are not playing and only see the flaws of the starter.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I am not saying that Clinton would have been a worse choice that Obama in terms of winning. I don't know if we will ever know that. I'm just saying that the media is engaging in a lot of strange hindsight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Mark this day on your calendar. I NEVER thought that I'd be bringing up the same points as a Maureen Dowd editorial, yet that day has arrived.........

High Anxiety in the Mile High City - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

August 27, 2008
High Anxiety in the Mile High City
By MAUREEN DOWD
DENVER

I’ve been to a lot of conventions, and there’s always something gratifyingly weird that happens.

Dan Quayle acting like a Dancing Hamster. Teresa Heinz Kerry reprising Blanche DuBois. Dick Morris getting nabbed triangulating between a hooker and toes.

But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.

There were a lot of bitter Clinton associates, fund-raisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary’s roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks.

At a press conference with New York reporters on Monday, Hillary looked as if she were straining at the bit to announce her 2012 exploratory committee.

“Remember, 18 million people voted for me, 18 million people, give or take, voted for Barack,” she said, while making a faux pro-Obama point. She keeps acting as if her delegates are out of her control, when she’s been privately egging on people to keep her dream alive as long as possible, no matter what the cost to Obama.

Hillary also said she was happy about the choice of Joe Biden because he added “intensity” to the ticket. Ouch.

She added insult to injury by coming out Tuesday night looking great in a blazing orange pantsuit and teaching the precocious pup Obama something about intensity and message. She thanked her “sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits,” and slyly noted that Obama would enact her health care plan rather than his.

She offered the electrifying fight that the limpid Obama has not — setting off paranoia among some Democrats that they had chosen the wrong nominee or that Obama had chosen the wrong running mate. “It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together in the Twin Cities because these days they are awfully hard to tell apart,” she said.

Afterward, some of her supporters began crying, as they were interviewed by reporters, saying that her speech had proved that she would make a better president than Obama. And, as one said, she would only give him “two months” to prove himself.

Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, compared Obama to the passive-aggressive Adlai Stevenson and told The Washington Post that Obama gives six-minute answers and “is not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with.”

At a meeting of the Democratic women’s caucus Tuesday, 74-year-old Carol Anderson of Vancouver, Wash., a former Hillary volunteer, stood in the back of the room in a Hillary T-shirt and hat signed by Hillary and “Nobama” button and booed every time any of the women speakers mentioned Obama’s name.

She’s voting for McCain and had nothing nice to say about the Obamas. What about the kids, I asked. “Adorable,” she agreed. Well, I said, Michelle raised them.

“I think her mother does,” Anderson shot back, adding: “I wonder if Michelle would give the Queen one of her little knuckle punches?”

Bill’s pals said he was still gnawing at his many grievances against the younger version of himself he has to praise Wednesday night; the latest one being that the Obama folks, like all winners, wanted control over Bill’s speech, so that he did not give a paean to himself and his economic record, which is what he wanted to do, because he was incensed that Obama said a couple critical things about his administration during a heated campaign.

Finally, Obama had to give in on Monday and say he would allow the ex-president to do exactly as he likes, which is what he usually does anyhow.

Obama’s pacification of Bill made his supporters depressed and anxious that he was going to be a weaker candidate than they had hoped and fearful that, as in Obama’s favorite movie, “The Godfather,” every time Democrats try to get away, the Clintons pull them back in.

And Democrats have begun internalizing the criticisms of Hillary and John McCain about Obama’s rock-star prowess, worrying that the Invesco Field extravaganza Thursday, with Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi, will just add to the celebrity cachet that Democrats have somehow been shamed into seeing as a negative.

So that added to the weird mood at the convention, with some Democrats nitpicking Obama’s appearance, after Michelle’s knock-out speech and the fabulously cute girls, with a reassuring white family in a town he couldn’t remember at one point. They wondered why he wasn’t wearing a tie, fearing he looked too young, and second-guessed Michelle’s green dress, wondering if it clashed with the blue stage, and fretted that there wasn’t a speaker Monday night attacking McCain and yelling about gas prices.

“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”

[Galaril]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Clinton's numbers only went up when Obama and McCain stopped attacking her and started attacking each other (and Clinton kept attacking Obama). She hasn't been attacked in any real sense since early March.

If she had won the nomination and McCain had been blasting the airwaves with negative stuff about her and Bill and no one had attacked Obama for the last two months and you had all of these young Obama supporters talking to the media saying "I'm just going to stay home on election day because it is the same old shit," we would be having the opposite discussion right now. We would all be saying "How the hell could the Dems have nominated the most divisive Democrat of the last 20 years when they had the chance to nominate the liberal Regan?"

The runner-up in these situations is like a backup quarterback. You forget the flaws when they are not playing and only see the flaws of the starter.


Great post. I agree. And I also agree with Mizzou that she did only what she had to but not anything extra. Regardles of the reasons why it sure wasn't what I was hoping from her as an Obama supporter. I also, felt it was 80% "see how great I am and Bill was as a President".When she was speaking I almost forgot that Obama was the nominee. I am assuming it will be even worse. One of the things I have disagreed with is Obama not trying to go out and bury thre hatchet with the Clintons in a public way especially Bill. Bill has an enormous ego from all accounts and he had to have it stroked. Now Obama might have to have Michelle visit Bill to get him to give a sincere speech:D

[JPhillips]

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.
Won't happen. Republicans aren't nearly as good at self-loathing as Democrats. :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

Barring a pro-choice VP selection, the Republican convention won't be nearly as exciting. It'll be 4 relatively boring days of rah-rah speeches. The only exception would be if Kay Bailey Hutchinson was selected as VP. That would be an interesting turn and could prompt an exodus of Clinton supporters.

[Fighter of Foo]

I have another question with the polling. Now I've been out of school for a couple of years now, but how can you call a poll valid if the difference between the candidates is less than or equal to the margin of error?

That means it's roughly a tie. If the margin of error is 3% and I'm ahead in the poll by 2 points, the range is -1% to 5%.

One poll by itself will never give an accurate picture. Watch the moving averages and the overall trends.

[ace1914]

Barring a pro-choice VP selection, the Republican convention won't be nearly as exciting. It'll be 4 relatively boring days of rah-rah speeches. The only exception would be if Kay Bailey Hutchinson was selected as VP. That would be an interesting turn and could prompt an exodus of Clinton supporters.

That would be interesting. What's her stance on abortion? This is probably sexist assertion, but being a woman I'd guess pro-choice, right?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That would be interesting. What's her stance on abortion? This is probably sexist assertion, but being a woman I'd guess pro-choice, right?

Correct. She is pro-choice. So you'd have the Christian right grumbling while some of the Clinton voters may be won over. Somewhat of a trade-off, but it would make the convention very interesting.

[molson]

Correct. She is pro-choice. So you'd have the Christian right grumbling while some of the Clinton voters may be won over. Somewhat of a trade-off, but it would make the convention very interesting.

It'd be a very interesting gamble.

Clinton supporters are extremely compassionate. McCain's already subtly reached out to them in his "passed over" ad (which argues that Clinton was "right" about Obama, with relevant sound bites).

It'd be a gamble that you'd bring over more voters than you'd lose. In a practical sense, who the hell cares what the VP's abortion views are, even if you're the most raging pro-life person in the world? (though I know people don't think practically about these things).

McCain doesn't seem to need a gamble at this point though, so I think he'll be way more conservative.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It'd be a very interesting gamble.

Clinton supporters are extremely compassionate. McCain's already subtly reached out to them in his "passed over" ad (which argues that Clinton was "right" about Obama, with relevant sound bites).

It'd be a gamble that you'd bring over more voters than you'd lose. In a practical sense, who the hell cares what the VP's abortion views are, even if you're the most raging pro-life person in the world? (though I know people don't think practically about these things).

McCain doesn't seem to need a gamble at this point though, so I think he'll be way more conservative.

I know that Rush Limbaugh has said that the religious right would stay way from the polls if the VP was pro-choice. I don't buy that at all.

I do agree about not needing to gamble. The polling numbers are all going in McCain's direction at this point. Probably not a good idea to change course when everything's going well.

[albionmoonlight]

I know that Rush Limbaugh has said that the religious right would stay way from the polls if the VP was pro-choice. I don't buy that at all.

I agree with you. Anyone who cares enough to threaten to not vote cares too much to actually not vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another article on the fallout from the Clinton/Obama feud. This one's from the front page of the Washington Post. Looks like many Clinton supporters plan on leaving town before Obama even speaks.......

Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html)

Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions

By Eli Saslow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 27, 2008; A01



DENVER, Aug. 26 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn't erase their frustrations.

Despite Clinton's plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.

There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech's predictability. "It's a tactic," he said. "Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I'm still bitter."

There was JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, who digested Clinton's resounding endorsement of Barack Obama and decided that she, too, will move on and get behind him. "I'll vote for [Obama] in the roll call," she said, "because that's what Hillary wants."

