General Pres. Candidate 08 Thread

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it matters tho, some governors (such as TX) don't really run the government. I'd disagree that the position of a mayor is comparable to that of pres. a senator would be much more experienced than a mayor in understanding the federal system.



John Kennedy.

When the mayor is the mayor of NYC I disagree with you. He's got more people, budget, international affairs than probably 2/3's of the states and many,many countries.

You can belittle texas governorship but I disagree there as well. He may not be the executor, but he's responsible for the big stuff. You actually may be correct about how much administration he does, I'd have to look it up, but I think you are belittle'ing the job.

But whichever, comparing the governor of texas to someone running a staff of pages and political operatives (ala a senator) I think is not a winning argument.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

John Kennedy.

Debateable (see Daly machine returns) but I'm a big believer in scoreboard, so I'll take it.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

When the mayor is the mayor of NYC I disagree with you. He's got more people, budget, international affairs than probably 2/3's of the states and many,many countries.

You can belittle texas governorship but I disagree there as well. He may not be the executor, but he's responsible for the big stuff. You actually may be correct about how much administration he does, I'd have to look it up, but I think you are belittle'ing the job.

But whichever, comparing the governor of texas to someone running a staff of pages and political operatives (ala a senator) I think is not a winning argument.

hes right on this. the govenor of texas has almost no power and it was written that way on purpose because of the military govenors of the post civil war era and an attempt to keep them from having any real power.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

When the mayor is the mayor of NYC I disagree with you. He's got more people, budget, international affairs than probably 2/3's of the states and many,many countries.

you apparently missed the point that was written, which is the senator's understanding of the federal government was very valuable, as opposed to the mayor's lack of familarity with the federal government. that is both in terms of the budget but also in the management of the executive branch, not to mention in dealing with politicians in both the house and the senate.

mayors may deal with a large budget, a large city bureaucracy, and at most a few dozen councilmen/aldermen. just not in the same league imo.

You can belittle texas governorship but I disagree there as well. He may not be the executor, but he's responsible for the big stuff. You actually may be correct about how much administration he does, I'd have to look it up, but I think you are belittle'ing the job.

But whichever, comparing the governor of texas to someone running a staff of pages and political operatives (ala a senator) I think is not a winning argument.

you should become better acquainted with the governor's office in the great state of texas. apparently you are under the illusion it is an office with great resources and power...and it isn't. the lt governor has much more responsibility and power, the speaker of the house as well. the atty general is more involved in real decisions that affect the avg texan. heck the land commissioner may have more power! that is not "belittling" the office, it's reality.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

you're right, of course, that Barrack doesn't stand a chance....if for no other reason than that the Lizard queen will eat him for breakfast...

i certainly understand mavdogs' argument -- vis. the primitive and unenlightened nasty western male simply can't imagine sending a chick to do a man's job.....

....nevermind that the english gladly put dear old Maggie Thatcher in office two decades ago, and this the english did even tho they are arguably twice as racist and twice as sexist as their american cousins.....

we might also note that those Stodgy Ole Republican Males, the bastion of all things evil and sexist, are generally quite content to have a black female serving as Secretary of State........well....she is a secretary, so perhaps she's kept adequately in her place, but I digress....

(IOW, if english males can pick a chick, and Republimales can stand a Condi, the american everyman can vote for a chick)

.......anyhoo...I understand the argument, i just think the argument is based more on liberal mythology than on the actual dynamics of our present society.

To be certain, I think saying someone is a very skilled politician is like saying someone is a skilled thief, liar, and whore. It is nonetheless a skill.

...and Hillary is very politicially skilled.
Skilled and extremely well-funded..............
.....with a mobilized and capable political machine.....

.......and partisan useful idiots who will bleat the party line that any criticism of the lesbian lizard queen is a matter of sexism, just as even national conservatives invariably reflect on the racist undertones of anyone who criticizes madam condi.

....................

alternatively stated.....

no one else in the Democratic Party can match her clout........ergo she will get the nomination;

hence the next prez will either be the lesbian lizard queen or a republican....

George W. Bush is currently in office, hence no republican stands a prayer.......

.....ergo Godzillary is your next prez, barring injuries of course.........

qed, or somesuch.

cheers

The first woman/black president will likely be a republican. You gotta think of it from a costs/benefits type of analysis standpoint.... by fronting a black and/or woman candidate, the democrats are just appealling to relatively safe votes, without gaining anything, but potentially scaring off some segment of "joe-sixpack" swing votes. No gain, just cost.

