General Pres. Candidate 08 Thread

[mcsluggo]

ok.

lets not talk about Iraq for a few minutes, its too loaded for everyone.

the men in the poem. Nobody would argue (or frankly COULD argue) that those soldiers were anything but noble and brave and the absolute PICTURE of everything that we admire in soldiers. Completely admirable.

but also in the confines of the poem their admirable bravery, and yes their lives, was (were) wasted on a mistaken folly.

So, in the confines of the poem, is it disrespectful to their bravery and honor to say that their lives were wasted in a fruitless mistake?

So is it EVER possible to say that a GOOD individual's life was wasted in a fruitless folly, without despoiling the memory of the GOOD individual?
<<NO STATEMENT ABOUT WHETHER IRAQ IS A FRUITLESS FOLLY OR A NOBLE ENDEAVER HERE, just in general>>

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

the men in the poem. Nobody would argue (or frankly COULD argue) that those soldiers were anything but noble and brave and the absolute PICTURE of everything that we admire in soldiers. Completely admirable.

That's the difference between being [ahem] articulate and respectful and being ham-fistedly disrespectful.

but also in the confines of the poem their admirable bravery, and yes their lives, was (were) wasted on a mistaken folly.

I think "wasted" is your word. You are reading that into the poem. That's not in the poem. If the charge were being made in defense of a poor little orphan girl, then I'd hardly say their lives were wasted. Even in the context of the poem. I assume, though, that you could find a very pretty set of words in which someone is both honored and called "wasted".

So is it EVER possible to say that a GOOD individual's life was wasted in a fruitless folly, without despoiling the memory of the GOOD individual?

I might not find any disrespect in it. You might not find any disrespect in it. Obama and mavdog might not either. But the question is whether the troops find it disrespectful.
Personally, I can't find much of any case where someone could tell me I've wasted my life and I wouldn't find that disrespectful. This goes double if the comment were in regards to the most important decisions I've made. Can you?

<<NO STATEMENT ABOUT WHETHER IRAQ IS A FRUITLESS FOLLY OR A NOBLE ENDEAVER HERE, just in general>>

by this I assume you mean you'll extend the argument to Iraq if the answers to your question turn out to your liking, but you'll distance the answers from the Iraq argument if they don't.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

by this I assume you mean you'll extend the argument to Iraq if the answers to your question turn out to your liking, but you'll distance the answers from the Iraq argument if they don't.

no, kinda the opposite (maybe it ends up being the same).

my BROADEST point (about Iraq, sortof) was that when discussing current wars there is an unfortunate tendency to use the soldiers as a shield, to deflect any meaningful discussion about the broader issues in a war. If every criticizm of a war is a direct affront to the honor of the soldiers that are galliantly fighting it, then there can be no meaningful discussion about a war, until it is in the history books. That isn't a very conducive set-up for making sure things are done right. Keeping debate open and lively is what keeps a politial system honest and effective, stifling debate can never be good for overall policy. Frankly, I think the overbearing, debate stifling manner the admin took early on in the war is coming back to haunt them (and the country) with a vengeance now. Better, more open debate early and often is key on ANY policy, I don't think wars should be any different.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

That's the difference between being [ahem] articulate and respectful and being ham-fistedly disrespectful.


I think "wasted" is your word. You are reading that into the poem. That's not in the poem. If the charge were being made in defense of a poor little orphan girl, then I'd hardly say their lives were wasted. Even in the context of the poem. I assume, though, that you could find a very pretty set of words in which someone is both honored and called "wasted".


I might not find any disrespect in it. You might not find any disrespect in it. Obama and mavdog might not either. But the question is whether the troops find it disrespectful.
Personally, I can't find much of any case where someone could tell me I've wasted my life and I wouldn't find that disrespectful. This goes double if the comment were in regards to the most important decisions I've made. Can you?

there is a difference between something be " a shame" and something being "disrespectful". Had I spent my whole life carving out a homestead in Oklahoma, only to see it all wiped away in the dustbowl years, it wouldn't be disrespectful to say that my efforts had (unfortunately) been wasted... its a damn shame, but not a sign of disrespect.

Would it make 'em happy? No.
Disrespectful? No, not that either.

I frankly wouldn't think that you would be one to want to stifle words simply because they would make someone feel bad about the choices they made, ESPECIALLY since THEIR choices were all good.

piss poor analogy (and one that I know is going to grate on you, but I'll say it anyway )but do you feel like Stanford U shouldn't give a student that tried really hard a bad grade on a paper that sucks? I mean, they DID try, no?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

no, kinda the opposite (maybe it ends up being the same).

my BROADEST point (about Iraq, sortof) was that when discussing current wars ....

ok. I get your point. I don't think there are actually a lot of people who would play the troop disrespect over every criticism of the war, though. And I think criticising how the war is run is different than telling the troops they are mercenaries, or that they've wasted their lives. For instance, telling a group "Here's how you can win" is different than telling them, "You'll never be able to win, you should quit." I think soldiers (and a lot of folk on the political right) are very sensitive to interpreting the comments of people on the left as members of that second type. And I think they have reason to.

