You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 3:04 AM



Now, disclaimer, I'm a John McCain supporter, and I gleefully hope the Dems fight it out until the caterers are mopping up blood in St. Paul.

But.....I find it amazing that after the incredible caterwauling in 2000 over Bush/Gore and Gore winning the popular vote and losing the election to Bush, the Dems are now a'fixin' to hand the nomination to the guy less Democrats voted for.

First off, here is a link to some good and accepted numbers at RCP:

Since they seated Fl and Mi delegates this week, it is impossible for the Obamaites to say that those weren't valid elections and the popular votes shouldn't count (shouldn't count in debate, in reality it counts for nothing).

Now, both sides will tell you that they won the popular vote. And I think it is an interesting debate to see who is right. The link takes some explanation on two fronts: Michigan, and the caucus state vote estimates.

Florida is straight up and is counted in the total. Both were on the ballot, neither campaigned there, the turnout was what you would expect, etc. In-bounds results, and included in RCP's top line national estimate, yielding the incredible tight difference of plus 24k for Obama out of 34 million votes.

But what about Michigan? They just seated the delagates, so some credit has to be given to Hillary there. In Michigan the debate is because Obama wasn't on the ballot and Hillary was. She got 55.2 percent, with the rest going to "uncommitted". The Clintonistas say just count the popular votes of those who actually pulled the lever for a candidate. Okay, if you just give her all the votes that were cast for her, she gets 328,000 and vaults 303,000 votes ahead of Obama in the popular vote totals (for now as we go along).

But is that fair? The Obamas say (after they say it shouldn't count at all) that they should get all the uncommitted votes. Now, that seems generous, because Edwards was still kicking around getting double digits at that point. But if you do give him all the uncommitteds, Hillary is still ahead by 65,000 in the national popular vote.

Except for four states that do caucuses or some combination form, IA, NV, ME, WA What about them? Well, Obama won them by varying degrees. RCP has come up with an estimate, I guess with a proctologist and a flashlight, and decided that if those estimates are included, Obama overcomes Hillary's 65k lead and he is 44k ahead.


There is a footnote at the bottom saying that if the Washington PRIMARY is counted rather than the Washington CAUCUS, the number would be "about 50,000 less".

That leaves Hillary 6,000 votes ahead out of 34 million votes cast.

Amazingly close.

So if you count above, there are seven popular vote totals arguments can be made for, and Hillary leads four of them right now.

Left this week -- Montana and South Dakota. sounds like places Clinton should win, but supposedly Obama has leads in both in the high single digits. So he might pull....wild guess...60k out of those two small states Tuesday. He'd need 65k to overcome total number "4" on the RCP figuring.

So....Hillary will have a compelling case. The Obamas will try to say to the superdelegates that system is what it is and lets move on.

Hillary will say:

-- more Dems pulled the lever for me.

-- the delegate system is flawed and doesn't represent the will of the people, look at Texas alone, where I got 100,000 more votes and he got 4 more delegates.

-- national polls show me beating McCain in a true electoral college winner-take-all matchup and Obama losing to him.

-- In the last four months, after the unknown Obama began to get vetted, a LOT more Dems voted for me, I won more states, and I won the big states.

-- he didn't get a majority of pledged delegates, only a plurality, and the system says the convention should settle from there.

-- (whisper) the Republicans will gut him with Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, etc. He's quit the church and those insulted parishioners are now going to come out of the woodwork with Obama stories.

Very interesting. Likely to be the closest primary of our lifetime.

Prediction -- she will bail next week, bought off by the promise of a powerful Cabinet and Administration role, but not Veep.

Papermanbill  (Level: 41.3 - Posts: 1312)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 5:27 AM

John, I don't know who put this guy up for this job in the first place. Who in the hell goes to Harvard and winds up being a social worker ?? He slid into the Senate because the guy he was running against was having a scandelous divorce and he dropped out, that's how he got nominated. Then the Republicans had to get Keyes from the east coast to run against him and it was "NO" contest. The man can talk but he really don't sound any different than Morton Downey Jr., when he had his show.
How many times does he think the public is going to accept his favorite word "CONTEXT" or he was misquoted or misunderstood.. This church thing would've knocked him out if it was brought out more clearly before Super Tuesday. I am a super Democrat, but this joker isn't getting the five votes from my address (me, my wife and three sons). His wife is a powder keg waiting to blow off. I think she will be a big problem for him if he gets in office. Going through the 60's and seeing all the programs set up for everyone in this country, I'm not ready to hear the word slavery for the rest of my life. That goes along with discrimination, equal opportunity and the rest of the buzz words we hear. I am an expert on the phrase Reverse-discrimmination (save that for another day). By the way, that Catholic priest looked like and is a real JO, but if you would see what he did in his community, "WOW". I don't care who gave him the money, but he has put up housing and clean living for thousands of people. He even had a program to give the local hookers $600.00 a week to get off the street and go straight.