Similarly, middle america, particularly small state southern candidates that are dems have an advantage while its really a disadvantage for republicans. Republicans already have the south largely locked up, but a Rudi or mcCaine probably won't lose those votes to a democrat challenger, (i.e. in a GENERAL election, rather than a primary) they WILL win over some coastal voters that wouldn't vote for brownback, or whomever. So similarly, a southern style religious conservative republican candidate doesn't do himself any favors in a general election... No gain, just cost.

my opinion, at least: Jimmy Carters and Ronald Reagans (who appeal to the OTHER sides voters, a-priori at least) do well, hillary clinton and sam brownback... don't do as well.



as to your other general posting thesis, (which seems to basically be that the hildebeast is a ruthless politician on a scale UNSEEN in national politics...) you don't think its an appropriate comparison to discuss her antics relative to past political machines that WERE successful gaining the presidency? Since she is the only contender thus far that really has her "machine" rolling yet, you CAN'T really compare her to the current field.... yet... but certainly as other frontrunners become firmly established, and their campaigns get rolling we will begin to see the claws and daggers coming out from all sides. BUT for now, its really a one "machine" race, since the established republican machine is still engaged with Bush, who can't run again, and has no heir apparent....

so really the ONLY machines we can compare her with are ones from the past. CLEARLY her machine hasn't pulled out all the stops to ANY extent than can be considered comprable to the Attwater, Turdblossum (Rove) campaigns... yet. We'll se what she and her handlers do when the fur and the blood really start flying, but they would have to make some serious advances to hope to even come close to matching dark-mastercraft of the attwater/Rove machines.

[dude1394]

Think the "other" america will hold this against johnny?

Carolina Journal Exclusives
Edwards Home County's Largest
The 28,200-square-foot home also Orange County's most valuable

Republicans wouldn't but not so sure about dems.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Think the "other" america will hold this against johnny?

Republicans wouldn't but not so sure about dems.

you mean the dems who nominated a multi-millionaire for pres in 2004? or the dems who nominated "johnny" for veep in 2004?
apparently it doesn't mean as much to the dems as you think it might.
here's the article.
--------------------------------------------
Edwards Home County's Largest

The 28,200-square-foot home also Orange County's most valuable

By Don Carrington
January 26, 2007

RALEIGH — Presidential candidate John Edwards and his family recently moved into what county tax officials say is the most valuable home in Orange County. The house, which includes a recreational building attached to the main living quarters, also is probably the largest in the county.

“The Edwardses’ residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the county,” Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told Carolina Journal. He estimated that the tax value will exceed $6 million when the facility is completed.

The rambling structure sits in the middle of a 102-acre estate on Old Greensboro Road west of Chapel Hill. The heavily wooded site and winding driveway ensure that the home is not visible from the road. “No Trespassing” signs discourage passersby from venturing past the gate.

Don Knight, Orange County building plans examiner, told CJ that, including the recreational building, the Edwardses’ home would be one of the largest in Orange County.

Knight approved the building plans that showed the Edwards home totaling 28,200 square feet of connected space. The main house is 10,400 square feet and has two garages. The recreation building, a red, barn-like building containing 15,600 square feet, is connected to the house by a closed-in and roofed structure of varying widths and elevations that totals 2,200 square feet.

The main house is all on one level except for a 600-square-foot bedroom and bath area above the guest garage.

The recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”

Edwards was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2004 and a former N.C. senator.

Thursday afternoon, the Edwards for President press office was unable to provide information on any additional buildings planned for the estate.

[dude1394]

I agree, I don't think it means that much to most folks. But it will be tough to make his standard spiel of two americas all the while he's lapping it up, not sure how true it will ring.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I agree, I don't think it means that much to most folks. But it will be tough to make his standard spiel of two americas all the while he's lapping it up, not sure how true it will ring.

I agree. If Edwards goes back to his campaign speech of 2004 then he will undoubtedly be viewed as a hypocrite. Regardless, he's a loser.

[jacktruth]

It seems a bit early for the "help me make history" plea, as if that by itself makes her worth voting for. I predict the most expensive defeat in history.
--------------------------------

Hillary's Understandable Contradictions
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 30, 2007


Hillary Clinton's many contradictions aren't hard to understand once you realize her need to suppress her natural instincts and policy preferences because they conflict with her lifelong presidential aspirations.

For the most part Hillary is not personally conflicted: She knows precisely what she wants. But her personality characteristics and the circumstances in which she finds herself force her to walk a tightrope between warring constituencies and to project a double-mindedness that is wholly inconsistent with her innate ideological certitude.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks during the official dedication of the Center for the Intrepid, a $50 million high-tech rehabilitation center designed to serve the growing number of soldiers who return from war as amputees or with severe burns, at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Monday, Jan. 29, 2007. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) These themes were on display this past weekend as Hillary began her presidential campaign in Iowa. From the issue of her gender, to her kaleidoscopic positions on the war, she was trying to thread personal and policy needles to make herself attractive to Midwestern voters without triggering any more blue-state liberal landmines in the process. (Hollywood moguls have already sent her a message by hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama.)

In the past, Hillary has vacillated between righteous indignation at any expectation that she should be home "baking cookies" and her acquired awareness that she must not go too far and project herself as cold and heartless.

So it was no surprise that in Iowa she reflected a bit of both sides: On the one hand she wore her gender on her sleeve in telling her audience she faced a "double standard" as a female candidate. In the next, shameless breath, she instructed them to look beyond "stories about my clothes and hair" to help her make history.

Similarly, Hillary wants desperately to project a soft, amiable side that is appealing to voters, but she doesn't want to come off as too soft to be chief executive and commander in chief.