I agree with you about the lack of discussion to start the war, too. Maybe if more ideas were considered, we could've avoided some of the mistakes we've made. On the other hand, if too many ideas were considered for too long, we and the Iraqi people would be at a different disadvantage now.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

there is a difference between something be " a shame" and something being "disrespectful". Had I spent my whole life carving out a homestead in Oklahoma, only to see it all wiped away in the dustbowl years, it wouldn't be disrespectful to say that my efforts had (unfortunately) been wasted... its a damn shame, but not a sign of disrespect.

How about if someone came to tell you your life was wasted while you were still farming, and by most farmers accounts, your farm was doing pretty good, even though it might not be as good as you'd first proclaimed, but was still doing a lot better than a lot of people warned you about?

but do you feel like Stanford U shouldn't give a student that tried really hard a bad grade on a paper that sucks? I mean, they DID try, no?

The student should get a bad grade, but the teacher should NOT say that the student's life was wasted in college.

[purplefrog]

It seems to me you can have wasted effort... or you may have wasted resources,.. but to say that the lives of our soldiers are wasted is just wrong. IMO, it's just not the same thing. Lives are precious and the lives of our soldiers who have died in this battle can never be considered a "waste". That's just going too far. Even if you think the war is misguided, a sham, or whatever, for the sake of the families of our soldiers and those who are still fighting in Iraq never say their lives are being wasted.

[mcsluggo]

ok. understood

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

First, to say invading Iraq was a mistake is to say that all those who volunteered to actually do the work made a mistake.

Actually, those are two very different things.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

Actually, those are two very different things.

no. If you say it's a mistake to do something then you say that anyone who choses to do that is making a mistake. Otherwise you are saying it's a mistake but choosing to do it isn't a mistake. If you want to say that not everyone who is in the US military agrees with what we've done in Iraq, that's one thing, but there are some who willingly chose to invade Iraq.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

no. If you say it's a mistake to do something then you say that anyone who choses to do that is making a mistake. Otherwise you are saying it's a mistake but choosing to do it isn't a mistake. If you want to say that not everyone who is in the US military agrees with what we've done in Iraq, that's one thing, but there are some who willingly chose to invade Iraq.

okay, well here's a question: How do we learn about mistakes? we usually dont know they are mistakes before we do them, but rather afterwards when the consequences start to take over.

"willingly chose to invade" - had they known what the consequences would have been, I wonder if they would still do it. Of course they are obligated to see it through now.

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

First, to say invading Iraq was a mistake is to say that all those who volunteered to actually do the work made a mistake.

If Obama said that invading Iraq was a mistake, nowhere does he say that "all who volunteered" was a mistake. you're just assuming that is what he meant, which may or may not be true. the point is, why cant you just take it at face value? why do you have to turn something into its most negative form?

[Mavdog]

wonder if he's giving credit to cesar chavez for "si, se puede"?
---------------------------------------------------------
Obama cheers diversity in South Carolina By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer
Fri Feb 16, 9:35 PM ET



Presidential hopeful Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) told thousands of cheering supporters Friday night that seeing such a racially diverse crowd in the shadow of the South Carolina statehouse would have surprised people a generation ago.

"Twenty years ago, nobody would have believed this crowd right here in South Carolina," Obama, a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois who is black, said during his first campaign visit to South Carolina.

Blacks make up about half the Democratic primary voters in the state, which will hold the first presidential primary in the South in 2008. More than half of the 1,000 tickets the party distributed for the Obama event were picked up by blacks, a party official said.

Earlier this week, a state legislator who is black said that if Obama won the nomination for president, it would lead to losses for Democrats in Congress and governorships.

"Everybody's entitled to their opinion," Obama told the crowd. "But I know this — that when folks were saying we're going to march for our freedom, somebody said we can't do that."

When others said blacks couldn't sit at lunch counters, blacks did that, said Obama, who ended his thought with the declaration, "Yes, we can." The crowd then started chanting the line.

Obama was to visit Claflin University, a historically black college, on Saturday before returning to Washington for a vote scheduled on an Iraq war resolution. He said Friday night that significant numbers of troops should be coming home from the Middle East by March 31, 2008, because the U.S. effort is not working.

"If people don't want to get along, we can't force them militarily to get along," he said.