I think McCain is a good man, but he doesn't have the total support from his own party. He scares me when you see a blank look on his face when asked certain questions. I personally think Romney would've been a shoe-in if he weren't a Mormon. He is the leader with the right ideas that will work, maybe VP ?? Now that my insomnia is fully kicked in, I'll have a small breakfast. Oh, "God Bless America" !!.

Mplaw51  (Level: 184.8 - Posts: 1581)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 6:28 AM

It's more disturbing to see it in print. I had a general sense that this was the case, why was Hillary sticking around. Perhaps she'll make some of those arguments you suggest. I don't see her pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

As always, interesting info, thanks for it...

Alvandy  (Level: 240.4 - Posts: 7692)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 7:12 AM

Just a little side banter for this post.

So we have "Seven of Nine" to thank for Barack Obama's fortuitous rise to power?

Okay- back to the dialogue.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 7:38 AM

No, we have Seven of Nine's scummy ex-husband.

And that rousing nomination speech in '04. Which I admit blew my socks off, and I said to my daughter at the time, "I think we may be looking at the first black president of the United States." But I was thinking VP first, and I was thinking 2016, NOT NOW!

I don't think Hillary has a chance to get the nomination, and I don't think Obama can win (the words "October surprise" keep running through my head). I think we've managed to bungle one that was being handed to us with ribbons on.

I've always thought gender was a bigger factor than race in this campaign. A sharp, tough, smart, capable, dedicated woman who has spent most of her life in service to the nation is being passed over for a man with no credentials who's done nothing much. We know everything there is to know about her and nothing about him, and still he's winning. Bottom line, I'm being left with no one to vote for.

No happy campers over here.

Oldcougar  (Level: 228.1 - Posts: 1935)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 8:31 AM

The best man for the job is a woman Remember that poster from the past. Peace

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 8:35 AM

Smoke - I said those exact words to my Marine son the day Obama was elected.

Kaufman  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 3941)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:02 AM

The so-called popular vote dilemma is an utter red herring, only brought up by outside forces who want to shatter Democratic unity, and by some of Senator Clinton's "by any means possible" strategists. The rules were clear beforehand -- a majority of the delegate votes. Plus, how can we talk of popular vote when some of the states had open primaries, some closed primaries, and some caucuses. The raw number of votes nationwide for any candidate is just that. A raw number.

Smaug's comparison above to the 2000 presidential election doesn't matter, because he and I both know that the nationwide popular vote winner was by law irrelevant to who got elected. All that mattered in 2000 was the Florida popular vote, and if he, I or anyone else tells you who really got more Florida votes in 2000, they are just making biased speculation. That, my friends, is something we will never know for sure.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:14 AM

A few stragglers for Hillary shouting their last hurrah....this has nothing to do with America not being ready for a woman president, we're just waiting for the right one. I know that's what Hillary wants us to believe. How many times do I see a female lose and then shout SEXISM....come on, sometimes women just lose. Get over it.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:20 AM

Boy I really try to stay out of this type of thing because it takes so much time and energy, and unlike Tsk, I'm not in the top 2% of income earners - I'm a woman who is a sole proprietor trying to send my daughter to college next year and my son in the next 4 so I work like a dog (especially since my husband chose to quit his 17 year job in January) BUT

I never in my life thought I would say the words "I'd rather see Hillary", but I have and it's the first time in print.

I think Obama's soft spoken, well thought out words are designed to put people in mind of Martin Luther King, Jr. and he is most decidedly not.

I listened to his youtube'd response to the initial Rev. Wright controversy. I listed 5 times, and heard something different in his voice and intent each time with the initial reaction being "wow, he did well in the face of this". As I listened more each time, I recognized some things that really made my hair stand on end. He is smooth.