There was Shirley Love, from West Virginia, who smiled at Clinton's composure, waved a button bearing her name and felt a renewed pang of regret that she had lost the nomination. "She deserves it," Love said. "That's the thing that sticks with you. Even if she can move on easily, that's not as easy for everybody else."

Most delegates agreed that Clinton's impassioned speech marked a step toward reconciliation. The crowd in the Pepsi Center stood to applaud almost every time she mentioned Obama by name.

John Burkett, a Pennsylvania delegate and staunch Clinton supporter, attached an Obama button to his shirt. A New Mexico delegate said the "H" on his shirt will be replaced with an "O" come Thursday.

"She hit it right out of the ballpark," said Terie Norelli, New Hampshire's House speaker. "I've never been prouder of a Democrat than I was tonight." Norelli said the speech made her want to work hard for Obama. "She said it better than I ever could have: Everything I worked for and that she worked for would be at risk if we do anything less."

But Clinton's performance fell far short of the panacea the Democratic Party had desperately hoped for, delegates said. Some worried that, after Clinton's public withdrawal, more voters might defect for Republican John McCain or simply stay home.

"I'm not going to vote for Obama. I'm not going to vote for McCain, either," said Blanche Darley, 65, a Texas delegate for Clinton. Darley wore a button saying "Obamination Scares the Hell Out of Me."

"We love her, but it's our vote if we don't trust him or don't like him," said Darley, who was a superdelegate for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Weeping, Dawn Yingling, a 44-year-old single mother from Indianapolis, said that the speech was "fabulous" but that she still isn't going to work for the Obama campaign. "She was fabulous, nothing less than I expected. It's hard to sit here and think about she would have accomplished. We're not stupid -- we're not going to vote for John McCain," she said. But she'll limit her campaigning to a House candidate. "It will take a Congress as well as a president. That's what I can do and be true to who I am."

For Clinton's supporters, it was difficult to accept her speech as the public finale of her campaign, because this moment once held such tremendous potential. Shelby Leary, a delegate from West Virginia, stood to watch a video tribute to Clinton's success as a trailblazer and then chanted "Hillary" for 30 seconds with the rest of the crowd. Anne Price, from Washington state, wore a dozen Clinton buttons and wiped tears from her eyes.

It seemed a particularly resonant moment Tuesday night, which marked both Women's Equality Day and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage.

"There's no way this night couldn't be emotional," Leary said. "A lot of us loved campaigning for her, and it's hard to watch it end. But after something like this, you have to have an emotional end for people to come to terms with things."

Clinton said Tuesday night that it is Obama's convention. But many of her supporters came here exclusively to honor her. One group traveled from New York and built an impromptu museum commemorating Clinton's historic campaign. Another lighted thousands of candles in a park to symbolize her widespread support.

On Tuesday morning, hundreds of loyalists formed a 200-yard parade and marched through downtown. They shouted into loudspeakers and beat drums, creating a cacophony that echoed across the blocks. As they began marching, some of the supporters chanted, "We want a roll call." Many of them wore their opinions on T-shirts: Country Over Party. Damn, We Wish You Were President. Still Making History. Democrats Left Behind.

At the front of the parade route, one banner summarized their message: Hillary. Who Else?

"A lot of people came here just because they wanted to celebrate Hillary," said Elizabeth Fiechter, a New York City lawyer who helped organize the parade. "We get criticism because there's this idea that the election should move on and just leave her behind. We're not going down that quietly."

The week of festivities for Clinton delegates and supporters started Monday with a meet-and-greet, where some supporters learned that they differ from one another more than they originally thought. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that only 42 percent of Clinton voters classify themselves as "solidly behind" Obama, and that 20 percent plan to vote for McCain. But in Denver, Clinton supporters sometimes classified themselves as belonging to one of two categories: the sad and the angry.

"It just makes me upset because Hillary would have been the perfect woman to do this job," said Katherine Vincent, from Colorado. "I'm a Democrat first, but it's just difficult to get over."

"I hate Obama so much that I'm going to devote as much time to McCain as I did to Hillary," said Adita Blanco, a Democrat from Edward, Okla., who has never voted for a Republican. "Obama has nothing. He has no experience. The Democratic Party doesn't care about us. You couldn't treat [Clinton] any worse."

Perhaps the best example of the persistent divide in the Democratic Party came after Clinton's speech Tuesday night. The lights went down in the Pepsi Center, and some influential Democrats left downtown for good. They planned to head for the airport and fly home, long before Obama accepts the nomination in a speech at Invesco Field on Thursday night.

Clinton will hold a private meeting with her top financial advisers Wednesday, and many donors plan to leave immediately afterward. Terence R. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also plans to leave before Obama's speech. Many of the women from 18 Million Voices, Fiechter's pro-Clinton group, booked tickets for Wednesday and Thursday because "we really are taking a position of being indifferent to Obama," Fiechter said.

Clinton's delegates inside the Pepsi Center had no choice but to stick around, at least until the end of Wednesday's roll call.

"I wish I could leave," said Straughan, the professor from California. "To be honest, that would make this whole thing a lot easier."

[molson]

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

[ace1914]

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

[ace1914]

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.


Because Bill and Hillary were hoping for Clinton/Obama.

[molson]

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

I don't think it's necessarily a "protest vote", or that Obama "did anything". I think a lot of Clinton supporters are generally afraid of an Obama presidency (based on that article and many others like it). I think they'd legitmately think McCain is the better option '08-'12, and then they'll support Clinton again after that.

You also touched on something that I wish people would actually talk about.

What will the US be like the next 4 years with McCain?
What will the US be like the next 4 years with Obama?
Will there be any difference at all?

That's the essence of this election, and where I wish more of the discussion was. It's not about the "issues", everybody knows where people theoretically stand at this point. I want to hear arguments about what's actually going to happen.

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012. So his views on Iraq don't really matter much, since there's no practical difference there. Will the economy be better? Why? How exactly will he pull that off? They're both saying pretty much the same stuff about energy, I don't believe either will be bold enough to do what really needs to be done there either. How will my life be better with Obama in charge? How long do I have to wait for that to happen?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

I don't think Obama did much of anything to be honest. The Clintons started this feud and it's become apparant that they plan to be the ones to win it as well. Obama has halted the Clinton family's second ascension to the throne and they're none too happy about it. This kind of reaction from the Clinton's honestly isn't that surprising to most people.

[Big Fo]

I just don't understand how any Clinton supporters would choose McCain over Obama. Clinton's and Obama's viewpoints and the policies they would try to enact are more similar than Clinton's and McCain's. Racism is about the only thing that comes to mind.


I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

Would she even have accepted the VP nomination?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

So, Republicans who say they won't vote if the VP is pro-choice will actually vote, but Democrats who say they won't vote if Hillary doesn't get the nomination are serious?

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

On the other hand, the religious right has much more at stake in the form of judicial nominations. An unchecked Democrat majority in Congress in coordination with a Democrat president could push through as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations along with numerous Circuit court nominations. They could put the judicial system squarely against the religious right for years to come. Failing to vote in the upcoming election would prove disasterous for them.

[Fighter of Foo]

I don't think it's necessarily a "protest vote", or that Obama "did anything". I think a lot of Clinton supporters are generally afraid of an Obama presidency (based on that article and many others like it). I think they'd legitmately think McCain is the better option '08-'12, and then they'll support Clinton again after that.

You also touched on something that I wish people would actually talk about.

What will the US be like the next 4 years with McCain?
What will the US be like the next 4 years with Obama?
Will there be any difference at all?

That's the essence of this election, and where I wish more of the discussion was. It's not about the "issues", everybody knows where people theoretically stand at this point. I want to hear arguments about what's actually going to happen.

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012. So his views on Iraq don't really matter much, since there's no practical difference there. Will the economy be better? Why? How exactly will he pull that off?

Wait a second, Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, with whom they disagree on nearly everything? That's ridiculous.

While Obama and McCain differ, neither one of them is going to change the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

[molson]

Wait a second, Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, with whom they disagree on nearly everything? That's ridiculous.

While Obama and McCain differ, neither one of them is going to change the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

It's not about viewpoints or issues. Jimmy Bob down the street has great viewpoints. Doesn't mean he'd be a good president.

[Fighter of Foo]

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

Yeah because the Democrats have really stood up to Bush.:rolleyes: They really oppose his policies! :rolleyes:

[bulletsponge]

ok i usually never venture into a political thread, and im sure ill need asbestos underwear for saying this but ill give my opinion on the die hard Clinton supporters. To a woman (and there almost all women) they are bitter middle aged women way past thier prime who are voting for Clinton because shes a woman. a vote for her is basicaly a vote for themselves in thier eyes. all the anger and frustrations in thier lives are being spewed out in this race and they feel thier woman (themselves) are being passed over and disrespected, rehasing old hurt feelings in thier own lives

[ace1914]

I agree. For me, I'm a 31 year old engineer, with a 28 year old s wife who's a travel nurse. We plan to have our first kid next year once we're finished with her loans.