Obama's South Carolina campaign is just getting off the ground. His two staffers have no statewide campaign experience, and in fundraising he is far behind his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, said Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen.

Clinton has already received endorsements from two key black leaders. "I don't see him beating Mrs. Clinton among blacks here," Thigpen said.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

if Obama said that invading Iraq was a mistake, nowhere does he say that "all who volunteered" was a mistake. you're just assuming that is what he meant, which may or may not be true. the point is, why cant you just take it at face value? why do you have to turn something into its most negative form?

??? You can't say action A is a mistake, but that choosing to perform action A is not a mistake. I'm not turning anything. They are the same thing. To pull up the school metaphor that was put out there earlier, if answering "d" on a test question is a mistake, then choosing to answer "d" is a mistake.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

??? You can't say action A is a mistake, but that choosing to perform action A is not a mistake. I'm not turning anything. They are the same thing. To pull up the school metaphor that was put out there earlier, if answering "d" on a test question is a mistake, then choosing to answer "d" is a mistake.

well, you've gone one step too far. if D is a mistake, then yes choosing D is a mistake. but the act of choosing is not a mistake. the act of volunteering was not a mistake.

[jacktruth]

Hill's Weak Spot -- She's Senator Stubborn
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Sunday, February 18, 2007

Sorry seems to be the hardest word for Hillary Clinton.

The New York senator is not used to being challenged on either her policy positions or her votes - especially when it comes to Iraq. For the last six years, she's operated in a protective bubble - insulated from the press and the voters.

Those days are over.

Since she entered the presidential race two weeks ago, she's learned quickly that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire - and most likely in the rest of the country - want truthful answers and won't accept scripted spin.

During the last week, wherever Hillary Clinton campaigned, she faced one dogged question that wouldn't go away: "Are you sorry for your 2002 vote in favor of invading Iraq?"

But try as they might, neither reporters nor voters can pry the "S" word out of Hillary. She refuses to apologize for voting to authorize the use of our military.

Instead, she repeats that she "takes responsibility" for her vote and that had she "known then what I know now," she would have voted against the resolution. She reiterates that she doesn't believe in "do-overs" and even tries to persuade her listeners that she never meant to vote for "pre-emptive war" and that she was actually voting to strengthen the weapons inspectors.

Iraq is not her mistake; it's President's Bush's mistake. End of story.

But the questions persist. So, why has she chosen to take on an unnecessary fight about whether to apologize for a vote she cast five years ago? Her fellow candidate John Edwards and 2004's Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, both have used the "S" word and apologized for their votes. Likely her advisers have warned that the perception that she flip-flops on the issues is a key negative and have urged her not to change her position. She doesn't want to look like Kerry in 2004.

But her refusal to apologize is typical of two other characteristics that so frequently land her in trouble: her stubbornness and belief that she is always right.

We've seen this before.

Urged to compromise on health-care reform in 1994, she refused. Counseled by most of her staff to release the Whitewater documents when The Washington Post first requested them, she said no and triggered the designation of a special prosecutor. When Whitewater co-conspirator Jim MacDougal suggested that he buy her out of the investment to avoid political embarrassment, she refused, saying that she planned to use the proceeds for Chelsea's college tuition. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit, Hillary vetoed that possibility, paving the way for her husband's impeachment.

When Hillary takes these positions, she believes that she is right - and no one can convince her otherwise.

When Hillary is right, this stubbornness is commendable. But when she is wrong, it is frustrating to her supporters and infuriating to her advisers.

But there's another reason for her stubbornness. Hillary, for all of her vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no ill or make no mistake.

Hillary wouldn't compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira Magaziner told her not to do so. She wouldn't release the Whitewater records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, advised against it. She wouldn't back off her support for the war partially because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster. Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why Hillary is stuck.

Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they're wrong. But Hillary can't tell the difference.

That's a key reason why she shouldn't be president.


Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com

[jacktruth]

McCain: Roe V. Wade Should Be Overturned

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, looking to improve his standing with the party's conservative voters, said Sunday the court decision that legalized abortion should be overturned.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.

McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

The landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade gave women the right to choose an abortion to terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the decision, with the presence of an increasing number of more conservative justices on the court raising the possibility that abortion rights would be limited.

Social conservatives are a critical voting bloc in the GOP presidential primaries.

McCain's campaign also announced early Sunday that he had been endorsed by former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who had been considering his own bid for the White House, and former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who failed in his bid for the Republican nomination in 1996.

Keating told the crowd that McCain is the "only candidate who is a true-blue, Ronald Reagan conservative."

McCain later attended an evening rally promoting an abstinence program. He told the crowd of more than 1,000 teens and parents that young people have pressures far different from the ones he faced while growing up. "Sometimes I've made the wrong choice," McCain said.