Not to worry. She's quite comfortable with bare-knuckles political brawling. In this vein, she mildly criticized John Kerry for not having responded fiercely enough to his Swift boat accusers. "When you're attacked, you have to deck your opponents," she said.

Hillary has labored to cultivate the image that she's open-minded -- kicking off her first New York Senate campaign with a phony "listening tour" and pretending to absorb the people's concerns. Now, with an equally straight face, she says she wants to "chat" with voters and have "one-on-one conversations, just you and me."

Right. Surely even those not majoring in "Hillary Studies" can see she is nothing if not a woman with definite policy preferences and a singular commitment to accomplishing them -- no matter what anyone else thinks or chats.

You might note that Hillary did not come away chastened from the stinging personal defeat of her universal health care ploy. To the contrary, she said, in Iowa, concerning Hillary Care, "I now know what the roadblocks and obstacles are." (I fault her here, by the way, not for her unflinching commitment to socialized medicine -- I'll save that for later -- but for her usual duplicity in disguising it.)

For now Hillary seems to have settled -- appropriately -- on the Clintonesque position of taking responsibility for her vote to authorize the war against Iraq, while simultaneously denying responsibility because President Bush "misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

On the broader war on terror, she throws bones to the right, saying, "we must [defend] our country and [deter] those who wish us ill, as they still do." Yet she says we must end "the alienation toward us in the rest of the world," a statement sure to warm the hearts of Jane Fonda and the 12-year-old war protestor who lamented that "the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar." Hillary's words should also please John Kerry, who just said on foreign soil that the United States is now considered an "international pariah."

It has yet to be determined, however, whether Hillary subscribes to Kerry's "global test," where we would virtually confer on other nations a veto power over our sovereign decision to go to war.

Though we will continue to see abundant evidence apparently to the contrary between now and November 2008, Hillary knows exactly who she is and what she wants. The open question is: How many naive or uninformed voters can she fool without permanently estranging herself from her natural soulmates on the far left?

David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.

[Mavdog]

Democrat Biden enters presidential race


Sen. Joe Biden officially joined an increasingly crowded field for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination Wednesday, as he has been promising for months.

"After nine months of doing this, there is no exploratory committee — I'm running," the Delaware senator told The Associated Press.

A 34-year Senate veteran known for his foreign policy expertise and somewhat windy oratory, Biden acknowledged his campaign would generate little of the buzz surrounding the celebrity candidates New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record).

However, Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, entered the race touting his plan for resolving the top political issue of the day — what to do about the war in Iraq.

His campaign Web site, http://www.joebiden.com, prominently displays a map of Iraq alongside a photo of the candidate, inviting viewers to read more about "Joe Biden's comprehensive plan to end the violence in Iraq."

Biden said he filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission establishing a campaign committee.

"You have to file the formal papers to meet the legal requirements to be able to raise money and that's what I've done today," Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday.

[Drbio]

Biden is probably one of the more qualified of the dems. Hiladabeast is certainly qualified but I would think her own party would lean towards less of a lightning rod. Obama simply doesn't have the pedigree right now. We shall see.

[Usually Lurkin]

Biden's thoughts on Obama:

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NlYTM4NjBkMmU=

to paraphrase an ad campaign: "No, senator Biden, I don't know what you mean."

[Mavdog]

the reference biden makes is the first mainstream african-american presidential candidate who is articulate etc. at least that is what an intelligent person should be capable of grasping. levin is spinning and it's not very positive light on him imo.

here's the article in question:
----------------------------------------------------------
Biden Unbound: Lays Into
Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Loquacious Senator, Democratic Candidate on Hillary: ‘Four of 10 Is the Max You Can Get?’ Edwards ‘Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About’

By: Jason Horowitz
Date: 2/5/2007
Page: 1


Senator Joseph Biden doesn’t think highly of the Iraq policies of some of the other Democrats who are running for President.

To hear him tell it, Hillary Clinton’s position is calibrated, confusing and “a very bad idea.” John Edwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is pushing a recipe for Armageddon in the Middle East. Barack Obama is offering charming but insubstantial fluff. And all of them are playing politics.

“Let me put it this way,” Mr. Biden said. “You didn’t hear any one of them get in this debate at all until they announced for President.”

Mr. Biden, who ran an ill-fated campaign for President in 1988, is a man who believes his time has finally come, announcing this week that he was filing papers to make his 2008 Presidential bid official. Although he admits to a tendency to “bloviate,” he thinks that an aggressive advocate with rough edges might be just what the party needs right now. “Democrats nominated the perfect blow-dried candidates in 2000 and 2004,” he said, “and they couldn’t connect.”

Though Mr. Biden, 64, has never achieved his national ambitions, he has in recent years emerged as one of the party’s go-to experts on foreign policy. In the past week, he has spearheaded the Democratic pushback against the President’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, opposing the move with a non-binding resolution that his party has rallied around.

On a recent weekday afternoon, he was discussing his rivals over a bowl of tomato soup in the corner of a diner in Delaware, about a 15-minute drive from his Senate office. He wore a red cardigan and blue shirt, periodically raising his raspy voice over the sound of loudspeakers summoning customers to pick up their sandwiches. He had showed up carrying a Mead notebook filled with handwritten talking points, but once he’d gotten started, he closed the book and pushed it aside.