I want my family to feel safe from the world hating our hypocritical "pre-emptive striking" asses. I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens. I want to get into a home within the next 3 years and at least, let me feel like I'm making a sound investment and not throwing our money away in a 250,000 stationary car. I don't think its too much to ask for, right?

[ace1914]

Yeah because the Democrats have really stood up to Bush.:rolleyes: They really oppose his policies! :rolleyes:


Well its hard to vote against a president that scares the people into submission, especially if you want to get reelected.

[molson]

I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens.

If I thought Obama could do that I'd donate far, far, more than I could afford to his campaign, even if he spent the rest of his time in a shed out back behind the white house watching porn.

[ace1914]

If I thought Obama could do that I'd donate far, far, more than I could afford to his campaign, even if he spent the rest of his time in a shed out back behind the white house watching porn.

The fact that he tried to intelligently explain the futility of off-shore oil drilling to the American people for as long as he did, gave him a +1 for me. Again, another case where trying to go the intelligent, informed route, will not win the presidency.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I agree. For me, I'm a 31 year old engineer, with a 28 year old s wife who's a travel nurse. We plan to have our first kid next year once we're finished with her loans.

I want my family to feel safe from the world hating our hypocritical "pre-emptive striking" asses. I want my country to be self-sufficient when it comes to energy by the time my kids are teens. I want to get into a home within the next 3 years and at least, let me feel like I'm making a sound investment and not throwing our money away in a 250,000 stationary car. I don't think its too much to ask for, right?

1. It doesn't matter who ends up being president. After the Iraq screw-ups involving the reasons why we attacked, any future pre-emptive strike by a president is going to be scrutinized much more closely for the foreseeable future.

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

3. There's not a better investment right now than a home and that won't change regardless of who's president. The prices are ridiculously cheap.

For as much as we talk about the effect of each candidate, I'm relatively sure that the next president won't have much control at all over upcoming policies. Public sentiment and Congress will have much more control over that.

[molson]

The fact that he tried to intelligently explain the futility of off-shore oil drilling to the American people for as long as he did, gave him a +1 for me. Again, another case where trying to go the intelligent, informed route, will not win the presidency.

That's a plus, but a meaningless one, as he did ultamitely decide that offshore drilling would be a necessary part of his energy plan.

The American citizens are the only ones that can make us self-sufficient, and they won't do it until there's a catostrophic economic depression.

So I can't give Obama real points there just because he thinks nice thoughts. And that's where I'm stuck with Obama. Nice thoughts and nothing more.

So when issues like that are a wash, McCain's experience starts to look better.

[larrymcg421]

I'd be interested in seeing what the disaffected Clinton voters think after they vote for McCain, he gets into office, John Paul Stevens retires from the court and Roe v. Wade is history.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'd be interested in seeing what the disaffected Clinton voters think after they vote for McCain, he gets into office, John Paul Stevens retires from the court and Roe v. Wade is history.

There's no way that happens given the overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress. They'd never let that through.

[JPhillips]

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.

[ace1914]

1. It doesn't matter who ends up being president. After the Iraq screw-ups involving the reasons why we attacked, any future pre-emptive strike by a president is going to be scrutinized much more closely for the foreseeable future.

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

3. There's not a better investment right now than a home and that won't change regardless of who's president. The prices are ridiculously cheap.

For as much as we talk about the effect of each candidate, I'm relatively sure that the next president won't have much control at all over upcoming policies. Public sentiment and Congress will have much more control over that.

I can't believe that the new President(McCain or Obama) will not have a huge effect. For basically, all of my adult life I've been living under Bush. I look at how I felt 8 years ago and where we are now. The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for. I know, this is soapbox material but that's real life for me and these are issues near to me. I look at what Bush has done to this country and there's no arguement that can convince me that a new president will have some reduced role in the future of the country.

[molson]

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.

I saw that but didn't quite believe it for some reason.

That would seem to be a blow for the Dems that this isn't even a difference-point anymore. Though Obama had pretty much dropped the "accelerated withdrawal" push since his Iraq trip.

[molson]

The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for.

Do you think those things wouldn't have happened if Al Gore won in '00? (or a time-warped Obama?)

IMO:

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Osama - but what can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

-Tech bubble bursts no matter what, we have economic struggles no matter what (especially after 9/11). I think there is now an opportunity for either recovery or further stagnation, and I think this is a key issue for me in this election.

-Wasn't Afganistan "the right war" all along? Sure, we'd have focussed more attention there without Iraq, but the Afgan war was won early - how long would troops have stayed? Whenever we left, the Taliban would creep back (as they have). We certainly wouldn't have "won the war on terror" by now, there'd be a key battling ground somewhere. At least its not Pakistan (yet). Iraq was an abomination, but I'm not convinced that Bush has done an awful job on terror in general. I would have NEVER beleived, after 9/11, that our government would have kept terror out of US soil for 8 years, and that the world would see as few attacks as it has. They don't get enough credit for that. They're doing something right. I have confidence McCain will continue that success, Obama is a question mark.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I can't believe that the new President(McCain or Obama) will not have a huge effect. For basically, all of my adult life I've been living under Bush. I look at how I felt 8 years ago and where we are now. The towers have been knocked down, two of my aunts have lost their homes, and I've got two frat brothers in Afgahnastan(sp, I know), whose safety I gotta pray for. I know, this is soapbox material but that's real life for me and these are issues near to me. I look at what Bush has done to this country and there's no arguement that can convince me that a new president will have some reduced role in the future of the country.

First, we would have had the tower knocked down no matter who was in power. That's not Bush's fault. They hated us long before Bush.

Similarly, the towers provided perfectly good reasons to go into Afghanistan, regardless who was in power. The Taliban would have been targeted either way.

The only thing you could place on Bush is their slow reaction to the risky loans being handed out to consumers. But to be honest, I hold the consumers who took those risky loans just as responsible. If you buy a house and used a fixed interest loan, you'll never have any problems and will only be approved if you truly can handle the loan given the tighter restrictions on loans that now exist.

Edit: I should note that I'm not talking about your aunts and their situation because I don't know what the situation was. In general, there was a lot of people who borrowed over their head and should have known better.

[larrymcg421]

There's no way that happens given the overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress. They'd never let that through.

They can't reject every justice he puts up. If they put up another Alito that is obviously qualified, they're going to have a hard time justifying opposition to that person.

[albionmoonlight]

Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Obama - but can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

Maybe had Clinton heeded those warnings, his wife would have been prepared to beat Obama ;)

[JPhillips]

I saw that but didn't quite believe it for some reason.

That would seem to be a blow for the Dems that this isn't even a difference-point anymore. Though Obama had pretty much dropped the "accelerated withdrawal" push since his Iraq trip.

Yes, having Bush and the Iraqi government sign an agreement that's basically what Obama's been advocating is bad for the Democrats. :confused:

If your argument is nobody is paying attention, you're right, but substantively this should be a blow to the guy that endorses 100 or 1000 or 10000 years in Iraq.

[larrymcg421]

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Obama - but can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

Woops.

[JPhillips]

First, we would have had the tower knocked down no matter who was in power. That's not Bush's fault. They hated us long before Bush.

Similarly, the towers provided perfectly good reasons to go into Afghanistan, regardless who was in power. The Taliban would have been targeted either way.

The only thing you could place on Bush is their slow reaction to the risky loans being handed out to consumers. But to be honest, I hold the consumers who took those risky loans just as responsible. If you buy a house and used a fixed interest loan, you'll never have any problems and will only be approved if you truly can handle the loan given the tighter restrictions on loans that now exist.

Edit: I should note that I'm not talking about your aunts and their situation because I don't know what the situation was. In general, there was a lot of people who borrowed over their head and should have known better.

And the Iraq War, but who's counting?

[Butter_of_69]

Dude, has McCain got, like, a PS3 in his pants or something? This discussion is getting one-sided in a hurry.

[molson]

Woops.

Yup, I cringed and edited that - thanks for immortalizing it :)

[molson]

Yes, having Bush and the Iraqi government sign an agreement that's basically what Obama's been advocating is bad for the Democrats. :confused:

If your argument is nobody is paying attention, you're right, but substantively this should be a blow to the guy that endorses 100 or 1000 or 10000 years in Iraq.

No, my argument that is if it's Obama's 2012 plan v. whatever McCain's plan is, that's a HUGE plus for Obama, because the vast majority of Americans prefer to withdraw. Now that that's (apparently) settled, it's not a reason to vote for Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And the Iraq War, but who's counting?

But he didn't mention the Iraq War in his post. He was mentioning things that affected him that were caused by Bush and mentioned Afghanistan. That would have happened regardless of who was in charge. Bush didn't create that problem.

We could argue who did and didn't support Iraq all day long, but it wouldn't accomplish much. They're moving in the right direction now and that's about all you can hope for.

[ace1914]

Ok, the towers got hit. We go beat down Afgahnistan, but we don't go to Iraq and we'd be done with Afgahnistan already. Do I believe these things would have happened with Gore? Although irrelevant, no I don't believe the times would be as bad with Gore in office but again that's a moot point. I guess the point I was trying to make before I began rambling, is that I think the new president will have as much of a profound effect on the direction of this country, as W The Decider did.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ok, the towers got hit. We go beat down Afgahnistan, but we don't go to Iraq and we'd be done with Afgahnistan already.