He also talked about his experience as a prisoner of war during Vietnam, and described some of the torture he suffered. His captors "wanted to make us do things that we otherwise wouldn't do," including confessing to war crimes, McCain said.

He and fellow prisoners were beat up for practicing their religion, but they continued to do it. "Sometimes it is very difficult to do the right thing," he said.

McCain has strong name recognition and the largest network of supporters in South Carolina. That backing comes in part from his staunch support for the Iraq war, something on which he focused a day earlier in Iowa. But it's the same state that dealt a crushing blow to his presidential aspirations in 2000.

McCain is trying to build support among conservatives after a recent rebuke from Christian leader James Dobson, who said he wouldn't back McCain's presidential bid. Conservatives question McCain's opposition to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He opposes same-sex marriage, but says it should be regulated by the states.

[purplefrog]

It seems that recent Presidential candidates named "John" tend to be a bit confused as to their positions on some issues. (compare to the recent article just posted by jacktruth to this 1999 article)
___________________________________________
McCain flips, flops and flips on abortion
Human Events, *Sep 3, 1999 *by D'Agostino, Joseph A

In a series of contradictory and convoluted statements over the past two weeks, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) signaled that he may do little to curtail abortion or reverse Roe v. Wade were he elected President. Roe is the 1973 decision that legalized abortion on demand in the United States.

In an August 19 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said: "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

"Kate Michelman could almost have made the statement he made," Dr. David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee (RTL), told HuMAN EVENTS's. Michelman heads the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). O'Steen was especially upset over the idea that abortion is somehow "necessary."

McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky insisted the senator has not backed away from his pro-life principles. "He will pick judges who share his values, who are strict constructionists," Opinsky said, but added that McCain would not impose any "litmus tests on any single issue." He said that the next President might well overturn Roe v. Wade through his Supreme Court appointments. "That's why it's so important to appoint constitutionalist judges," he said.

See John Dance
Asked about the "even the long-term" part of McCain's quote, Opinsky replied, "You're looking at one quote over a 17-year career." Asked if McCain regrets saying that or wishes to retract it, Opinsky said, "I think he clearly regrets having left the impression that he may not want to overturn Roe v. Wade."

But just two days after McCain was interviewed by the Chronicle, World magazine (in its Aug. 21, 1999, issue) reported on a recent McCain stump speech: "Though [McCain] insists he, personally, is `morally pro-life,' he said he would work to ensure that no voter felt 'excluded' from the GOP 'I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow,' he continued, because doing so would endanger the lives of women. He promised not to screen Supreme Court nominees for their opinion on Roe."

McCain made yet another similar statement on CNN's "Late Edition" on August 22. "We all know, and it's obvious;' he said, "that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."

In the year before Roe was decided, the Centers for Disease Control reported 39 deaths of mothers from illegal abortions and 27 from legal ones.

In the year before Roe was decided, the Centers for Disease Control reported 39 deaths of mothers from illegal abortions and 27 from legal ones.

McCain issued a written statement later in the day on August 22, pointing to his "strong and consistent pro-life voting record." "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and as President, I would work toward its repeal," he said.

But he also said, "If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations. I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro-choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country."

The next day, he wrote a letter to NRL President Dr. Wanda Franz. "Today, I am writing to clarify my unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade," he said. "My longstanding record in defense of the unborn has consistently received high marks from the National Right to Life Committee.... While we work to overturn Roe v. Wade we must promote policies that reduce the number of abortions."

O'Steen pointed out that Supreme Court appointments by the next President could indeed turn the balance on the court against Roe, which would restore to states the power to prohibit abortion.

"Right now, there's a 6-to-3 majority in favor of Roe;' he said, and pro-Roe Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens could leave the court during the next four years.

O'Steen contended that McCain's position on abortion differs from Gov. George W. Bush's, though Bush has also refused to make a litmus test of appointing only anti-Roe justices. "We think this is categorically different from Gov. Bush, who has said there are not enough votes to pass a human life constitutional amendment," he said. "That's true. . . But Bush has said he would seek to appoint judges who share his conservative philosophy and will interpret [the Constitution] according to its text. We are very comfortable with Gov. Bush's pro-life position."

Douglas Johnson, NRTL's legislative director, said in a statement, "This opportunistic flip-flop demonstrates that McCain will sacrifice any principle in order to curry favor with certain political elites, in an attempt to further his personal political ambition."

Other pro-life leaders are not happy with either McCain's or Bush's position. "His position is the same as Bush's," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League.

[jacktruth]

McCain and Romney have a problem here. Romney is significantly more convincing, but still has a problem. Guilianni probably has the upper hand by not changing positions. Mainly because the middle will at least see him as honest.