I don't believe as some do that Obama is Muslim (I mean give me a break - a wife like Michelle does NOT fit in with the Muslim family order - IMO). I DO believe he is a Marxist.

The red/blue state controversy comparison is absolutely ironic.

I think more than likely many Democrats may feel that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary does because of the sins of her husband, coupled with the "scandal" of Rev. Wright hitting on an extreme hatred of "whites" by some African-Americans bringing more out to vote than ever have "just because" he is "of color", that they might not fully understand just what might be coming if he is elected President.

While I have always had an opinion of Hillary that is not positive, I think that with her, what you see is what you get, including from Day One on TV where you could see her complete disgust every time President Bush was got doubts.

With Obama, I know what I think, but I think he's got a pretty glossy coat that hides a lot of things that are his true agenda.

But, that's just my opinion...without prejudice.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:21 AM

I've gotten over it many times, Jeremy. I've been passed over for promotions that went to younger, less experienced, less capable men time and again.

Guess I'm just a loser.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:36 AM

Good, that makes two of us. Working with all women for the past seven years I've had the pleasure of putting up with sexist comments and actions every week for years. I didn't mean to turn this into a sexism thread though, Hillary's been crying sexism lately, and I think it's a political gimmick to set herself up for re-election if she loses. I prefer Obama, but will still vote for Hillary over McCain. People rally around "victims" and try to help them, and she's just playing the victim card. Doesn't mean I won't vote for her if she wins though, that's just politics. If Obama loses it'll be four years of racism discussions. Yay. It's just my opinion. In this race I hope the white man loses, because he won't complain.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:41 AM

I didn't mean to start a fight, I prefer we stay on track.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:15 AM

You think this is a fight? This isn't a fight.

Fine. Dismiss me. Stay on track. Of course gender/race has nothing whatever to do with a discussion of the Clinton/Obama contest. What was I thinking?

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:19 AM

I posted before I saw your PM, Jeremy. Sorry if I was snippety with you, I have my oversensitivities, too, y'know.

We're good, kid.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 11:24 AM

Well, if you want to factor race/gender in, the bottom line to me is this -- if Obama was a white man, he wouldn't be qualified or considered for even a Senate nomination.

If Hillary were a white man, she would still be a viable presidential candidate.

And Kaufman, you can say pop votes are irrelevant, but the game now is to make a case to the supers, and how many people voted for someone is a compelling metric in a democracy.

Donleigh  (Level: 155.4 - Posts: 5411)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 12:14 PM

We watch this campaign from north of the border with interest - and fear. Is "none of the above" a ballot choice?

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 12:24 PM

Yes, "None of the Above" is way ahead of McCain in the polls.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 1:14 PM

Nun of the Above? No way would a Catholic female ever get elected.

Alvandy  (Level: 240.4 - Posts: 7692)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 2:00 PM

This is getting interesting but potentially contentious- so let's just divert with this
side banter [again].

So we have "Seven of Nine" [and her scummy ex-husband]
to thank for Barack Obama's fortuitous rise to power?
What ever happened to Jeri Ryan?

[I'm trying to stay of this thread- so to set the record straight-
I'm voting for the Democratic candidate over John McCain.]

Now - again- back to the dialogue. No hitting below the belt!


Kaufman  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 3941)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 2:32 PM Looks like she's been on maternity leave, so to speak. Newest of Nine had her 3-month birthday today.

Alvandy  (Level: 240.4 - Posts: 7692)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 2:44 PM

Wonderful news for Jeri and hubby.
I hope Barack sent them well wishes.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 3:43 PM

And flowers and some good chocolates and a handwritten thank you note.

Barnierubble  (Level: 93.9 - Posts: 637)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 4:03 PM

Who the hell gives s damn. Like all polititions, they dont give a fig for the ordinary people, they are in it for what they can get.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 4:18 PM

Looks like our baseball went over the fence into Mean ol' Mister Wilson's yard again.....