Sure, I agree with that. Much different than your original point.

[ace1914]

Yup, I cringed and edited that - thanks for immortalizing it :)

I saw it too. Freudian I guess....:lol:

[ace1914]

Sure, I agree with that. Much different than your original point.

I don't even count Iraq because my views on that probably belong on a conspiracy site. :D

[ace1914]

I got some other controversial topics to bounce off you guys but time to go eat lunch with the Mrs.

[SackAttack]

MBBF, keep in mind that the story the press *wants* is that disaffected Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

Conflict sells more newspapers than puppies, kittens and rainbows.

They will find that story, no matter how deep they have to dig, because the alternative just won't sell newspapers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

MBBF, keep in mind that the story the press *wants* is that disaffected Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama.

Conflict sells more newspapers than puppies, kittens and rainbows.

They will find that story, no matter how deep they have to dig, because the alternative just won't sell newspapers.

I don't disagree. Some are overblowing it, while others try to diminish its relevance. But there is without question some discontent. Measuring the exact size of the problem is the hard part. The post convention polls should help with that. We likely won't see the full effect until after the Republican convention. The post Dem convention poll will likely be useless as McCain is going to announce his VP selection the night of the Obama speech or the next day after.

[SackAttack]

I don't disagree. Some are overblowing it, while others try to diminish its relevance. But there is without question some discontent. Measuring the exact size of the problem is the hard part. The post convention polls should help with that. We likely won't see the full effect until after the Republican convention. The post Dem convention poll will likely be useless as McCain is going to announce his VP selection the night of the Obama speech or the next day after.

There's discontent. But you know what? I don't think W's voting base was necessarily 100% in lockstep with him in either election. There were more than a few folks who held their nose and voted for him in 2004 despite "discontent" because they felt the alternative wasn't an acceptable one.

The problem for McCain is that even if he leeches off, what. The numbers ABC was showing last night had 70% voting for Obama, 20% not, and 10% undecided, if I recall. So let's say they split the undecideds, and 25% of Clinton voters go for McCain. Great.

Now, he still has to get HIS base as fired up about him as Obama has the rest of the Democratic Party. McCain's ability to steal a quarter of Clinton voters only matters if he seals the rest of the deal.

And, frankly, anything that would get the conservative wing of the GOP fired up enough to turn out for McCain in droves would probably be polarizing enough for the rest of those Clinton voters to hold their noses and vote for Obama after all, don't you think?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And, frankly, anything that would get the conservative wing of the GOP fired up enough to turn out for McCain in droves would probably be polarizing enough for the rest of those Clinton voters to hold their noses and vote for Obama after all, don't you think?

His VP selection will define how McCain plans to attack the rest of the election. We'll be able to answer the questions you pose much more accurately at that point.

I agree that some voted for Bush that weren't in lock-step, but that was also a different situation than the one we're discussing here. He was an incumbant and so there was no real conflict at the convention. There was no choice over Bush unlike the Obama/Clinton scenario.

[larrymcg421]

To reiterate my earlier point, can you imagine the conservative uproar that would happen if Stevens retired, leaving a 4-4 Roe split on the court, and McCain appoints a pro-choice justice? Let's get real here. That wouldn't even be an option for him. He will keep appointing pro-life justices until enough Dems cross over to support one. Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, I don't mind that so much as I am a liberal who thinks Roe should be overturned. I'd be more worried about the erosion of civil liberties that would take place.

[BrianD]

To reiterate my earlier point, can you imagine the conservative uproar that would happen if Stevens retired, leaving a 4-4 Roe split on the court, and McCain appoints a pro-choice justice? Let's get real here. That wouldn't even be an option for him. He will keep appointing pro-life justices until enough Dems cross over to support one. Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

Personally, I don't mind that so much as I am a liberal who thinks Roe should be overturned. I'd be more worried about the erosion of civil liberties that would take place.

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

[JPhillips]

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

This is where there's a real misunderstanding. The Supreme Court has never made decisions without the influence of politics. One, these are humans with political agendas and ties to the most powerful people in the country. Two, the law is often what lawyers and judges say it is. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are those where the laws don't provide a clear enough answer to the problem.

[Galaril]

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

On the other hand, the religious right has much more at stake in the form of judicial nominations. An unchecked Democrat majority in Congress in coordination with a Democrat president could push through as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations along with numerous Circuit court nominations. They could put the judicial system squarely against the religious right for years to come. Failing to vote in the upcoming election would prove disasterous for them.

And why is that a bad thing?:)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now, he still has to get HIS base as fired up about him as Obama has the rest of the Democratic Party.

I believe the nomination of Obama did a great deal of that work for him already.

If I've ever been a good example of anything, it would be a GOP voter who was unenthusiastic about McCain (putting it mildly). And I wouldn't miss voting for him now for any reason short of being dead.

[larrymcg421]

I have two separate questions on this point.

1. How much of Roe v. Wade was a political decision by the courts? I'm assuming that at one point the Supreme Court made decisions based on the law and not on politics, but how much did politics play a role in the original decisions?

It was a 7-2 decision, but there were rumors that Burger joined the majority just so he could assign the opinion to Blackmun and this angered Brennan and Douglas who wanted a far more liberal opinion. However, I've read Blackmun's notes, which seems to refute that.

The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case in the early 90's was definitely filled with politics. Rehnquist considered delaying it after the election, which seemed like a political move and only put it on the docket because some of the liberal justices furiously protested and threatened to write a dissent on that decision. Rehnquist thought he had a majority and circulated an opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade. It looked like this would be the case, until three GOP appointees got together and decided to allow some of PA's limitations on Roe, but to uphold the central finding.

2. What happens to the Government or the perception of Government if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Does the SC lose any credibility if they change a law of this magnitude based on politics?

I don't see how it could possibly be any worse than what happened after Bush vs. Gore.

Also, some people seem to think that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationwide. Not true. It would simply send the issue back to the states, and the laws would differ from state to state.

[BrianD]

This is where there's a real misunderstanding. The Supreme Court has never made decisions without the influence of politics. One, these are humans with political agendas and ties to the most powerful people in the country. Two, the law is often what lawyers and judges say it is. The cases that make it to the Supreme Court are those where the laws don't provide a clear enough answer to the problem.

This makes me sad - and probably more than a little bit naive. With all of the discussion in the past few years about "activist judges", I had the impression that personal politics were set aside more in the past. Maybe this was never the case and I just had an idealized impression of the SC.

[molson]

Also, some people seem to think that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal nationwide. Not true. It would simply send the issue back to the states, and the laws would differ from state to state.

And the number of states than give people a right to abortion (or just retain existing statues) might create another argument about whether abortion is a fundamental legal right, federally speaking.

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study/prediction about how states would respond.

[JPhillips]

This makes me sad - and probably more than a little bit naive. With all of the discussion in the past few years about "activist judges", I had the impression that personal politics were set aside more in the past. Maybe this was never the case and I just had an idealized impression of the SC.

Of the two the bigger issue IMO is that the cases selected by the court rarely have obvious answers. Certainly politics enters into the equation and on some decisions it dominates, but justices can and do disagree over what the law actually means. My big complaint with folks like the Federalist Society is that they falsely argue that there is always a right and wrong decision based solely on the wording of the Constitution or federal statute. Cases like Roe v. Wade, the recent one on the 2nd amendment, and countless others can be argued with an honest disagreement over the meaning of the law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder if anyone's ever done a study/prediction about how states would respond.

Here's a blog (http://mainstreamiowan.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-if-roe-v-wade-were-overturned.html) that cites a report from The Center for Reproductive Rights that talks about that subject.

4 states have "bans-in-waiting" (as of 2007), basically they kick in if RvW is overturned. 5 others are/have considered the same sort of thing.

They estimate 21 states (including the nine above) would ban ASAP.
They estimate 20 states would not ban.
They considered 9 states as possibly going either way - Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

FWIW.

[molson]

Activist justices are only apparently bad if they actively create law you don't like.

[molson]

Here's a blog (http://mainstreamiowan.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-if-roe-v-wade-were-overturned.html) that cites a report from The Center for Reproductive Rights that talks about that subject.

4 states have "bans-in-waiting" (as of 2007), basically they kick in if RvW is overturned. 5 others are/have considered the same sort of thing.

They estimate 21 states (including the nine above) would ban ASAP.
They estimate 20 states would not ban.
They considered 9 states as possibly going either way - Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

FWIW.

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I should maybe start up an "abortion tourism" business that provides airfare, hotels, and limo to the clinic in an abortion-friendly state.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

And why is that a bad thing?:)

You won't find me arguing against minimizing the role of the religious right in politics.

[larrymcg421]

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I should maybe start up an "abortion tourism" business that provides airfare, hotels, and limo to the clinic in an abortion-friendly state.