Flip-flopping will be a measuring stick for a while. Because Iraq is a much bigger issue than abortion right now, I would say Hillary has the bigger problem. Not only is she vague, indecisive, and an obscenely partisan panderer, she is also hard to like.

[Mavdog]

Obama reshaping Texas politics

In fast-moving race, black leaders must decide on choice early


06:54 AM CST on Monday, February 19, 2007
By GROMER JEFFERS JR. / The Dallas Morning News
gjeffers@dallasnews.com

Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk is usually deliberate, even cautious, about his endorsements.

But that was before Sen. Barack Obama emerged as a contender for the Democratic nomination for president. Mr. Kirk concedes that even he, as a seasoned politician, is caught up in Obamamania.

In Texas and elsewhere, the phenomenon is causing an early and unexpected split among the party's most loyal supporters: black voters.

"My decision is probably not about any political analysis or reason," Mr. Kirk said. "I am just an unashamed and unabashed believer in Barack Obama. It has everything to do with my personal exposure to him and belief in his intellect and his extraordinary political instincts."

Mr. Kirk's endorsement of Mr. Obama, so early in the fight for the presidency, signals a growing campaign within the campaign. Before Mr. Obama of Illinois entered the presidential contest, black voters were expected to favor the candidacy of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband, former President Bill Clinton, remains popular with the Democratic Party's most loyal base.

In Texas, leaders also were pondering whether to support John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee who has the most entrenched Lone Star campaign.

But now that Mr. Obama is seeking to become the country's first black president, he could take black voters away from Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and other candidates.

With the race for president already raging, black business and political leaders in Texas and across the country must decide soon whether to join Mr. Obama's historic effort or support Mrs. Clinton's bid to become the first woman elected president.

Early support could be vital – and thus rewarded by the winning candidate. If Texas moves its primary up next year to be a bigger player in the nominating process, as the Legislature is considering, movers and shakers in both parties could play an important role in ultimately choosing the Republican and Democratic hopefuls.

Mr. Kirk, the city's first black mayor and the 2002 Democratic nominee for Senate, understands the dynamic, adding that Mr. Obama has a Tiger Woods quality that makes him appealing to all ethnic groups.

"My support of Barack is not an indictment at all of Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards, both of whom I have supported and have the highest regards for," Mr. Kirk said. "But timing in politics can be everything, and there is something magical about Barack Obama that will stand beyond the excitement of the moment."

Other black leaders are not as enthusiastic – indeed, their experience leads them to be more pessimistic about Mr. Obama's chances.

"Those of us who understand politics realized that he can't win the nomination," said Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, who hasn't decided whom to support yet. "It's early now, and people are excited. But he just won't have the resources and the money to compete with Hillary Clinton and the rest of the field. And don't forget: This is a nomination process with delegates. It's not an election, it's a nomination."

David Bositis, who studies the black electorate as a senior analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, agrees that Mr. Obama will have a challenge getting past Mrs. Clinton. After all, her husband was so popular with black America that some comedians dubbed him the country's first black president.


Voting bloc

"There's no guarantee Obama is going to get the African-American vote," Mr. Bositis said. "She's a Clinton, and last time I checked, the name Clinton was a big deal for African-Americans."

Black voters have become the Democratic Party's most reliable voting bloc and have powered the candidacy of various presidential contenders.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson and key members of his campaign influenced Democratic politics for years based on the civil-rights activist's two presidential runs. Much of his support came from blacks.

And while few thought Mr. Jackson could ever win the nomination, "it's a different dynamic with Obama than with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton," said state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston. "Obama would be the first candidate that is African-American that would be considered a mainstream candidate for president. He's supported by as many Anglos than African-Americans, maybe more."

Mr. Coleman, who is routinely a delegate to the convention that formally nominates the party's standard-bearer, said that the early jockeying is somewhat overheated because few voters have tuned in.

"The average black voter isn't paying attention," Mr. Coleman said. "Most voters aren't paying attention. Call me in the fall."


Texas sessions

Still, the candidates are lining up big-name supporters in important cities and states. Mr. Obama campaigned last weekend in South Carolina, which over the years has been the first state with a sizable black population to have a presidential primary. Mr. Obama's supporters will gather in a Dallas hotel tonight. The senator is scheduled to appear at the University of Texas in Austin on Friday.

Texas Democrats are still trying to figure out the state's place in the budding race, but Matt Angle, head of the Democratic Lone Star Project, said Mr. Obama's candidacy reshapes the political landscape.

"Clearly Barack Obama entering the race has a more dramatic effect on Hillary Clinton than John Edwards, not just with black supporters, but also with progressive Anglos," Mr. Angle said. "There are those who have questions about Clinton's viability to win the election. Barack Obama gives them another place to go."