The subject he prefers to talk about these days—particularly when contrasting himself with his prospective Presidential rivals—is Iraq.

Addressing Mrs. Clinton’s latest proposal to cap American troops and to threaten Iraqi leaders with cuts in funding, Mr. Biden lowered his voice and leaned in close over the table.

“From the part of Hillary’s proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’ We’re not going to equip them? O.K. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That’s a real good idea.”

The result of Mrs. Clinton’s position on Iraq, Mr. Biden says, would be “nothing but disaster.”

Most early polls show Mrs. Clinton as the party’s clear front-runner. Mr. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is firmly in the thick of a pack of third-tier candidates. Still, he thinks that at such a precarious point in the nation’s history, voters are seeking someone with his level of experience to take the helm.

“Are they going to turn to Hillary Clinton?” Biden asked, lowering his voice to a hush to explain why Mrs. Clinton won’t win the election.

“Everyone in the world knows her,” he said. “Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, shut people down. Legitimate. And she can’t break out of 30 percent for a choice for Democrats? Where do you want to be? Do you want to be in a place where 100 percent of the Democrats know you? They’ve looked at you for the last three years. And four out of 10 is the max you can get?”

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

(After the interview with Mr. Biden and shortly before press time, Mr. Obama proposed legislation that would require all American combat brigades to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March 2008.)

Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreign policy in the Presidential election of 2004.

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.

“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”

The targets of Mr. Biden’s criticism, whether out of shock, indifference or a calculation that it would be unwise in this case to meet fire with fire, declined to respond in kind.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote in an e-mail: “Senator Obama opposed the Iraq War from Day 1 and has articulated clear principles in how to address the tragic mistakes President Bush has made there.” And as for rest—including Mr. Biden’s use of the words “articulate” and “nice-looking” to describe the Senator from Illinois—the spokesman said, “Senator Biden’s words speak for themselves.” The press offices for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards declined to say anything at all.

By contrast with what Mr. Biden describes alternately as his opponents’ caution and their detachment from reality, the Senator from Delaware has for months been pushing a comprehensive plan to split Iraq into autonomous Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish ethnic regions that is controversial, to say the least.

Under the plan, local policing and laws will be the responsibility of regional authorities. Most of the American troops would be withdrawn, with small numbers remaining to help with anti-terrorism operations. The ensuing chaos from ethnic migrations within Iraq would be contained with the help of political pressure created by a conference of Iraq’s neighbors.

But the idea of an American endorsement of Iraqi federation along those lines has drawn criticism from just about every ideological corner of the foreign-policy establishment. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another potential 2008 candidate who played a major role in negotiating the peace talks that ended the war in Bosnia, said in a recent interview that the Biden plan would have people in mixed cities like Baghdad “fleeing for their lives.” Richard Perle, one of the chief architects of the war in Iraq, who resigned from his advisory position at the Pentagon in 2003 after a conflict-of-interest scandal, called the idea “harebrained.” And perhaps most notably, the original author of the partition plan, former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb, has suggested that spiraling chaos on the ground in Iraq may have already rendered it unworkable.

Mr. Biden counters their criticism by insisting that Iraq has already fractured along ethnic lines, and that the only pragmatic approach at this point is to police the process in a way that could prevent a wider civil war and, eventually, lead to a sort of stability.

“You have to give them breathing room,” he said.

The Iraq he envisions has three ethnically homogenous enclaves, with a central government responsible for securing the country’s international borders and distributing oil revenues.

He’d put the Shiite majority in the south, limiting their geographic control but keeping them from being drawn into a wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.

He’d move the Sunni majority into the oil-poor Anbar province in the West, but they would be guaranteed a cut of oil revenues worth billions of dollars. Mr. Biden’s hope is that the oil money and relative calm would drain the loyal Baathist insurgency of support while simultaneously making the province less amenable to Al Qaeda provocateurs.

“The argument that you make with Sunni tribal leaders is, ‘You are not going to get back to the point where you run the show,’” said Mr. Biden. They will have to be made to understand that “you get a much bigger piece of the pie by giving up a little of the pie.”

He’d keep the Kurds up in the north, where they already enjoy a measure of de facto autonomy, but would seek guarantees that they would not take it upon themselves to purge Sunni residents from the mixed city of Kirkuk, or to lay exclusive claim to the enormous oil resources in that region, or to secede from Iraq by forming an independent Kurdistan.

Mr. Biden said he has made the argument to Kurdish leaders over the course of his seven trips to Iraq as follows: “You will be eaten alive by the Turks and the Iranians, they will attack you, there will be an all-out war.”

The clear implication is that the United States, not for the first time, would be unable to protect them. “I don’t see how we could,” he said.

Mr. Biden disagrees with foreign leaders like Britain’s Tony Blair and Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf, who say that the key to fixing Iraq’s problems is solving the dispute between Israel and Palestinians.