I know you're kidding, but I'm sure there would be attempts to pass a federal law disallowing this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Surprising to be that so many would ban.

I would imagine that's probably a worst case scenario (or best, depending upon your POV of course) since the report was from a group that definitely has a direct interest in the outcome.

Wouldn't surprise me if it were around half & half though, since it's such a contentious issue and we seem to be split close to the middle on so many things today.

[SackAttack]

I believe the nomination of Obama did a great deal of that work for him already.

If I've ever been a good example of anything, it would be a GOP voter who was unenthusiastic about McCain (putting it mildly). And I wouldn't miss voting for him now for any reason short of being dead.

Yes, but Jon, it's been established already that you're a lunatic, and thus not representative of the voter pool at large. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

2. Regarding energy, it also doesn't matter a whole lot who is president. The vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, are calling for better energy policies and options. There is some disagreement, mainly regarding drilling off-shore, but both sides agree that stuff needs to change quickly. The Russia-Georgia situation only further amplifies that point. (By the way, if you want to see what oil companies have to do to drill now in protected areas, watch the latest season of 'Ice Road Truckers' on the History Channel. Amazing stuff.)

Ah, call me the waahmbulance. Every industry has a cost of entry and this is the oil industry's. Such difficulties keep scores of lawyers, geologists and accountants in jobs, which is good for the economy. :D

Actually, I'd argue that holding off on drilling in many of these areas is actually good for the U.S.'s long-term economic/energy interests.

For one, as many have pointed out, drilling in these areas isn't going to put a dent in world supply. So it's not like opening up ANWR is going to result in $1.00/gallon gas.

For two, the idea that this is a near-term strategic risk is pretty laughable. The U.S. is the world's biggest market for petroleum. Producers can't simply cut the U.S. off without in turn destroying their income source. That's a dangerous line for them to walk as well, and we've seen absolutely no inclination from them since 1973, and I'd argue it's even less possible as we have a greater variety of producers these days. Sure, this will change as China & India become greater consumers but then:

For three, we should use this time period to work on alternative fuels and conservation, so that by the time we get replaced as a significant consumer of petroleum, we're much more insulated against the whims of the producers.

And finally, if we wait many decades before opening up these areas, we'll be doing so a) with better and safer technology and b) in an era of even higher petroleum prices, which will be more money going into our coffers at a later date when, arguably, we'll need it even more.

Supply and Demand has made the U.S. its bitch with regard to oil. We still have time to turn the tables in the long-term. Now there's a goal. :D

-Clearly 9/11 was a long-term plan and it would have happened no matter what. Some blame Clinton but I don't think anyone would have had a real vision or courage needed to prevent that (just like nobody has the courage/vision on energy now to prevent the inevitable). Bush/Clinton were all warned ad nauseum about Osama - but what can you do in a pre-9/11 world?

It was Bush, however, who decided to ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" NIE, though, not Clinton. Maybe that's just part-and-parcel of a pre-9/11 world, but you can't argue that Gore would have done just as much zilch that summer as Bush did. You just don't know. Heck, maybe a continuity in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions between the Clinton & Gore administrations may have pushed some action in the summer of 2001.

-Tech bubble bursts no matter what, we have economic struggles no matter what (especially after 9/11). I think there is now an opportunity for either recovery or further stagnation, and I think this is a key issue for me in this election.

Bush responded to the bursting bubble and signs of slowdown by cutting taxes and hoping for the best. Now at the end of the Bush Administration we have near-unanimous agreement in finance & economics circles (including the WaPo and even the Cato Institute) that some earlier action and/or increased scrutiny by Treasury, SEC and/or the Fed would have been a good thing. Again, Bush did zilch.

To make this relevant to the thread, McCain's a candidate with an avowed lack of experience on the economy and has a chief economic advisor who thinks the recession is mostly psychological and that Americans are whiners. So there'd definitely be continuity between the Bush & McCain administrations on economics. So that would be awesome.

-Wasn't Afganistan "the right war" all along? Sure, we'd have focussed more attention there without Iraq, but the Afgan war was won early - how long would troops have stayed? Whenever we left, the Taliban would creep back (as they have).

You're forgetting that the Afghan war, like Iraq, was won, and then lost. You seem to have forgotten the many, many analyses done by the DoD and others in the past few years which have concluded that the shift in priorities to the Iraq war left the door open for today's resurgent Taliban. The entire military establishment is pretty convinced that if we stayed in Afghanistan full strength and not gotten distrated by Iraq, it'd be much, much better off today.

I would have NEVER beleived, after 9/11, that our government would have kept terror out of US soil for 8 years, and that the world would see as few attacks as it has. They don't get enough credit for that. They're doing something right. I have confidence McCain will continue that success, Obama is a question mark.

I'm going to disagree with "as few attacks as it has". There's Britain & Spain, for two, plus the development of a whole new generation of terrorists & advancement in terror tactics facilitated by the two "proving grounds" in Afghanistan & Iraq.

I don't get the whole McCain/Obama assessment here either. The info coming out of the intelligence agencies is going to be largely the same Administration to Administration. Either candidate is going to staff their cabinet & sub-cabinet with competent people (especially in a post-9/11 world) in this area. So it comes down to thinking that Obama's going to underestimate threats coming out of the intelligence apparatus that McCain won't because of McCain's superior "experience". I highly doubt that.

Voting for McCain is voting for the end of Roe vs. Wade.

:+1:

Out of all the "what would a McCain/Obama Administration look like?" speculation, this (and its converse with Obama) is one of the few certainties, especially since I'm sure Stevens & Ginsburg are the next to retire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

and thus not representative of the voter pool at large. ;)

What? You mean those likely (R) voters who don't care for McCain aren't written off as lunatics ;)

[SackAttack]

What? You mean those likely (R) voters who don't care for McCain aren't written off as lunatics ;)

No, no. Just that you're too much an outlier to be representative of the pool of (R) voters!

[BrianD]

For one, as many have pointed out, drilling in these areas isn't going to put a dent in world supply. So it's not like opening up ANWR is going to result in $1.00/gallon gas.

But not all oil goes into the world pool. If we were able to increase our oil production somewhat, wouldn't that provide some help against rising prices? Wouldn't this help from the speculation angle as well as the "let's not make it expensive enough to make extra drilling worthwhile" angle?

For three, we should use this time period to work on alternative fuels and conservation, so that by the time we get replaced as a significant consumer of petroleum, we're much more insulated against the whims of the producers.

I've never understood this as an argument against more drilling or more production. Shouldn't we be doing both? We need more oil for today and more alternative fuels for tomorrow. I don't see how one should affect the other.

[JPhillips]

I be willing to trade off-shore drilling or ANWR in exchange for some meaningful alternative energy steps, but there's no way I'd give them away without doing something to get us closer to a petroleum free autos.

[molson]

It was Bush, however, who decided to ignore the "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" NIE, though, not Clinton. Maybe that's just part-and-parcel of a pre-9/11 world, but you can't argue that Gore would have done just as much zilch that summer as Bush did. You just don't know. Heck, maybe a continuity in cabinet and sub-cabinet positions between the Clinton & Gore administrations may have pushed some action in the summer of 2001.


I love that now all of the sudden people have decided that a "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" memo should have provided immediate authority for the president to....do what? It's the same people who criticize the US intelligence around 9/11. Similar memos led to the Iraq invasion. Colin Powell even had photos!

I could have told you that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US Mainland in 1998. I could have read Reader's Digest and their 1998 cover story on Bin Ladin, "This Man Wants You Dead". You don't think Clinton received memos about Bin Laden? You don't think Bush receives memos even today? What if he invades Pakistan tomorrow based one of these holy memos - would you be for that?

I can see it now, this alternative reality of early 2001:

Bush: "As a result of a very strongly-worded and disturbing memo, the United States has launched an all-out assault on Afghanistan, the FTA has signficantly enhanced airline security to a critical level, and I ask all citizens to remain aware and vigilant at all times".
Crunchy Liberals: "OMG - Bush is worse than Hitler! He wants to take over the world! He rigged the election and now this! Fear-Mongering! King Bush's evil reign has begun!!"

You're in a fantasy world and that's what scares me about Obama. After he's president, how long do I have wait for Candyland and the streets to be paved with gold? How long before he gets us off oil? How long before all troops are out of Iraq? And there definitely won't be any more terrorist attacks, right? Or does none of that matter, as long as he has "vision"?

I'm surprised by the lack of terror attacks in the World in the last 8 years, but that's just a personal assessment. I remember people being afraid to go to work in Boston when the Iraq war started - "now it's going to be just like Israel here" they told me. ZERO attacks in the US. Can Obama improve on those numbers?

I think both Bush and Clinton should have done more but it drives me crazy when liberals come around after the fact and argue that Bush should have been more hawkish in the first few months of his presidency when I know they would have opposed any kind of military action at the time.

