I think it's over

[dude1394]

For someone who is the greatest thing since sliced bread what does it say that he can't win the dem nomination against someone with all of the baggage that clinton had? Just saying...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

For someone who is the greatest thing since sliced bread what does it say that he can't win the dem nomination against someone with all of the baggage that clinton had? Just saying...

Hell, Clinton won the entire general election in '96, with baggage exponential to anything Hillary carries. So, the precedent is there.

For the life of me, I will never understand 1996...

[jefelump]

Were it not for Ross Perot in 1992, we may not have ever had a Clinton/1996...

But then again, Mr. "read my lips, no new taxes" pretty much doomed himself to failure on his own.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Were it not for Ross Perot in 1992, we may not have ever had a Clinton/1996...

But then again, Mr. "read my lips, no new taxes" pretty much doomed himself to failure on his own.

Most assuredly. He would have probably won even with that horrible backstabbing of his voters if perot hadn't been in it.

[chumdawg]

more real-time commentary: Slow start by Obama tonight, but he's hitting his stride here towards the end. Let's see how he caps this thing off...

[chumdawg]

The guy can ride momentum from a crowd like no one else I've ever seen. He is so finely attuned. I didn't much care for the content of the speech tonight (I found it fairly empty), but he certainly reached a crescendo toward the end and handled it with aplomb.

[alexamenos]

hell hath no fury....it won't surprise me if a lot of white female liberals really jump ship and vote against obama just to stick it to him.

i really thought hill was a shoe-in, and the repubs didn't stand a chance against her....i wouldn't have believed it six months ago, but the dems might actually lose the general election.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

hell hath no fury....it won't surprise me if a lot of white female liberals really jump ship and vote against obama just to stick it to him.

i really thought hill was a shoe-in, and the repubs didn't stand a chance against her....i wouldn't have believed it six months ago, but the dems might actually lose the general election.

I certainly feel you. And wouldn't be it a great tragedy in the classical sense? Shakespeare couldn't write it up any better.

But what about the chances of the two hooking up? Is that the shoe-in of shoe-ins?

[dude1394]

In honor of the end of the campaign.

[jefelump]

from chumdawg:
But what about the chances of the two hooking up?

That's a visual I really didn't need....

[jefelump]

from chumdawg:
Hell, Clinton won the entire general election in '96, with baggage exponential to anything Hillary carries. So, the precedent is there.

For the life of me, I will never understand 1996...

Thinking back on it... Clinton ran against Bob Dole in 1996. By comparison, Bob Dole makes John McCain look extremely energetic.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Thinking back on it... Clinton ran against Bob Dole in 1996. By comparison, Bob Dole makes John McCain look extremely energetic.

I disagree vehemently. As you know, Bob Dole had certain physical limitations, but he had a very vibrant mind and he had a certain gravitas to him. John McCain looks like an old man who is running as the young man he was when he served those years as a prisoner of war. But still and all, I will agree with your comparison of the perception of the two candidates.

I just don't get it with the Republicans. From time to time they churn out some piss-poor presidential candidates.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I disagree vehemently. As you know, Bob Dole had certain physical limitations, but he had a very vibrant mind and he had a certain gravitas to him. John McCain looks like an old man who is running as the young man he was when he served those years as a prisoner of war. But still and all, I will agree with your comparison of the perception of the two candidates.

I just don't get it with the Republicans. From time to time they churn out some piss-poor presidential candidates.

In order to play fair, we have to match the wit and skill of Dukakis from time to time

[jefelump]

from chumdawg:
I disagree vehemently. As you know, Bob Dole had certain physical limitations, but he had a very vibrant mind and he had a certain gravitas to him. John McCain looks like an old man who is running as the young man he was when he served those years as a prisoner of war. But still and all, I will agree with your comparison of the perception of the two candidates.

Oh, I'm not criticizing Bob Dole's mind or intellect. I think Fred Thompson is sharp too. But Dole and Thompson both have that same perception problem.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

In order to play fair, we have to match the wit and skill of Dukakis from time to time

I guess you're right. As I recall, that was '88, and the brilliant administration of Reagan had guaranteed his VP the top job. Dukakis was, in that year, a sacrificial lamb.

If you want to say that the failed Bush administration has guaranteed the Dem candidate the top job, then I wholly understand the Dukakis comparison and the selection of McCain as the candidate. (Maybe Rudy was just too shrewd to take that bullet for the team.)