“They are wrong, because I think it is a veiled way to do what the Europeans and the Arabists have always wanted to do, which is back Israel into a corner,” he said. “They still blame Israel.”

Mr. Biden says that support for his Iraq plan is growing. The influential New York Senator Chuck Schumer has declared at various times that he supports the plan—albeit in an uncharacteristically quiet manner—as has Michael O’Hanlon, a prominent Iraq policy expert at the Brookings Institution.

But their support, for Mr. Biden, is almost an afterthought. If one thing is clear about him, it is that he doesn’t mind being alone.

“They may be politically right, and I may be politically wrong,” he said. “But I believe I am substantively right, and their substantive approaches are not very deep and will not get us where I want to go.”

[Usually Lurkin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU&eurl=

"you can not go to a 7-11 or a Duncan Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking"



-uh, no Senator Biden, I don't know what you mean.

[MavKikiNYC]

Biden is an idiot.

His candidacy does not help the Democratic party, IMO.

Run, Joe, Run.

[purplefrog]

I am in no shape or form a Biden fan or supporter because his history has been tainted with inappropriate remarks and at least one ethical miscue. On the other hand, he has articulated a plan of action which is a true change of course in Iraq that, like it or not, we might have to entertain now or later. The plans noted by Biden opponents (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) seem shallow in comparison and I have yet to hear much from Republican candidates (with the exception of McCain who says put in thousands of more troops that we may or may not have available). I give Biden a bit of credit for being thoughtful and willing to address the issue directly.

[dude1394]

Democrats have played the race card so much that it's nice to see them hoisted on their own petard.

Edit: Too bad it wasn't hillary.

[FishForLunch]

No democrats are immune to Foot in the mouth disease, they can say what they want. Here is a Maccaca moment for Biden, but in this case he will not be hit over the head with it, like Ex Sen. Allen was by the Washigton Post.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

No democrats are immune to Foot in the mouth disease, they can say what they want. Here is a Maccaca moment for Biden, but in this case he will not be hit over the head with it, like Ex Sen. Allen was by the Washigton Post.

You are correct, the media usually has their back.

[Usually Lurkin]

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate...s/16150760.htm

The senator then pounced on a member’s announcement that the club would hold its annual Christmas party at the state Department of Archives and History where members could view the original copy of the state’s Articles of Secession.

Biden asked, “Where else could I go to a Rotary Club where (for a) Christmas party the highlight is looking at the Articles?”

Biden was on a roll.

Delaware, he noted, was a “slave state that fought beside the North. That’s only because we couldn’t figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.”

Does anyone know if this is real? It sounds just obscene: a video of Biden bragging that his state was a slave state in a fox news interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFduMuP7v-k&eurl=

I might have to change my reply from "I don't know what you mean" to "Shut up you racist bastard."

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

The first woman/black president will likely be a republican. You gotta think of it from a costs/benefits type of analysis standpoint....

I understand the argument, but i just don't buy it. The same argument could of course have been made about the un-likelihood of electing a female governor in the state of texas........been there, done that, and she was a democrat.

anyhoooo...........personally I think it takes two things to get elected -- money and machinery. All else (ie, appeal to southern males, testicles, moral center) is a matter of convenience but not ultimately a determining factor. Godzillary has both money and machinery, and no other candidate can match her.

and still, the basic question is 'if not the lesbian lizard queen, then who?' I simply can't see any other candidate matching her, or it as one may prefer.

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

as to your other general posting thesis, (which seems to basically be that the hildebeast is a ruthless politician on a scale UNSEEN in national politics...)

I don't think I'd say unseen in national politics -- just unmatched amongst the current field. It's a fair point to say that others have not yet put their machines into motion...but then again, if these other candidates were Godzillary's political equals they would have their machines in motion.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

Do you think that is "bragging"? I think he is stating facts. Deleware isn't much like Mass, or RI, or Con.

Biden just always says things in a snarky way, THAT gets him in trouble. He says things as if he is barely tolerating what he perceives as a dumbass question, and thus answers in a smartass manner.

But it didn't strike me as racist, or "proud" of the fact that Del was a slave state...

But the fact is, the mason dixon line runs between Maryland and Pennsylvania. Both MD, Del were slave states that were vacilating on whether or not to seccede. However, the massing of troops in Maryland essentially made it impossible for the state to seccede (which would have caused problems, since it would have placed the Union's capital, Washington DC, smack in enemy territory). Since MD didn't/couldn't secede... Del, which at that point is ENTIRELY surrounded by union states COULDN'T seccede, without essentially committing suicide. But the fact of the matter is there was PLENTY of secession sentiments in both of the states. That is Why when Lee charged north, it didn't become "newsworthy" until he actually entered Penn (around Gettysburg) because THEN he was taking the war into the heart of the Union territitory. In Md (which he had to go through to get to Penn) he was basically in "contested" territory, and there were plenty of sympathetic locals to give comfort and aid.