Alvandy  (Level: 240.4 - Posts: 7692)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 7:43 PM


This was a good thread [emphasis on WAS}

well, what the heck -here's a commercial.......

from York, PA-first capital of united states

Lettermanfan1  (Level: 88.3 - Posts: 486)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 8:04 PM

This whole election is freaking me out! I'm afraid, for the first time in my life, I may vote...Republican. I really don't know if I can do it...especially after the last 8 years (I have a son who has been in the military the last 10 years and has been to the Middle East 6 times! who needs to write a book so everyone knows how unbelievably crappy our servicemen & women have been treated by the leaders who say we are not supportive of our troops if we disagree with them...whew! long sentence!) I've always liked John McCain and was appalled when the Vietnam boat guys (what are they called?) did to him in 2000 what they did to Kerry in 2004. Treasonous. But now, Bush is totally backing McCain, which makes me suspicious. I do not think Bush is a bad person, but I believe he thinks he's wiser than he actually is and he surrounded himself with some truly evil people. Which makes me fear anyone he endorses. Frankly, if I was running I would ask the president not to endorse me.

Donden  (Level: 112.5 - Posts: 2127)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 8:44 PM

Where is Barry Goldwater when we need him?

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 9:28 PM


The outgoing sitting Rep. pres is going to endorse the Rep nominee.

If it is any consolation, they hate each others guts.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:03 PM

1. I live in Michigan and would have voted for Obama in the Democratic primary, had there really been one. Instead, I voted in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. In the absence of a real election, which the Democratic primary was not, those "popular votes" should not be counted.

2. I will probably vote for Obama in November, but it depends on how rightward his campaign rhetoric drifts. For instance, he has already indicated that he would not lift the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. If he is elected, I am sure that I will ultimately be disappointed, but I'm equally certain that the McBush administration will be four more years of the same. I would like the Supreme Court not to be entirely controlled by right-wing activists, incorrectly referred to as "strict constructionists". (Incidentally, since my first presidential election in 1972 to the present, I have never voted for a winning presidential candidate, and its not because I always voted for the losing major party candidate.)

3. I have never admired Bill Clinton, and I blame him for moving the Democratic Party to the right. I'd give examples, but I'm trying to cover a lot of ground. I was on Hillary's side when she tried to move universal, single payor health coverage -- talk about "cut and run". Since then, in my opinion, her politics have been wholly motivated by personal ambition, and she did vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. Still, early in the Democratic primary process, I was prepared to vote for her if she won the nomination. As the campaign unfolded, however, I changed my mind. I'm sure some will disagree, but I believe Hillary's conduct for the past month anyway has been intended to help McCain beat Obama so she can run again in 2012.

4. With respect to whether Obama can win, I'm skeptical about it, but I think its possible. Two websites that use trends in polling data applying statistical methods both currently predict Obama wins: (1) (this one has a date of May 23, 2008, and shos 290 electoral votes for Obama and 245 for McCain), (2) (this one has an effective date of june 2, 2008, and gives 293 to Obama and 240 to McCain). I came across these when I was looking for another site that had Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain match-ups. I didn't find it, but it showed Clinton handily beating McCain, and Obama winning by just a few electoral votes. This site also projected based on past polling data and staistical analysis. All three sites showed individual state projections, and whether a particular state's support for a candidate was weak or strong.

5. It is actually evident that Obama does not have a problem with white voters in general but, rather, some white voters in Appalachia and many of the states of the old Confederacy. Other very white states have selected Obama in primaries or caucuses. I personally would not be proud to be aligned with a party that refused to nominate an African-American candidate so as not to lose the Democrat and racist demographic.

6. I really don't understand the logic of any Democrat who would support McCain, but it seems that there may be some here, so I am curious about your reasoning. I could conceivably not vote for Obama, but i'm not a democrat, and under no circumstances would I vote for McCain -- another person who is ethically challenged -- MSM hype to the contrary notwithstanding.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:08 PM

Sorry, I have the projected electoral projections messed up: at electionprojection its Obama 293 and McCain 245. At uselectionatlas its Obama 290 and McCain 248.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:16 PM

Kaelin, unless you are in many the upper 5% of wage earners, you are voting against your economic interests to vote for McCain. There is a good chance that with Obama as president, government assistance to college students will be increased. Not so good with McCain.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:20 PM

I should have done a better proofreading job.

(1) In my first post i should have been clear that I had seen the site with the Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain match-ups, but when I searched for it again, I did not find it.

(2) In my immediately prior post, "many" should be "maybe".

Allena  (Level: 266.4 - Posts: 1409)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 10:29 PM

Some Supers hate Hillary but are afraid to show it. Some Americans hate liberals but are afraid to show it. Most of the electorate is trying to figure out how we got so many bad choices. Could it be that the Dems selected the Rep. Nominee and the Republicans are trying to force feed Obama to the Democrats after a long fight.