I also don't believe for a second you would have been in favor of "staying in Afgahnistan full strength". With no Iraq, the Republicans would argue for a lengthy stay in Afgahnistan, and Democrats would be for a withdrawal. It all comes down to politics. If Bush wanted to stay in Afgahnistan, Republicans would follow him, and Democrats, as reverse-lemmings, would be opposed to it. In any event, a continued occupation of Afgahnistan wouldn't have solved the world's terror problems. We HAVE made huge progress in that area, by all accounts, Al-Qaeda has been severely compromised and disabled. Why is Obama more qualified than McCain to continue that? I'm certainly willing to listen.

[flere-imsaho]

I love that now all of the sudden people have decided that a "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Mainland" memo should have provided immediate authority for the president to....do what?

Well, something would have been nice, at least. Accounts of the NIE indicate it was pretty actionable. Something more than "nah, I don't want to read that thing, let's go clear brush instead" would have been nice.

Of course, then the next 7 years sees Bush flip over to a stance that if anyone so much as mentions terror or nukes, we start talking invasions. That, frankly, is not that kind of sophisticated foreign policy I want to see more of in the next 4 years. Given McCain's reaction to Georgia, it's pretty clear that's exactly what we'll get if he's elected.

I could have told you that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US Mainland in 1998.

Oh that's not the point and you know it. Don't be obtuse. The President was given information that was above and beyond the usual "terrorists want to kill Americans" schtick and he decided to be 100% laissez-faire about it. His reaction on the day the attack actually happens shows exactly how surprised and psychologically unprepared he was for the actual incident.

Now a guy, McCain, who's been in lock-step with Bush ever since he lost an election to him in 2000 is supposedly going to offer us more from a security and/or foreign policy standpoint? Sure, I'd be comforted, but he's the same guy who ate birthday cake with Bush in Arizona while Katrina was raging in New Orleans. Presented with a new challenge, they still didn't know what to do.

Look, we all know how to react to a terrorist attack now. That's not the point. I think it's crazy to argue that the next President, regardless of who he is, is going to somehow ignore threats or not know how to react to them. That, my friend, is the reality of the post-9/11 world, for better or for worse. No President's going to want another 9/11 on their watch, and you can bet they're going to do everything they can to avoid it. To claim otherwise is really bizarre.

I think both Bush and Clinton should have done more but it drives me crazy when liberals come around after the fact and argue that Bush should have been more hawkish in the first few months of his presidency when I know they would have opposed any kind of military action at the time.

There's nothing more hawkish than invading a sovereign country, and yet that's exactly what we all, including liberals, supported when we invaded Afghanistan. So I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you conflating Afghanistan & Iraq?

Edit: Sorry, ignore that previous paragraph, I missed the time period of which you were speaking. Here's the real response: I'm not saying Bush should have been more "hawkish" prior to 9/11, I'm saying he should have been more circumspect. Reading this information, determining what's actionable and what's not, and being prepared is part of the job and Bush couldn't be bothered to do jack. Now, note that I'm not saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened anyway. I'm just saying that it would have been nice if Bush had given the possibility any reasonable thought at all.

I also don't believe for a second you would have been in favor of "staying in Afgahnistan full strength". With no Iraq, the Republicans would argue for a lengthy stay in Afgahnistan, and Democrats would be for a withdrawal.

How quickly we forget about the details of the war in Afghanistan. Had we stayed in strength in Afghanistan, and had we helped more than we did (because of resources being diverted to Iraq) we'd have prolonged the peaceful period of post-invasion Afghanistan, which would have helped it rebuild, which would have helped us eventually leave, which would have helped bring stability to the region. Clear, Hold and Build, my friend. If we're making progress and keeping casualties low, there's no problem from my liberal viewpoint.

But maybe a liberal talking about actionable information, measurable goals and accountable progress just blows your mind. :D

[molson]

Well, something would have been nice, at least. Accounts of the NIE indicate it was pretty actionable. Something more than "nah, I don't want to read that thing, let's go clear brush instead" would have been nice.


Well, we were certainly "on alert" if you read the 9/11 commission report. Somebody called the FBI to tell them that a sneaky Arab guy was trying to learn how to fly. He was immediately detained on INS charges, and out of the conspiracy. The ACLU probably would have flipped out if they knew about it.

"Something" was done. Not nearly enough.



Of course, then the next 7 years sees Bush flip over to a stance that if anyone so much as mentions terror or nukes, we start talking invasions. That, frankly, is not that kind of sophisticated foreign policy I want to see more of in the next 4 years. Given McCain's reaction to Georgia, it's pretty clear that's exactly what we'll get if he's elected.



Things are different after 9/11. Which way would you prefer? Everybody has a different tolerance of action/impact on civil liberties v. mitigation of perceived but unknown threats. Liberals tend to lean towards protection of civil liberties/inaction side of that ratio. That's not necessarily right or wrong. But can you at least see how its annoying when that side, after the fact, complains that a government, (who they think is on the complete wrong side of that ratio) was too inactive?

If we had access to that memo in 2001 at FOFC, the liberals and conservatives here might argue what to do about it. The conservatives would be arguing for a harsher, more active response, even at the expense of some civil liberties (at airports, profiling of arabs, etc). The liberals would argue for a more restrained reponse. The actual response was probably less than what ANYONE would have argued for. So how is this an argument point for the liberals? Shouldn't this be an "I told you so" for the conservatives?



Sure, I'd be comforted, but he's the same guy who ate birthday cake with Bush in Arizona while Katrina was raging in New Orleans. Presented with a new challenge, they still didn't know what to do.



Sometimes it seems like you're more concerned with the superficial reactions - you're very into Bush's response at the school, and McCain eating birthday cake. I don't give a shit about any of that. I'm sure Obama's reactions will be right on, and that's not exactly comforting.

My point on Afghanistan is just that it rings shallow when liberals say that if we didn't go to Iraq, we could have fixed Afghanistan and everything would be fine. Afghanistan was clean because al-qaeda essentially sacrificed the Taliban. Al-qaeda is (was?) a worldwide network. I think (just my opinion), that they figured the US would destroy Afghanistan and then declare mission accomplished, leaving them alone to prepare for the next attack. I'm not saying Iraq was right, but the military solution was never going to be Afghanistan alone. Under the divisive Bush administration, Democrats would have opposed any additional military action anywhere. Are they over that? Does Obama have the courage to use the military if necessary? Does he have the courage to do whatever dirty work helps us in Pakistan, helps Al-Qaeda stay on the run?

What would Obama have done after 9/11? Will anyone ever ask him that at a debate? Would we still have gotten KSM in Pakistan?

[molson]

By the way, this is that entire memo that apparently could have saved all the 9/11 victims. I'm not sure there's much here that wasn't in that 1998 Reader's Digest article.

CNN.com - Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US - Apr 10, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/)

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related."

The US was freaked out about this guy - both Bush and Clinton. The 9/11 report gives a sense of the panic in the administration in 2001. The only stuff that would have stopped it is the kind of stuff every liberal who likes to cite that Ben Franklin quote would be against. I'd love to ask Clinton (after he's had a few) if he has any regrets. Though I believe his hands were pretty much tied politically, and I don't blame him (neither Dole, Bush I, or Bush II would have done better)

[ace1914]

My point on Afghanistan is just that it rings shallow when liberals say that if we didn't go to Iraq, we could have fixed Afghanistan and everything would be fine. Afghanistan was clean because al-qaeda essentially sacrificed the Taliban. Al-qaeda is (was?) a worldwide network. I think (just my opinion), that they figured the US would destroy Afghanistan and then declare mission accomplished, leaving them alone to prepare for the next attack. I'm not saying Iraq was right, but the military solution was never going to be Afghanistan alone. Under the divisive Bush administration, Democrats would have opposed any additional military action anywhere. Are they over that? Does Obama have the courage to use the military if necessary? Does he have the courage to do whatever dirty work helps us in Pakistan, helps Al-Qaeda stay on the run?

What would Obama have done after 9/11? Will anyone ever ask him that at a debate? Would we still have gotten KSM in Pakistan?

So what are you saying? The fact is we've spent over 600 billion dollars in 5 years for what end-product in Iraq? I mean what have we gained?

Is America safer now? No.
Did we win the "war on terrorism?" No.

Hell, we don't even know where Osama is. What the hell does courage have to do with starting a war in Iraq, when we didn't even pursue our attacker to completion? That's not courage. That's a lack of determination and stupidity.

[molson]

So what are you saying? The fact is we've spent over 600 billion dollars in 5 years for what end-product in Iraq? I mean what have we gained?

Is America safer now? No.
Did we win the "war on terrorism?" No.

Hell, we don't even know where Osama is. What the hell does courage have to do with starting a war in Iraq, when we didn't even pursue our attacker to completion? That's not courage. That's a lack of determination and stupidity.

America appears to be safer now than it was 8 years ago. I don't think that has anything to do with Iraq, but who knows? The Iraq war was handled so horribly that it wasn't worth it, but there sure were a lot of terrorists who came there to die. I don't have a great understanding of why there's been peace here since 9/11. I think McCain does. No idea if Obama does.

All I was saying is that Afghanistan isn't the answer to world security, just because Osama happened to reside there around 9/11. The terrorists weren't Taliban.