But the battle-hardened organization that will push Mrs. Clinton gives her the edge, some analysts say.

"Hillary's got the advantage, the money and the resources," said Kelly Fero, an Austin-based consultant. "The expectations around Obama are so high. I don't see Jesus Christ meeting those expectations."

Dallas developer David Willis, a frequent donor to political candidates and causes, is supporting Mrs. Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton is the better of the two candidates," said Mr. Willis, who is black. "It takes more than a one-termer in the Senate to run the United States of America. I want to put my money behind the candidate who is best for the people."

Other factors could determine how much black support Mr. Obama takes from Mrs. Clinton.

Throughout his career, Mr. Obama – whose mother was white and father was black – has battled complaints from black peers that his message is too vanilla and his persona too white. Others have said his problem is less race and more ideology; they say he's too liberal to be elected president.

In 2000, he lost a congressional race to Rep. Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther.

Whatever his past, his candidacy is inspiring many to volunteer and support him. His election to the Senate and his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention made him a star. After his convention speech, Mrs. Clinton introduced him at various political caucuses as the man of the hour.

Mr. Kirk said even his teenage daughters and their friends are fans. "I bring up Barack Obama, I might as well say I'm bringing Justin Timberlake over," Mr. Kirk said. "It's incredible how excited they are about him."


FACTORS AFFECTING VOTER SUPPORT

The Gallup/USA TODAY poll recently asked whether respondents would vote for their party's nominee if he or she were of a certain race, religion or age. The results:

94% would vote for a black candidate (5% would not)

87% would vote for a Hispanic hopeful (12% would not)

88% would vote for a woman (11% would not)

92% would vote for a Jewish candidate (7% would not)

95% would vote for a Catholic candidate (4% would not)

72% would vote for a Mormon (24% would not)

45% would vote for an atheist (53% would not)

57% would vote for a 72-year-old (42% would not)

55% would vote for a gay candidate (43% would not)

[Mavdog]

McCain: Rumsfeld was one of the worst By BRUCE SMITH, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago



Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history.

"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that's the kindest word I can give you — of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator told an overflow crowd of more than 800 at a retirement community near Hilton Head Island, S.C. "The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously."

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, complained that Rumsfeld never put enough troops on the ground to succeed in Iraq.

"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause.

The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain's statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief.

"While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," McCain said last year when Rumsfeld stepped down.

On a two-day campaign swing in South Carolina, McCain fielded questions from the crowd for more than an hour and said the United States can succeed in Iraq with additional troops and a new strategy. McCain has been a strong proponent of using more troops and favors Bush's increase of some 21,500 U.S. forces in the nearly four-year-old war.

"I have been saying for 3 1/2 years that we would be in this sad situation and this critical situation we are in today," he said.

McCain's bid for president was sidetracked in South Carolina in 2000 after a victory in New Hampshire. George W. Bush won the primary here and went on to win the nomination and White House.

"In life, one of the worst things you can do is hold a grudge," he said. "I felt the important thing for me to do with my life was to move forward after we lost our race. You have seen other people who have lost who mire themselves in bitterness and self pity. That's not what my life is all about."

Some in the crowd were Bush supporters who have not yet decided on a 2008 candidate.

"It's too early to say," said Paul Baker, a retiree from Niagara Falls, N.Y., who has lived in South Carolina about four years. "I'm just going to wait it out and see what happens."

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

94% would vote for a black candidate (5% would not)

87% would vote for a Hispanic hopeful (12% would not)

88% would vote for a woman (11% would not)

92% would vote for a Jewish candidate (7% would not)

95% would vote for a Catholic candidate (4% would not)

72% would vote for a Mormon (24% would not)

45% would vote for an atheist (53% would not)

57% would vote for a 72-year-old (42% would not)

55% would vote for a gay candidate (43% would not)

I had no idea atheists were so unpopular.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

McCain: Rumsfeld was one of the worst By BRUCE SMITH, Associated Press Writer
53 minutes ago
Republican presidential candidate John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Monday the war in Iraq has been mismanaged for years and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will be remembered as one of the worst in history.

McCain is a joke. He's going to lose the nomination faster than he did to Bush. The middle isn't going to win you an election. You have to actually either be a republican or a democrat as well. If you piss off the party that appears after your name, you win nothing. With any luck, "nothing" is what will appear after his name when his senate seat comes for reelection.

[dude1394]

McCain does absolutely NOTHING for me.

[Five-ofan]

if mccain gets the nomination, i REALLY hope Obama gets the democratic nomination because i would vote for him.