Actually, it was the south's biggest fear early on that Virginia would be pressured enough not to seccede, since at the time VA was the economic powerhouse of the south. Lincoln asked Robert E Lee (whose house in virginia was about 2 miles from the white house) first to head the union forces, and Lee said he had to wait to see which way the VA legislature would go. To pressure VA into secceding, the nacent Confederacy immidiately began lobbying for promnent virginians to hold important posts in the confederate heirarchy, and proposed making Richmond the capital of the confederacy, even though it was only 70 miles from Washington DC, AND virginia hadn't even secdded yet. Virginia didn't secede until the union called troops and began building them up in MD, about half a year after South Carolina seceded. Similar "secede or not secede" drama's took place in all the "border" states, but the most important were Tennessee, and Kentucky: the former seceded, and the latter never did... and Kentucky was also economically powerful enough, that its secession could've tipped the war. All three of the states (VA, TN, KY) had "shadow" governemnts for (in VA and TN, governments that remained loyal to the union, and a KY govt that pledged to the confederacy)

I think this shit is facinating, and being raised in VA, THS is what we were taught in elementary school civics/history... not to mention that whole "Lee/Jackson/King" day holiday. I imagine you Texans got a huge dose of the Mexican American war, and the alamo and what-not.

[mcsluggo]

for those of you who don't know: the LEE/JACKSON/KING day was the brilliant move by the VA legislature of creating a single holiday to honor Rbert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Martin Luther King.

There already was a Lee/Jackson Day, and then congress passed legislation that would cutt off some forms of fed funding to states that didn't adopt the MLK holiday, so to thumb their noses at the feds, VA tacked MLK day onto the Lee/Jackson day.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I understand the argument, but i just don't buy it. The same argument could of course have been made about the un-likelihood of electing a female governor in the state of texas........been there, done that, and she was a democrat.

anyhoooo...........personally I think it takes two things to get elected -- money and machinery. All else (ie, appeal to southern males, testicles, moral center) is a matter of convenience but not ultimately a determining factor. Godzillary has both money and machinery, and no other candidate can match her.

and still, the basic question is 'if not the lesbian lizard queen, then who?' I simply can't see any other candidate matching her, or it as one may prefer.



I don't think I'd say unseen in national politics -- just unmatched amongst the current field. It's a fair point to say that others have not yet put their machines into motion...but then again, if these other candidates were Godzillary's political equals they would have their machines in motion.

cheers

I don't think they are "deciding factors", its just the simple fact that a having a woman as a candidate is actually a hinderance in a general election for the Dems, while it would be an asset for the reps to run a woman.

[Usually Lurkin]

I think Biden was "bragging" the same way he was "joking" about viewing the articles. He's playing race politics where he thinks it'll help him, and for whatever side he thinks wants to hear racial comments.

He was asked why he thinks the southern democrats would vote for him, and he answered in part, "because my state was a slave state."

If G. W. Bush had said that about Texas, not only would his campaign been capsized and destroyed by press coverage, but I would have personally found him and punched him in the gut for making a racist statement and implying that I'd be in favor of it, and then I would have kicked both his parents in the crotch for raising him wrong.

[Usually Lurkin]

hey mc,

I think in Texas we have confederate heroes day and MLK day. I think state employees have the choice to take confederate heroes day off or to work. I think buildings are locked on MLK day.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

its just the simple fact that a having a woman as a candidate is actually a hinderance in a general election for the Dems...

no, it isn't a simple fact.

we're not living in the 1920's, ya know..........

it may well be true that a very small demographic of society will not vote for Godzillary by virtue of her penislessness, but it is no less likely true that a less small demographic will vote for her precisely because she does not have a penis.

at any rate.......the candidates for the next prez election are readily identifiable, so we can be fairly specific about things.......

Either Godzillary the national socialist lesbian lizard queen will the Dem party nomination, or it will be someone else. If not Godzillary, then who do you think will win the Dem-Nom?

Who, among the hopeless Republicans, do you imagine can beat Godzillary in a general election?

cheers

[mcsluggo]

I think she is currently the front runner. But that is the well-defined Hillary, versus the uncertain squishy "opposition". She is the front runner because she inherited a machine, and has been pointing that machine for 4 years, at least. However her biggest strength (the machine) is already on the table and in play. The strengths of the squishy-others will be revealed as they move from a 35 headed beast into a primary alternative democratic challenger (first) and a single republican post-primary candidate (later, if she hold off the rest of the Dem field).

Her biggest strength is in play. Her biggest weakness is, well, her. People hate her. Some of that is because she is woman. More of that is because she is a Clinton. And even more of it is because she is HILLARY Clinton.

Jane Fonda could run the PERFECT campaign in 2008, and she wouldn't win. Neither would Jerry Falwell in the same circumstance. They are the yin and the yang of each other. Identical in their oppositeness.

Without even having an opponent. Hillary is in a neck and neck race. 35% of the population supports her, and 35% of the population say they wouldn't vote for her if she ran against Osama bin Laden. She has both more strengths and more weaknesses than all the other candidates combined, so yes, there is a real question about how this will play out.

Don't you think turdblossm is simply watering at the mouth to get a chance to run against her? Even if he DOES have Homer Simpson as HIS candidate, it doesn't matter. Ina race involving hillary, it will be Hillary against no-Hillary.


by the way, the economist magazine had an interesting article in this weeks issue on this matter, (next post).