[Warhammer]

So what are you saying? The fact is we've spent over 600 billion dollars in 5 years for what end-product in Iraq? I mean what have we gained?

We won't know for at least 5 years what we gained, if anything in Iraq. From the larger picture, if Iraq winds up being a stable democracy, we made some long term gains in regional stability. If Iraq can export democracy to other countries in the region, even better.

Is America safer now? No.
Did we win the "war on terrorism?" No.


We do not know the answer to the first question. The one thing we can say is that we have not been attacked in 6 years and 11 months and counting. That is the problem with answering that question. Heck, as unsafe as many thought we were in the 60s, you had people after the Cold War saying we were safer then because the world was essentially divided into two camps. Personally, I think it is a fallacy, people are just more comfortable with fewer factions/sides in an issue.

To answer your second question, we have won the battles against terror, but we have not, nor will we ever "win" the "War on Terrorism." It is an impossible war to win. As long as there is one person that is willing to kill others, the war will not be over.

Like him or not, there are a few things I think are in order on Bush. We will not know how successful the Bush presidency is for at least 5 years. Another thing to consider, Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why is that? Why, if their approval rating is so low, why are the Democrats (who control Congress) supposed to sweep to victories in November?

[JPhillips]

Another thing to consider, Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's. Why is that? Why, if their approval rating is so low, why are the Democrats (who control Congress) supposed to sweep to victories in November?

Because the Republicans hate the Dems and the Dems are pissed that Congress isn't standing up to Bush.

The Dems are supposed to pick up seats in both chambers largely due to a wave of Republican retirements, but also due to corruption, more cash and generally a better stable of candidates with broader appeal.

[Swaggs]

So... McCain's big advantage over Obama is his experience and the manner in which he will use it to keep us safe?

Yet... No matter who would have been president on 9/11, we would have suffered the same attack (but, we can still give credit to Bush for keeping us safe since?)?

[molson]

So... McCain's big advantage over Obama is his experience and the manner in which he will use it to keep us safe?

Yet... No matter who would have been president on 9/11, we would have suffered the same attack (but, we can still give credit to Bush for keeping us safe since?)?

Is any of that inconsistent?

None of the mainstream, realistic presidential types could have saved us on 9/11, but we have been saved a number of times since then (and before) by the current administration. Your mileage may vary, but that means SOMETHING to me.

[ace1914]

We will not know how successful the Bush presidency is for at least 5 years.

That's not true. He's been in office for 8 years. It's not going to take 5 MORE years to see the damage that he's caused in the last 8. If he served one term, I could, grudgingly, see that as a possibility but not in a two-term presidency.

[Buccaneer]

It was fun reading the discussions here (until flere chimed in on the last page :) )

I agree with MMBF points about alternate history, as in what would have been different. I have argued that not much would have been different, except that I have come to believe that going into Iraq was a singular event (despite the pressures from all sides to do something about Iraq). Those claiming that 9/11 wouldn't have happened is pure fantasy. The so-called smoking gun memo is being viewed in pure hindsight, a needle in a haystack. (That's similar to the code breaking from the WW2 Enigma - among the hundreds of messages, some of them were actually right on).

Anyway, I would still argue that the next 4 years will be pretty much the same regardless of who becomes president. We know that the troops will be shifted out of Iraq, as I have said before - all you had to do was wait and things will change on their own. The same will be true for energy, economy, etc. Maybe people will feel better if Obama (or McCain) becomes president, for whatever that's worth (I won't like some/many/any of the bills that a Dem congress will give him to sign). Meanwhile, there are things YOU can do locally that can make a difference, regardless of who's in power.

[ace1914]

Is any of that inconsistent?

None of the mainstream, realistic presidential types could have saved us on 9/11, but we have been saved a number of times since then (and before) by the current administration. Your mileage may vary, but that means SOMETHING to me.


You are seriously grasping for straws to validate Bush's presidency.

[Buccaneer]

ace, part of the reactions against you is a matter of historical perspective. You even said that you have only known one president during your adult life. What if others had known many more or if others read history and take a broader view of things?

Caveat: I am not grasping or spinning to validate Bush's presidency, just a general question regardless what year we are talking about.

[molson]

You are seriously grasping for straws to validate Bush's presidency.

I'm not trying to validate anything.

No terror attacks = good.

I want more good.

If someone isn't capable of acknowledging ANY success of this administration in fighting terror, I don't think they can see beyond the Bush hatred.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, we were certainly "on alert" if you read the 9/11 commission report. Somebody called the FBI to tell them that a sneaky Arab guy was trying to learn how to fly. He was immediately detained on INS charges, and out of the conspiracy. The ACLU probably would have flipped out if they knew about it.

"Something" was done. Not nearly enough.

You've quoted me, yet you've not addressed my point. I'm not talking about the "somethings" that were done anyway by the various intelligence agencies. I'm talking about the Bush Administration, in reaction to that NIE, doing nothing. Not even a token something, not even a "let's get a follow-up report" something, not even a "let's get an in-depth briefing" something, not even a "what can we do given our hands being tied politically something". No, he went and cleared brush.

If we had access to that memo in 2001 at FOFC, the liberals and conservatives here might argue what to do about it. The conservatives would be arguing for a harsher, more active response, even at the expense of some civil liberties (at airports, profiling of arabs, etc). The liberals would argue for a more restrained reponse. The actual response was probably less than what ANYONE would have argued for. So how is this an argument point for the liberals? Shouldn't this be an "I told you so" for the conservatives?

This could be the start of an interesting discussion, definitely, but again I don't see how it's related to what you quoted from me. Bush went from a policy of complete inaction to a policy of absolute pre-emption, with no stop in between. It's a lazy man's approach to security and foreign policy issues and looks like it'll be the same approach for McCain. I don't want an absolutist approach to security and foreign policy that's rooted in the Cold War and the fight on communism, I want a more sophisticated, flexible approach as we tackle this increasingly sophisticated threat.

Sometimes it seems like you're more concerned with the superficial reactions - you're very into Bush's response at the school, and McCain eating birthday cake. I don't give a shit about any of that. I'm sure Obama's reactions will be right on, and that's not exactly comforting.

I think we can take something from both reactions. The former indicates that Bush was completely unprepared for such an event and didn't know how to react. The latter indicates that Bush & McCain just didn't give a shit. I mean, it's not even as if the birthday cake photo op was opening a school or giving a medal to a handicapped kid or something. You'd think people would have the decency to put a hold on that kind of self-interested stuff during such a national tragedy.

My point on Afghanistan is just that it rings shallow when liberals say that if we didn't go to Iraq, we could have fixed Afghanistan and everything would be fine. Afghanistan was clean because al-qaeda essentially sacrificed the Taliban. Al-qaeda is (was?) a worldwide network. I think (just my opinion), that they figured the US would destroy Afghanistan and then declare mission accomplished, leaving them alone to prepare for the next attack.

And basically that's what happened, with the additional benefit of our early exit allowing their old buddies the Taliban to make inroads back into Afghanistan, and the lack of attention to the border areas providing a place for many Al Qaeda to hide. It was a squandered opportunity, and I don't see how you can see it any other way.

What would Obama have done after 9/11? Will anyone ever ask him that at a debate? Would we still have gotten KSM in Pakistan?

You must have missed the debate where he said he would, as President, go into Pakistan's border regions if necessary.

It was fun reading the discussions here (until flere chimed in on the last page :) )

Hey man, it's the only think I got to distract me from the horror of dirty diapers.

We do not know the answer to the first question. The one thing we can say is that we have not been attacked in 6 years and 11 months and counting.

In a war, if your allies are attacked, you too are attacked. As molson stated above, Al Qaeda is still a worldwide network, still able to execute missions on a global basis, and have repeatedly attacked our allies.

I'm not going to argue (here) whether we are more or less safe now. I just think statements like "we have not been attacked in 6 years and 11 months" is a particularly narrow way of looking at the War on Terror.

[molson]

You've quoted me, yet you've not addressed my point. I'm not talking about the "somethings" that were done anyway by the various intelligence agencies. I'm talking about the Bush Administration, in reaction to that NIE, doing nothing. Not even a token something, not even a "let's get a follow-up report" something, not even a "let's get an in-depth briefing" something, not even a "what can we do given our hands being tied politically something". No, he went and cleared brush.


First of all, I'm impressed that you're able to not only quote one person multiple times in a thread, but multiple posters multiple times in a thread. I just don't have the patience for that.

The "they did nothing" angle is a huge exaggeration. As I quoted one part of that memo above, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related." The 9/11 report details how the efforts increased as 2001 went on.

Where they stopped short was any kind of actual military intervention somewhere, which I guess is what you're saying he should have done. Pre-emptive strike of Afghanistan? Not sure even THAT would have done anything, the terrorists were already here. And it wouldn't have gone over well here with the people.

The only thing that might of helped is suspension of civil liberties for any middle-eastern nationals (aggressive no-fly lists, mass INS raids and deportations). Surely you're not suggesting that's what should have happened?