[Usually Lurkin]

McCain did say, flatly, that RoeVWade needs to be overturned. I prefer that to Giuliani's position of trying to juggle personal support for public abortion funding and promises to appoint judges that might not be in favor of that ruling.

[MavKikiNYC]

Odd ploy by McCain--hard to see whose support he's trying to gain with this kind of assessment. Difficult to imagine him pulling much support from the left-of-center by simply trashing Rumsfeld; more likely that he'll alienate the ultra-rational (and seemingly narrowing) segment of voters who remain steadfastly pro-national security.

Also will be interesting to see if the extremists on the Faaaaar Right just move themselves out of the Republican party altogether by refusing to support a candidate who does not completely align with their monomaniacally narrow view on a single issue.

It's as if they'd rather have a politician (Hillary? Obama?) against whom they can thrash and wail with unbridled enthusiasm, rather than one (McCain? Giuliani?) to whom they have to show measured support. Sounds as if even the fundagelicals will enjoy donning the victim's cap for 4-8 years.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Odd ploy by McCain--hard to see whose support he's trying to gain with this kind of assessment. Difficult to imagine him pulling much support from the left-of-center by simply trashing Rumsfeld; more likely that he'll alienate the ultra-rational (and seemingly narrowing) segment of voters who remain steadfastly pro-national security.

Also will be interesting to see if the extremists on the Faaaaar Right just move themselves out of the Republican party altogether by refusing to support a candidate who does not completely align with their monomaniacally narrow view on a single issue.

It's as if they'd rather have a politician (Hillary? Obama?) against whom they can thrash and wail with unbridled enthusiasm, rather than one (McCain? Giuliani?) to whom they have to show measured support. Sounds as if even the fundagelicals will enjoy donning the victim's cap for 4-8 years.

conservatives already did this in the last election when they decided they'd rather not keep voting for big spending republicans. Not voting for someone who doesn't view the role of government the same as you is pretty much what elections are for. Whether politicians align their policy to fit the voters is another issue.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Not voting for someone who doesn't view the role of government the same as you is pretty much what elections are for.

That's an interesting perspective, but I think it supports my suspicion.

Sometimes the rational voter has to pick between "undesirable" and "less desirable" to stay relevant.

I know several Republicans whose social views didn't completely align with what the Republican party was articulating, but who supported Bush anyway, because Kerry (and Gore before him) was such a cypher.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Sometimes the rational voter has to pick between "undesirable" and "less desirable" to stay relevant.

At some point, the choice "lesser of two evils" can't be made. At an extreme is the offer to shoot one of your children or be shot yourself. Quite a bit further back are all the issues that one-issue voters run into: abortion, border security, environmental protection, limited government, no blood for oil, etc. etc. Voters can view all available political positions so reprehensible that they abstain from voting. Sometimes maybe they for a sure-loser like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. But if they don't lose their poilitical voice, then their influence and relevance can remain for future elections to draw a party back to that issue.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

At some point, the choice "lesser of two evils" can't be made. At an extreme is the offer to shoot one of your children or be shot yourself.

Wow. Some people might consider that a terrible analogy, but I just consider it a remarkable insight into the psyche of an individual. I'm guessing that for most parents, that's not such a quandry.

Voters can view all available political positions so reprehensible that they abstain from voting. Sometimes maybe they for a sure-loser like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot. But if they don't lose their poilitical voice, then their influence and relevance can remain for future elections to draw a party back to that issue.

Opting out of the process for an election cycle or two seems like a fairly risky proposition--you gotta play to win. So much can change in the course of 4 years (not to mention 8), and the issues that were so white-hot crucial at Time 1 can be a lot less relevant at Time 2.

I'm not sure that I personally have a problem with extreme perspectives being filtered out of the 2008 election, but objectively it just doesn't appear to be in the best interests of the voters holding those views not to participate.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Wow. Some people might consider that a terrible analogy, but I just consider it a remarkable insight into the psyche of an individual. I'm guessing that for most parents, that's not such a quandry.

I wrote the choice poorly. The analogy is the choice between which kid to shoot. The consequence of not choosing is being shot. Do you think most parents would choose between their kids?

Opting out of the process for an election cycle or two seems like a fairly risky proposition--you gotta play to win.

I think it worked for the nutso anti-war crowd. They were irrelevant for a while, but when the fiscal conservatives shut up because they were unhappy, the Repubs were vulnerable, and the anti war crowd was the loudest voice out there. I think that helped stick Pelosi where she is, and gave Murtha the power he's (trying to) wield.

[purplefrog]

Question:
If it is McCain vs Hillary what percentage of Republican party members that typically vote in in the Presidential election just stay home?

Answer:
0%

Why?
In addition to all of Hillary's faults, the idea of Bill Clinton being back in the White House is just too much to take.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

At some point, the choice "lesser of two evils" can't be made. At an extreme is the offer to shoot one of your children or be shot yourself.