It's interesting you invoke that election season, though. I seem to remember that being the year of Jesse Jackson's campaign and his "Keep Hope Alive" keynote speech at the convention. Was Jesse Jackson just twenty years ahead of his time?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Oh, I'm not criticizing Bob Dole's mind or intellect. I think Fred Thompson is sharp too. But Dole and Thompson both have that same perception problem.

I think Newt Gingrich is really, REALLY sharp...but in that same class. It's a shame, but it is what it is. In many respects the presidential election is not much different than the NBA vote for MVP. Substance alone won't do it...there's also got to be some style.

I don't guess there is any reason trying to change that reality, because a democratic system does tend to find the level of the least common denominator. So a party should recognize it, and deal with it, and not roll tonight's John McCain out there in front of an elementary school gym without his dentures on.

It's not that hard, honestly.

[ty]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

She is a loon. No doubt. I thought we were, for the most part, done with racism in this country (at least publicly).... until I saw a news piece on the West Virginia Democratic primaries where they interviewed a bunch of the West Virginians on who they were voting for and why. Boy was I wrong.

an unsponsored post?

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

In honor of the end of the campaign.

Wow that's in REALLY bad taste.

[sike]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Wow that's in REALLY bad taste.

I'm fairly certain most political comedy is...but does that make it less humorous?

[Flacolaco]

If you think that's in bad taste, you should probably stay off the internet.

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Wow that's in REALLY bad taste.

umm...

lol

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I guess you're right. As I recall, that was '88, and the brilliant administration of Reagan had guaranteed his VP the top job. Dukakis was, in that year, a sacrificial lamb.

If you want to say that the failed Bush administration has guaranteed the Dem candidate the top job, then I wholly understand the Dukakis comparison and the selection of McCain as the candidate. (Maybe Rudy was just too shrewd to take that bullet for the team.)

It's interesting you invoke that election season, though. I seem to remember that being the year of Jesse Jackson's campaign and his "Keep Hope Alive" keynote speech at the convention. Was Jesse Jackson just twenty years ahead of his time?

I'll agree that Bush guaranteed a Dem party president. I'll even go farther and say that the best talent in the Republican party intentionally never even ran in the primaries for that reason. I won't be surprised to see Newt Gingrich emerge in the future when the outcome isn't known ahead of time. Running and losing (Al Gore, even though he was virtually tied with Bush) is a sure way to never be able to run again. You can lose in the primaries and run again (McCain).
The idea that the Dems are almost certain to win is reason enough for me to relax a tad bit about the ridiculously flawed person and politics and campaign of McCain. This way, I don't have to worry about McCain in the future when a real Republican has a chance again.

I truly only have a small handful of reasons to vote McCain this year:
1)supreme court justices
2)military matters
3)tax, economy matters
4)Second Amendment issues

After that, I could not possibly care less because the two "last men standing" both are pathetic.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think Newt Gingrich is really, REALLY sharp...but in that same class. It's a shame, but it is what it is. In many respects the presidential election is not much different than the NBA vote for MVP. Substance alone won't do it...there's also got to be some style.

I don't guess there is any reason trying to change that reality, because a democratic system does tend to find the level of the least common denominator. So a party should recognize it, and deal with it, and not roll tonight's John McCain out there in front of an elementary school gym without his dentures on.

It's not that hard, honestly.

I think that is a very astute comparison. Men like Newt are like players like Dirk. But...
Dirk did win the MVP last year. Maybe a genius like Newt has a chance...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chumdawg again.

[dude1394]

Uh Oh...Hussein Obama may be in dutch with the wives.

http://blog.hill4pres.com/2008/06/03/commentary.aspx

I Have A Dream
Posted by Hill 4 Pres at 6/3/2008 10:29 PM and is filed under news
by Nancy Kivlen

Now it's a nightmare.
Today I registered as a Republican for the first time in my life.
I have been a lifelong democrat, but today my family and I left the Democratic Party and registered as Republicans.

We will be supporting John McCain in November.

We didn't have to re-register, we could have simply voted for McCain in November, but we wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party. We are unhappy, disappointed, and angry at Obama, his supporters, the media and the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama was Selected, Not Elected by the Democratic party.

"No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her" -Susan B Anthony, 1872.

The way in which Obama got the nomination is similar to how Bush won in 2000 against Gore. All votes were not counted and they were not counted equally.

Pledged delegates were won by each candidate either through a primary or a caucus. Obama received most of his delegates by winning caucuses. The very nature of a caucus suppresses voter turnout, since caucuses take place over a few hours on a specific day and do not allow absentee ballots, those that are unable to attend (workers, disabled, mothers with childcare issues) cannot participate. Consequently a delegate in a small state with low voter turnout like Idaho, receives far more weight than a delegate from a primary in a bigger state with high voter turnout, like California.