If you're just saying "something", they did "something".

[flere-imsaho]

If someone isn't capable of acknowledging ANY success of this administration in fighting terror, I don't think they can see beyond the Bush hatred.

Tactically, the Bush Admin has clearly done a bunch of things right and made good changes, with the truly bad/pointless ones being weeded out by Congress and the Supreme Court. Intra-agency and cooperation with the intelligence agencies of our allies has definitely brought a bunch of good wins (and those are just the public ones).

Strategically, though, and this is really my point over the past page, I don't think he's put us in a good position. We're increasingly isolated and placed in an antagonistic stance with a lot of people who should either be our allies or sympathetic neutrals. There's a lot the next President needs to undo in order to make this better and secure more wins in the WoT. Electing McCain pretty much tells these people that it's going to be business as usual from a strategic standpoint.

[flere-imsaho]

First of all, I'm impressed that you're able to not only quote one person multiple times in a thread, but multiple posters multiple times in a thread. I just don't have the patience for that.

It's more of a self-defence mechanism. I quote everyone to whom I want to reply, and then I have a general idea of what I'm trying to compose over the course of several dirty diapers, child soothing, etc.... :D

The "they did nothing" angle is a huge exaggeration. As I quoted one part of that memo above, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related." The 9/11 report details how the efforts increased as 2001 went on.

I'm not talking about efforts by the various agencies that I would consider a normal reaction to increased threat level chatter. I'm talking about a top-down reaction and response to this increased chatter. I agree with you on the first point.

Where they stopped short was any kind of actual military intervention somewhere, which I guess is what you're saying he should have done. Pre-emptive strike of Afghanistan? Not sure even THAT would have done anything, the terrorists were already here.

That's not what I'm suggesting. Who knows if any intervention in Afghanistan would have been any good, prior to 9/11, even if politically he could have done it. No, I'm suggesting actions more like the laundry list I already made above. Basically taking some personal interest in the issue, getting some things moving from a high leve, maybe even trying to implement some security measures domestically. Maybe something with airline/airport security that could have been done with the FBI or another relevant agency relatively quietly. Yes, probably none of it would have helped, but it's the thought that counts.

[Buccaneer]

At least not now that we've apparently agreed to withdraw all combat troops by 2011! It would be nice if that agreement made a little more news.


Maybe because it would make Obama appear foolish for suggesting a politically-motivated 16-month withdrawal or McCain appear foolish for suggesting a more permanent stay. Things alway have a way of changing, history constantly proves that.

[Buccaneer]

Hey man, it's the only think I got to distract me from the horror of dirty diapers.



It's not so bad, esp. when it's old enough for the garden hose (or at least the faucet) phase.

[ace1914]

Big Bill up next.....this ought to be good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We're increasingly isolated and placed in an antagonistic stance with a lot of people who should either be our allies or sympathetic neutrals.

Can't really blame any U.S. politician if there are other nations that have their heads up their asses.

[DaddyTorgo]

wow. Big bill is lining them up and hitting HR's with everything. Given it's a partisan crowd, but he is strong!

Makes you realize how much you've missed this man, missed have a president who could actually speak and captivate an audience and work them (instead of a chimp).

[Buccaneer]

Can't really blame any U.S. politician if there are other nations have their heads up their asses.

Allies like the Soviets in the 30s and 40s, or Iraq in the 80s? ;) Nations' leaderships come and go (including our's), so does the ebb and flow of diplomacy and the nature of enemy-of-your-enemy.

[Groundhog]

Can't really blame any U.S. politician if there are other nations have their heads up their asses.

Yes, everyone else is wrong.

Honestly though, I expect the US to look out for its own best interests, obviously. I think the problem however, and the thing that worries a great deal of people outside of yourself, is that these other nations with "their heads up their asses" are also your allies. You have to balance your own direct interests with the interests of your allies, because no country can risk "going it alone" - not even the US.

I don't think it would ever get to that point, but it is at least possible that a combined Europe would weaken its ties with the US in the face of an aggressive China or Russia, should it ever get to that point (or, perhaps, when it gets to that point, to be more accurate). At a time like that, your current administration's (and, most likely, your future administration as well, unfortunately) actions could really turn around and bite your nation in the ass.

[Buccaneer]

wow. Big bill is lining them up and hitting HR's with everything. Given it's a partisan crowd, but he is strong!

Makes you realize how much you've missed this man, missed have a president who could actually speak and captivate an audience and work them (instead of a chimp).

Actually speak and captivate an audience and work them, all the while not believing a word he has ever said. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

Actually speak and captivate an audience and work them, all the while not believing a word he has ever said. :)

you're such a cynic

[Buccaneer]

you're such a cynic

And you were only a teenager throughout his presidency. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

And you were only a teenager throughout his presidency. :)

aaaah - but see I wasn't your average teenager. I've always been a politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person. Even as a teenager - probably to a greater degree than anyone else that I've met in my life really.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You have to balance your own direct interests with the interests of your allies, because no country can risk "going it alone" - not even the US.

With or against, any country is free to make their own choice as long as they understand choices have potential consequences I'm very cool with that.

But when interests diverge, the value placed on the word ally is frequently inappropriate. It's overused, overhyped, and overvalued since ultimately it often means nothing more than "we happen to have a common interest at the moment and we'll work together until that temporary situation passes".

[Raiders Army]

1,000-1 that Obama doesn't deliver his speech in Spanish. If he did, he would truly be a minority Presidential candidate. What a poseur.

[Mike D]

wow. Big bill is lining them up and hitting HR's with everything. Given it's a partisan crowd, but he is strong!

Makes you realize how much you've missed this man, missed have a president who could actually speak and captivate an audience and work them (instead of a chimp).


Follwed by...


I've always been a politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person.


heh...teenagers. :)

[DaddyTorgo]

Follwed by...



heh...teenagers. :)

huh? what's your point?

[SirFozzie]

He's saying that a "politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person." would appreciate the chimp that's been in office for 8 years over the man before him. Of course, I consider that so much hoowah myself..

[DaddyTorgo]

He's saying that a "politically astute, politically involved, intelligent person." would appreciate the chimp that's been in office for 8 years over the man before him. Of course, I consider that so much hoowah myself..

:lol:

[Mike D]

huh? what's your point?

You said you stood out as intellectually superior vs. your peers. Based on the last few comments you made, I found it slightly amusing. That's all.

[sabotai]

Did Joe Biden really call Milosevic a war criminal to his face? That's pretty cool.

[DaddyTorgo]

You said you stood out as intellectually superior vs. your peers. Based on the last few comments you made, I found it slightly amusing. That's all.

I have no doubt that i'm intellectually superior to the vast majority of my peers. Whether my political affiliation is the same as yours or not does not reflect at all on my intelligence (or yours for that matter).

I think it's fairly commonly accepted on both sides of the aisle that Bill Clinton is a VASTLY superior public speaker to George Bush. That's not a partisan viewpoint, it's fact.

[sterlingice]

Did Joe Biden really call Milosevic a war criminal to his face? That's pretty cool.

Yeah, I'm curious about that claim.

If so, that's awesome :D

SI

[Tigercat]

Someone needs to ask Barack to tone down the wrestler with a mic impression a bit.

[SFL Cat]

Hmmm, after McCain's "the One" commercial...which I found highly humorous, what braniac in the Obama entourage decided to stage his acceptance speech with a Greek temple set as a backdrop?

[JPhillips]

Maybe the same guy that designed this:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/gwbrnc8.jpeg

[SFL Cat]

heh...your tax dollars at work... :popcorn:

[Greyroofoo]

Hilarious if this is true and holds up.
Also a complete blow to McCain.

August 27, 2008 5:23 pm EST

Atlanta, GA - Bob Barr is slated to be the only presidential candidate on the ballot in Texas after Republicans and Democrats missed the Aug. 26 deadline to file in the state.

"Unless the state of Texas violates its own election laws, Congressman Barr will be the only presidential candidate on the ballot," says Russell Verney, campaign manager for the Barr Campaign and the former campaign manager for Ross Perot. "Texas law makes no exceptions for missing deadlines."

The Texas Secretary of State Web site shows only Bob Barr as the official candidate for president in Texas.

"We know all about deadlines," says Verney. "We are up against them constantly in our fight to get on the ballot across the nation. When we miss deadlines, we get no second chances. This is a great example of how unreasonable deadlines chill democracy."

"Republicans and Democrats make certain that third party candidates are held to ballot access laws, no matter how absurd or unreasonable," says Verney. "Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.


Barr Only Presidential Candidate on Texas Ballot — Bob Barr 2008 (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/108/barr-only-presidential-candidate-on-texas-ballot/)

[SFL Cat]

dola ... maybe its not a Greek temple...maybe its a facsimile of the White House...to go with the faux presidential seal he used on his overseas trip.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/27/article-0-026F36E300000578-982_468x227.jpg

[samifan24]

Hilarious if this is true and holds up.
Also a complete blow to McCain.

All of this from a press release from the Barr camp? Not one mention in the MSM? No way this happens.