While I very much agree with the assessment, I might offer a different analogy. The choice is really like a choice to have group "a" shoot your children or group "b" gang rape your children, and then being told that if you don't choose one or the other you're just wasting your vote or you don't have a right to complain.

[mcsluggo]

So....

are the choices these days so much worse than they were in the past? if so, why?

It seems like we have 4 coices (or some combination):

1) Candidates are just as good as they ever where, YOU just are paying more attention
2) Candidates are just as good as they ever where, the opposition/media/pundits/etc... have just gotten much better at eviscerating them, so they SEEM worse
3) Canditates have declined (largely because of 2-- why the hell would the real superstars subject themselves to that crap when they can just run goldman-sachs and become a bilionaire instead)
4) Candidates have declined, because society has declined... we are all f**ked.

I find it hard to believe that we just aren't putting out the same quality of people as we did inthe past (4), so either the creme-de-la-creme aren't going for the brass ring as much as they did, or we are just getting better at ripping 'em down.

I think #2 is the most correct answer.

[dude1394]

I agree with #2. It's sort of sad for folks to think that all public servants are just crooks. They could easily be happier and more prosperous in other places.

[alexamenos]

I'd go with number 5:

5. Candidates are just as crooked as ever, but the scope and power of the Federal Government is so frighteningly large that's much more of a problem now than ever before.

[Mavdog]

Clinton, Obama trade barbs over donor By NEDRA PICKLER
2 hours, 32 minutes ago



Two Democratic presidential campaigns accused the other of nasty politics on Wednesday over a Hollywood donor who once backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband but now backs her top rival.

Amid the accusations in tit-for-tat news releases, Clinton tried to remain above the fray.

"I'm just going to stay focused on my campaign and I'm going to run a positive campaign about the issues that affect the people in our country," she said in a brief interview with The Associated Press

While attending a candidates' forum in Nevada, Clinton left it to her campaign to keep up the war of words and deal with questions about whether the response was excessive. "We'll let others decide that," she said.

The Clinton campaign sent out a testy news release after DreamWorks movie studio founder David Geffen, a fan of Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), told The New York Times that Sen. Clinton was ambitious and polarizing.

"CLINTON CAMP TO OBAMA: CUT TIES & RETURN CASH AFTER TOP BOOSTERS VICIOUS ATTACKS," screamed the headline of the news release.

Geffen hosted a $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama on Tuesday and is backing the Illinois senator.

The Clinton campaign argued that Obama had vowed to bring a more civil tone to the debate — a platform that has been drawing large crowds — and Geffen's words amounted to "slash and burn" politics.

Geffen was once a top donor to former President Clinton, but said in the interview that Clinton is "a reckless guy" and he doesn't think Sen. Clinton can bring the country together during a time of war, no matter how smart or ambitious she is. Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said there is no room in the campaign for such "personal insults."

"If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," Wolfson said.

The Obama campaign declined to denounce Geffen or give back any money but issued its own statement in response, criticizing Clinton.

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Then Gibbs added another criticism of Clinton.

"It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because 'he's black,'" Gibbs' statement said.

Ford drew widespread criticism for his comment and later apologized, and Clinton said she appreciated his apology.

That prompted another response from the Clinton camp.

"How can Senator Obama denounce the politics of slash and burn yesterday while his own campaign is espousing the politics of trash today?" Wolfson asked in a news release.

Geffen did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Fundraising is critical to the candidates, underscored by an appeal from former President Clinton to raise $1 million in netroots contributions over the next week for his wife's candidacy.

"All across the country, Hillary is campaigning with the signature wisdom, grace, and humor that make her a great candidate," Bill Clinton said in the letter. "I know that if we all work hard enough, those same traits will make her an even better president."

The former president, who is pictured on the letter with his arms wrapped lovingly around his wife, also warns that "with Republicans using everything in their arsenal to stop her campaign, Hillary is going to need every one of us to do everything that we can for her. "

[jacktruth]

"It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

That's funny stuff.

[Usually Lurkin]

Bill could feel your pain.
Hillary can feel your . . . accent?
http://www.ifilm.com/profile/breitbart/video/2829104

Maybe she's like that guy from Heroes. But what happens when she speaks to the UN? Will she absorb so many accents that she explodes?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Bill could feel your pain.
Hillary can feel your . . . accent?
http://www.ifilm.com/profile/breitbart/video/2829104

Maybe she's like that guy from Heroes. But what happens when she speaks to the UN? Will she absorb so many accents that she explodes?

Maybe she could absorb a nice foot up her ass, that stupid &itch.

She looks like a damned idiot talking like that, so that makes me happy.