Lets see, if George Washington were on a ballot who would be the first to claim he never slept with his wife, was seen partying in many taverns and only washed his uniform once a year. He stood for anarchy and was an actual owner of slaves. Surely, he is unqualified.

Who can we get to run for President now that we have a media that is full of self inflating cynics?

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 11:01 PM

Gee, I've never had any problems finding plenty of folks to admit they hate liberals. I could probably throw a rock and hit one from here. What's struck me odd is how little we've heard of the L-word throughout the primaries. Obama is by far the most liberal candidate I've seen since Bobby Kennedy, and nobody's trying to smear him with it like it's a bad thing. Guess that will soon change.

I actually have wondered if there's any chance that Reps made heavy donations to BO. I kept hearing how he outspent Clinton 3 to 1 in Ohio and couldn't help wondering where all that money came from.

Off to watch the Daily Show - Jon's got Scott McClellan!

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 11:15 PM

Smoke: Obama effectively used the internet and has over 1 million individual donors to his campaign. Probably at least some are Republicans. Although he isn't taking PAC money, he is taking money from individuals who are lobbyists, business executives, and others with an interest in access to the halls of power no matter the politics of the president.

Kaufman  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 3941)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 11:19 PM

Remember, going into Ohio, Obama had won about 12 straight contests, and the Clinton campaign was at its nadir, seriously hurting for money. That no doubt was a big factor in why the Obama campaign could outspend the Clinton campaign there.

Cujgie  (Level: 182.1 - Posts: 754)
Mon, 2nd Jun '08 11:46 PM

Like Tsk said, Obama has very effectively used the Internet during this primary campaign. I signed up 'way back in the beginning (none of the others approached me) and get email several times a week with updates and the opportunity to donate any amount of money. His grassroots fundraising efforts are amazing! I liked Hillary in the beginning, but now she scares me as does John McCain. (Btw, I'm a registered Republican in Illinois and also one of those older white women who supposedly adore Hillary.) I can't wait for the general election campaigning to begin!

Gfawkes  (Level: 36.2 - Posts: 30)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 12:06 AM

It is puzzling to me how many people have constructed this distorted view of Obama. We have a candidate who is not a normal politician, who does not pander to the voters, who gives thoughtful speeches on important subjects. He is more than a breath of fresh air, he is a torrent. And if there is anything this country needs now, it is to be swept clean of the influences of the worst administration in American History. Vote not for McCain -- lest you end up with perpetual war that we cannot win nor disengage in Iraq and a Supreme Court that for the next twenty years will grant the fiction of the corporation every right and extend none to the actual individual.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 12:10 AM

I would not say I "adore" Hillary; I admire her strength and intelligence, and I think she's the most fit and able of the three remaining candidates to be president. It's not a "woman thing" at all; she wasn't even my first choice early in the primaries, but now I simply think she's the best option remaining in the field.

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 3:11 PM

Smoke - as someone who is a supporter of Hillary, you're a good person to ask. If Hillary had walked out and divorced Bill after the very public Lewinsky thing, do you think in this election round (or even in 2004) Hillary would:

(a) have already clinched the democrat nomination;

(b) be in about the same position as now, fighting for every super delegate;

(c) have pretty much lost all hope of the white house but been happy as NY Senator; or

never have even been elected NY senator?

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 3:14 PM

Oops - I have no idea how the martini showed up - I wouldn't know how to even do that on purpose. Please disregard the glass - that was not the rantings of a drunk-in-the-afternoon teacher finished with the school year.


No, really!

Kaufman  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 3941)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 3:51 PM

If you look at the emoticon guide, a d in parentheses converts to the glass (d as in drink). Likewise, a 6 in parentheses becomes a devil an l (love) in parenteses becomes a heart, and an asterisk in parentheses becomes a star.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 4:03 PM


Politicians "say" lots of things, usually anything you want to hear. You have to judge them by what they *do*.

This time last year less than 10 percent of the population recognized the name Barrack Hussein Obama, and the ones that did probably thought he was Al Qaeda.

Obama has basically *done* nothing. He was in national politics for two years before declaring for president.

Other than his assertions, what do we know about the guy?

-- he constantly copped out of tough votes in the Illinois State Senate with "present" votes, to protect his political future.