While the Democrats cried "foul!" to the outcome in Florida over the votes counted and not counted in 2000, this same party decided to count votes in Florida by 1/2 for moving their primary date forward which was not the party's fault. And in Michigan the Rules & Bylaws committee voted to completely OVERTURN the results of the election and give Obama 59 extra delegates that he did not win, while taking 4 delegates from Hillary Clinton that she did win.

When you consider that Obama "won" the pledged delegates by a mere 3%, or 125. This includes the extra 59 delegates from a state whose ballot he chose to remove his name from. You can see that the 125 delegate lead is reduced to a mere 58 pledged delegate lead had the delegates been distributed according to the votes. This is called OVERTURNING THE ELECTION RESULTS - the very thing the Democrats cried "foul!" over in 2000.

[wmbwinn]

I'll say this:
If John McCain wins this, it will be because the Dem party shot itself in its own foot...

[jefelump]

I have to say I agree with Nancy Kivlen. Obama decided to take his name off of the ballot. He was not forced to do it. Therefore, he should have received zero delegates in MI. I'm surprised Hillary isn't appealing the decision, or taking it to court. That's what Democrats do (It was Al Gore in 2000 who engaged the courts).

As Rush Limbaugh says, the Democrat Party has become the party of disenfranchisement.

[dude1394]

Democrats have become the party of who can be the biggest victim the quickest. Complete victim politics.

Blacks- victims
female - victims
hispanic - victims
unions - victims
teachers - victims
seniors - victims

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Democrats have become the party of who can be the biggest victim the quickest. Complete victim politics.

Blacks- victims
female - victims
hispanic - victims
unions - victims
teachers - victims
seniors - victims

Yes, indeed.

That Nancy Kilven is so typical of the Democrat point of view. Clearly if you don't have something, it's because someone else stole it from you. And clearly you are entitled to everything that you want.

What a joke.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yes, indeed.

That Nancy Kilven is so typical of the Democrat point of view. Clearly if you don't have something, it's because someone else stole it from you. And clearly you are entitled to everything that you want.
What a joke.

That must be the 11th amendment of the Bill of Rights

[chumdawg]

Sealed and delivered tonight. Well played, Obama. Well played.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I won't say that Obama can't win in the general election, but I think that it's a big mistake to think that he will win by sheer force of his charisma, as many of you seem to think. dude is exactly right when he points out that Obama is the most liberal candidate in the race.

When Obama's record comes to light (and it will) and when his positions on the issues come to light (and they will, I think he is going to have a tough time winning it all.

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not saying any of this as a McCain supporter. I don't want a President McCain, either.

You want a President McCain now, right?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Le' bump.

Since "hopefully" obamaman is about to wrap up the dem nomination tommorrow and he doesn't quite seem to be leading by 20points...nor is the beating the pants-suit off of clinton, I thought I'd bump this.

20 bucks can buy me a beer and a couple of dogs at the arena!

I'm more than happy to buy you a beer and a couple dogs. Schadenfreude, as they say.

If it comes to that, of course.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm more than happy to buy you a beer and a couple dogs. Schadenfreude, as they say.

If it comes to that, of course.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chumdawg again.

[Epitome22]

chumdawg is looking like nostradamus right now.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You want a President McCain now, right?

If I have to choose.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Zogby

Pollster John Zogby: "Obama has consolidated his lead over McCain. His single day lead today was back to 52%-42%. He leads by 10 among independents and has solidified his base. He leads among Hispanics by38 points, African Americans by 88, 18-24 year olds by 36, 18-29 year olds by 25, 25-34 year olds by 16, women by 8, and men by 3. He has a 17 point lead among those who have already voted, 22 by those who have registered to vote in the past 6 months, Moderates by 34, Catholics by 10. He even receives 21% support among Conservatives.

That's what it looks like when it's over.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

chumdawg is looking like nostradamus right now.

Chumdawg looks the same as he's always looked. A blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time...

[chumdawg]

Go sell it somewhere else, Murph. I was right on Nash, I was right on Avery, and I was right on Obama.

[Murphy3]

Hey, you weren't getting alot of arguments about me when it came to who would win... I'm just saying that voting for the anti-Christ probably isn't a good idea...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Hey, you weren't getting alot of arguments about me when it came to who would win... I'm just saying that voting for the anti-Christ probably isn't a good idea...

No, Murph, that's not at all what you were saying.