[mcsluggo]

here it is

Hating Hillary
Jan 25th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Mrs Clinton starts her presidential race facing an army of people who loathe her. Does it matter?

Kevin Kallaugher

HILLARY CLINTON'S announcement that she is running for president (“I'm in, I'm in to win”) is manna from heaven for two groups of people: Clinton family retainers and professional Clinton-haters. The latter have already built a huge industry. You can buy “I hate Hillary” T-shirts, mugs, mouse-mats and even jock-straps. You can sound off in websites such as BlogsAgainstHillary.com. You can peruse a library of Clinton-hating books that accuse her of everything from lesbianism to murder. That industry is about to get a lot bigger.

Mrs Clinton has worked hard to defuse Hillary-hatred over the past six years. She has remodelled herself as an impeccably centrist senator, co-sponsoring bills with prominent conservatives. She has made the right noises about abortion and flag-burning. Above all, she has supported the Iraq war. This rebranding has had some effect in her adopted state: she won 61% of the (generally conservative) vote in upstate New York in 2006. It has also had some effect in the capital: Senator Sam Brownback is just one of a number of high-profile conservatives who have apologised for harbouring hostile thoughts about her.

Yet it would be naive to expect Hillary-hatred to go away. The condition springs from deep emotions on the cultural right. Fears of successful professional women who look down their snooty noses at rednecks and stay-at-home mothers. Hatred of bossy liberals who want to impose a National Health Service and other bureaucratic monstrosities. Disdain for holier-than-thou lefties who ride their husbands' coat-tails to power and wealth.

Add to this the fact that her husband is the most hated person of all to the right—a self-indulgent baby-boomer who nevertheless outran the right-wing lynch mob time and time again—and you hardly have a formula for a ceasefire in the culture wars. “I hate Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton,” writes one blogger, “and I know that my readers can understand that.”

Mrs Clinton's support for the Iraq war has also earned her a new set of enemies—on the left. She was roundly booed when she addressed the left-wing Campaign for America's Future last June and rejected immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The left-wing blogosphere regularly berates her for destroying true Democratic values. Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war activist, has even compared her to talk-radio's Rush Limbaugh.

The saner American left is at last waking up to the fact that Hillary was never the radical firebrand of conservative caricature. She has always been pro-business (her much demonised health-care reforms rejected the Canadian single-payer model and enjoyed the support of many businesses that were worried about escalating health-care costs). She has always been deeply religious, and even contemplated becoming a Methodist minister. She supported welfare reform. If the right regards her as a Trojan horse for left-wing liberalism, the left regards her as a Trojan horse for corporate Clintonism.

How much does Clinton-hatred matter in the race for the White House? Mrs Clinton starts off with unusually high positives: she is beating potential Republican rivals such as John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in head-to-head polls. But she also starts off with worryingly high negatives: in a recent poll her “unfavourables” were as high as her favourables, at 36%. But none of this is insuperable. To become president, Mrs Clinton needs to win only one big state that John Kerry lost in 2004—and Ohio is currently leaning strongly Democratic.

The not-so-lonely middle
Hillary-hatred is a double problem for the Republicans. It blinds them to Mrs Clinton's strengths: many Republicans live in such a conservative cocoon that they think no sensible American will ever vote for the she-devil. And it brings out everything that is most noxious and misogynistic about the right. Hillary-haters may look forward to reading Jonah Goldberg's forthcoming book, “Liberal Fascism: the Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton”, but most people just laugh. Hillary-haters may applaud when Jerry Falwell says that a Hillary candidacy would motivate his constituency more than Satan himself. Most people take it as a sign of derangement.

George Bush did strikingly well among white female voters in 2000 (when he got 49% of their vote) and 2004 (when he got 55%, thanks to “security moms”). Fully 2.5% of his 3.5% margin over Mr Kerry was accounted for by his increased vote among white women. A misogyny-fuelled campaign against Mrs Clinton could send women back to the Democrats in their millions.

Mrs Clinton is also well equipped to deal with conservative attacks. She is a veteran of the Clinton wars of the 1990s (her chief pollster estimates Republicans have spent $135m campaigning against her). She is a savvy street fighter who invented the term “war room” and can call on the help of some of the dirtiest bruisers in the business.

Mrs Clinton may also be able to use left-wing anti-Clintonism to her advantage—triangulating between the crazed left and the foaming right. Her recent manoeuvring on the Iraq war—she is talking of a bill to cap the number of troops in Iraq but continues to oppose withdrawal—has led to accusations that she is too cautious and calculating for her own good.

But Mrs Clinton remains relatively hawkish on foreign policy for a Democrat. She continues to argue that the most important problem facing the world is not global warming (the default position on the left) but weapons of mass destruction and borderless terrorists. And her coolness and calculation may not go down so badly after the impetuousness of the Bush years. Mrs Clinton recently told the New Yorker, with a touch of the self-righteousness that so infuriates her critics, that on Iraq “I find myself, as I often do, in the somewhat lonely middle.” That middle may not prove so lonely come 2008.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

IDon't you think turdblossm is simply watering at the mouth to get a chance to run against her? Even if he DOES have Homer Simpson as HIS candidate, it doesn't matter. Ina race involving hillary, it will be Hillary against no-Hillary.

i think hillary can match anything turdblossom may float.....if (and I don't know, but she's the most plausible source) the "Osama bin Hussein Barrack grew up in a madrassa" thing was hillary orchestrated, you gotta give her and hers some credit. I mean.....

it's one thing to take a mildly racist shot at another candidate, and it's pretty ballsy to call a candidate a terrrorist (notwithstanding hillary's testicle-lessness)......but when that candidate is your most likely veep selection, that's going way out there.....

so.......you make some fair points, but I think the larger point is that if 35% of the population supports her and 35% doesn't support her, then hillary wins by a landslide and she's your next prez............

my guess is that hillary gets the dem nom, with Obama the Radical Muslim as her veep. McCain will be the republican fall guy, and he'll run a campaign every bit as inspired as Bob Dole's lifeless campaign ca 1996.

35-40% of eligible voters will turn out for the election, with about 45% voting for Lizard Lady. 40% will vote McCain, and the other 15 scattered here and yonder.....hence Hillary, in this scenario, wins easily while receiving votes from less than 20 percent of the eligible population.

Democracy in action, as they say.

I caught the economist article earlier this week, interesting read indeed.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

It is always fun to engage a Republican arguing why Hillary WILL win the presidency, n debate with a democrat arguing that she is too flawed.

Now I want to see Jerry Falwell arguing for gays in the military against Barney Frank...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

It is always fun to engage a Republican arguing why Hillary WILL win the presidency, n debate with a democrat arguing that she is too flawed.

Now I want to see Jerry Falwell arguing for gays in the military against Barney Frank...

i'm not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican.

I thought it was funny when someone called me a ululating raghead, but this really hits below the belt.



cheers

[Mavdog]

Supporters push Gore to run in 2008
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

Veterans of Al Gore's past are quietly assembling a campaign to draft the former vice president into the 2008 presidential race — despite his repeated statements that he's not running.

His top policy adviser from his 2000 presidential campaign and other key supporters met Thursday in Boston to mull a potential Gore campaign. The participants and Gore's Nashville office both said Gore, who is in London, is not involved.

Elaine Kamarck, a veteran of the Clinton White House and Gore's policy guru in 2000, said the meeting was informal and shouldn't be taken as a sign there will be a Gore 2008 campaign.

Chris Mackin, a Boston consultant and Gore supporter, called it "an early stage conversation." But he added: "We're very serious about exploring this."

Gore's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, said the only campaign Gore is on right now is against global warming.

"He so appreciates the sentiment behind efforts like this. But he's been very clear he really has no intention of running for president in 2008," she said.

Gore won a hard-fought primary campaign to become the Democratic nominee in 2000. He won the popular vote, but lost to President Bush after a messy legal challenge ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since then, the former Tennessee senator has worked against global warming and served on corporate boards, including Google and Apple Inc. Due to a range of business ventures, aides have said Gore could spend as much as $50 million of his own money to launch a credible presidential run.

And, in the background, groups have been lobbying for Gore's return to presidential politics.

"He certainly has the right political climate. How many political candidates are being nominated for Nobel prizes and winning Oscars?" said Dylan Malone, co-founder of AlGore.org and organizer of a political action committee trying to draft Gore.

His work on global warming earned him a Nobel nomination and two Oscar nods for his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." He has re-branded himself on late-night television and has brought together a stable of grass-roots supporters.

In 2002, Gore asked Malone to stop a draft effort he had begun; Malone did. Malone started up again and, so far, Gore hasn't waved him off.

"The difference is dramatic. His time has come," Malone said. "We're raising tens of thousands of dollars fairly easily. Our mailing lists are growing so quickly we have to buy new computers."

In a New Hampshire poll released this week, Gore ranked fourth, behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) and John Edwards. Gore earned 8 percent.

The results mirror other polls nationwide.

"He certainly is in a position he can get into this," said Doug Hattaway, Gore's campaign spokesman in 2000. "He doesn't need to jump into this right away. He can keep his powder dry for a while."

Gore is scheduled to be in Washington next month to testify on Capitol Hill on global warming.

[purplefrog]

Gore will run because I believe he has narcissitic personality disorder.

[Usually Lurkin]

in early July, 1947, aliens crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico.
9 months later, on March 31, 1948, Al Gore was born.


I'm just sayin'

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

in early July, 1947, aliens crash landed in Roswell, New Mexico.
9 months later, on March 31, 1948, Al Gore was born.


I'm just sayin'

so much rep, so little time..

[dude1394]

Run Forest RUUUUUNNNNNNNN!!!!

[Usually Lurkin]

For those of you who've been following the John Edwards' official blogger bruhaha, here are The Pandagon Papers (very funny, with lots of cussin):
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ndagon_pa.html

[Mavdog]

very angry women. wait, that's very angry funny women.
"official blogger"? he has someone write his blog?
that in itself makes a joke of edwards.