-- he had the most left wing voting record in the US Senate

-- and to look into his soul, his spiritual advisor was racist hate-mongerer and anti-American nutjob Rev. Wright, who he would plop his kids in front of to listen to every Sunday and who he named his book from..

I never thought anyone could want me to prefer HRC for president, but I sure as hell do to this empty suit.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 4:30 PM

Smaug: Source for your claim that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate? Such claims are almost always based on some partisan organization's analysis of a few votes of interest to that organization.

If I believed Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate -- and I do not -- it would be far easier for me to vote for him.

As to Obama's alleged lack of qualifications, under the U.S. Consitution they are minimal: at least 35 years old and born a citizen of the United States. Obama certainly has impressed me with his organizing ability, which at least suggests he may be able to implement his policies to some degree. In terms of overall policy vision, I find him far more palatable than McCain. Even if Obama weren't "qualified" -- whatever that means to you -- I would still prefer him to a "qualified" right-winger. The latter could be counted on to be effective in continuing to move the country right, while the former would just be ineffective.

Hell, McCain has confused Sunnis and Shia so often, one thinks he either is a dunce, a liar, or losing his faculties. He has admitted he knows nothing about the economy. His much vaunted status as an expert on military issues seems to boil down to the fact that he was a POW. If he was really such an expert, he would not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

Your boy McCain is so courageous that he has gone out of his way not to vote against Jim Webb's GI Bill legislation -- although McCain does not support it. I think Obama may be a craven politician. In fact, he probably is, but McCain certainly fits that description as well as Obama.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 5:01 PM

Although I am skeptical about Obama, I agree with everything Gfawkes has said in his post about the need to bring to an end the worst administration in U.S. History, which obviously includes not voting for McCain, who is running for the third bush term.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 5:37 PM

You refute my questioning Obama's qualifications by saying he is 35 and an American citizen?

That is probably the stupidest response in the history of the internet. We should throw our computers out of the windows in shame. And congrats on your discerning standards, you can write in Carrot Top, he is qualified.

As far as the computerized voting ratings, The National Journal, the publication that invented the ratings and has been quoted on them since 1995:

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 5:51 PM


1. I simply pointed out what the only requirements at law actually were. Perhaps the U.S. Consitution is a ridiculous document. Perhaps the people who wrote the Constitution are more stupid than any blogger making a stupid argument

2. You claim Obama lacks "qualifications", but you never identify just what these alleged important qualifications are that Obama allegedly lacks. As I said, he developed an impressive organization that got things done for him in the primary when nobody gave him a chance at first. At least, if I support the candidate's policy vision, ability to organize and get things done is an important qualification to me.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 6:02 PM

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Tue, 3rd Jun '08 6:51 PM


I.....I.....I just have nowhere to go with this exchange anymore....

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2853)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 3:59 AM

I'm with you....
Been thinking for a while
that Obama is being financially
supported by the Republicans....
At least with him, there's a
modicum of a chance that John
McCain could win in November.

As an outsider, I can NOT see
why Hillary's husband has any
part in this race....did people
vote for Roosevelt because his
wife was Eleanor????

Sargon  (Level: 112.9 - Posts: 1256)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 6:11 AM

Roosevelt probably lost some votes because his
wife was Eleanor

Kaufman  (Level: 267.9 - Posts: 3941)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 7:42 AM

But had Eleanor been running in 1952, what if Franklin were campaigning for her? Never mind, I withdraw the question.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 9:13 AM

Remember the SNL routine? "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"

Rnmorg  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 689)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 10:10 AM

But seriously...shouldn't it be important who a candidates surrounds or aligns himself with? It's my understanding that no president is an island when it comes to making the important decisions for the country.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 3:01 PM

I would bet that just as much or more Republican money went to Clinton as to Obama. Maybe its not even right to refer to this as Republican money -- but "access" money -- because it is not given for ideological reasons. Since Clinton took PAC money and since she was initially the overwhelming favor for the nomination -- I would be very surprised if she didn't receive at least as much "access" money from Republicans as Obama. One of Clinton's fundraising problems was reliance on big money donors who maxed out how much they could give under federal law. I would hypothesize that such donors are far more likely to be Republicans (or, minimally, corporate Democrats) than the donors (in excess of 1 million), who gave to Obama.

Donleigh  (Level: 155.4 - Posts: 5411)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 3:11 PM

Okay, what does she do now? Stick around and force concessions out of Obama, or bow out gracefully? I don't think the so-called divisions in the Democratic party will be that important in November, so I vote for sticking.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 3:56 PM can be thanked by Barry as well

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 4:48 PM

After all the quotable material Clinton provided for McCain to use in the general election, Obama would be making a big mistake to make Clinton his VP pick.

I can't imagine Clinton demanding any "concessions" which, if accepted by Obama, would not involve his moving to the right. We shall see, but despite Clinton's alleged desire to see a Democrat elected in November, I expect her to continue undermining Obama's campaign -- at least in subtle ways -- for the duration. I'm afraid I see little evidence that for either Clinton politics is anything more than another way for the Clintons to aggrandize themselves.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 4:53 PM

I think Hillary should just hang around given the thin margin. One more Rev. Wright style crisis and some supers might re-think who is going to win. Obama is relatively unknown, who knows what may come out, especially now that the Repubs will be aiming at him.

Plus, while she is in the gave she can still raise money to pay off her debt, maybe.

Smoke20  (Level: 62.6 - Posts: 2815)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 5:07 PM

I know lots of donors grease the skids with anyone who stands to gain power and influence over their concerns, but doesn't the lion's share of campaign donations come from those who are idealogically and financially committed to influencing the outcome of an election?

My question was not a reflection on Senator Obama's campaign; it was really just idle musing stemming from my bone-deep distrust and cynicism about the Machiavellian campaign strategies demonstrated by Republicans in recent decades, even against their own. I don't think it's entirely beyond the realm of speculation that IF the Republicans were afraid to run against Clinton, and IF they believed thay had a significantly better chance of defeating Obama, that they just MIGHT throw enough money behind their preferred opponent in some key districts to sway the outcome in some critical primaries.

Not impossible, right?

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Wed, 4th Jun '08 5:31 PM


I agree such things are possible. In several states, Republicans financially supported efforts by the Greens to get Nader on the ballot to siphon off Dem votes to Nader.

I just don't think this played a role in Obama's campaign. Obama had more financial support than any of the candidates and a much broader base of contributors than any of the other candidates.

Rowlanda  (Level: 70.0 - Posts: 2853)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 12:59 AM

Whatever the truth of the financing....

I expect that the next step will be
the Republicans making a big show of
"improving conditions" for the "masses"
Making enough token gestures to lull
the population into believing they
really do care about the country....
e.g. "No child left behind" and a the
$600 Rebate.
Then - without Hillary - nothing will
change next year....after the expenditure
of millions of dollars in campaign expenses
on both sides of the aisle.

The Fat Cats will just get fatter....

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 9:31 AM


If McSame is elected, I have no doubt that your description of the likely consequences for the country is correct. I also expect the Bush administration to take a number of steps pre-election to trick the populace into voting for McSame. Indeed, the Gitmo show trials are getting under way, and if there are convictions before November, I think you can expect this to be trumpeted by the Republicans as "evidence" supporting the soundness of the Bush war policies and as "evidence" of the Bush administration making us all safer.

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4593)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 12:24 PM

I wanna be a fat cat. Where do I sign up?

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 12:34 PM

Darn those successful cats.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 1:41 PM

Thomas Sowell has been a columnist I've long read and respected...and while I know that the mindset of some here is closed on anything but their own interpretation - I'm posting this link to today's column because I think what he says is relevant.

"Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. "

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 4:07 PM

I read the Sowell column who, unsurprisingly given his well-known status as a right-wing commentator, ultimately opts for McSame.

In general, I have found all presidential nominees of major presidential parties inadequate since I first voted in 1972, with the exception of George McGovern, for whom I voted in that year. That said, I much preferred Nixon's policies to those of Reagan, and the two Bushes. So I do not agree that this year's nominees are the most "inadequate" since 1972 inasmuch as I deem McGovern the sole adequate major party nominee in my lifetime, and Nixon far more adequate than any of the subsequent Republican nominees.

We certainly have a more inadequate Congress than was true during the Nixon years, as the young Bush has committed crimes against the Constitution, without impeachment proceedings, for much more serious wrongdoing than anything Nixon would have ever dreamed of undertaking.

Smaug  (Level: 144.7 - Posts: 2765)
Thu, 5th Jun '08 4:27 PM

While I agree with his decision, he really doesn't explain what he views as "inadequacies".

Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2017 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus