General Pres. Candidate 08 Thread

[jacktruth]

Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Obama's Metaphor Problem

Posted by Dean Barnett | 10:40 AM

According to the New York Times, Barack Obama has a friendship with a controversial pastor, one Jeremiah A. Wright. Obama is making efforts to distance himself from Wright, who once was the pastor of Obama’s church.

“When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, “with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.
As keen-eyed readers will note, snowballs in hell don’t dry up. They melt. Can we really trust a presidential candidate who cozies up to people with such flimsy control over their metaphors?

And this problem extends to Obama himself. During his Bloody Sunday commemoration speech in Selma on Sunday, Obama said that the events of Bloody Sunday prodded his parents (one black, one white) to marry. Only problem is, his parents married three years before bloody Sunday. Obama defended this misstep by saying he was speaking metaphorically about the effects that the entire Civil Rights movement had on his parents.

I tried this at home last night when Mrs. Soxblog challenged me on an apparent untruth I had told about emptying the dishwasher. I told her that I was speaking metaphorically about my general efforts to keep the house tidy and that she shouldn’t be confused by my clumsy reference to the dishwasher. Sadly, my ruse didn’t work. Oh, to have even a touch of that Obama magic!

[alexamenos]

in the event that the international communist lesbian lizard queen isn't to your liking, you may be able to vote for a thrice-divorced, pro-baby killing fascist (aka, the Conservative Candidate):

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. . . .

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy.

yeah, right, freedom is about authority...and war is peace, and ignorance is strength, etc., etc....

[jacktruth]

The end of John Edwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

[Usually Lurkin]

Well if the first actor is a joke (Walken), I think I can get behind this one:




http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm



http://draftfredthompson.com/


he's even played President in the movies, so he's got experience.

http://www.lastbestchance.org/

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

in the event that the international communist lesbian lizard queen isn't to your liking, you may be able to vote for a thrice-divorced, pro-baby killing fascist (aka, the Conservative Candidate):

yeah, right, freedom is about authority...and war is peace, and ignorance is strength, etc., etc....

your comments read like you are an anarchist....

in all due respect to rudy, here is the rest of the attributed comments in that speech:

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was among the speakers on Wednesday at a forum about crime in the cities, sponsored by The New York Post. The Mayor discussed how crime and law enforcement had changed in New York over several decades, and how society had changed. Here is an excerpt, as transcribed by The New York Times.

We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

[ Another interruption. ]

At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .

The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.

so it seems that rudy is saying that there are limitations to individual freedom, and that recognizing those limits ("to cede to lawful authority") is a bedrock of a free society, and an important part of how we deal with each other.

I don't have a real disagreement with that concept, do you?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your comments read like you are an anarchist....

in all due respect to rudy, here is the rest of the attributed comments in that speech:


so it seems that rudy is saying that there are limitations to individual freedom, and that recognizing those limits ("to cede to lawful authority") is a bedrock of a free society, and an important part of how we deal with each other.

I don't have a real disagreement with that concept, do you?

Yes

Conservatives once upon a time argued that the bedrock of a free society is in the moral character of the citizenry--that obedience to the authority of God is the source of freedom in society. Ethical behavior is what Rudy is talking about when he says 'we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based.'

then Rudy pulls the bait and switch...."Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Make no mistake, his interest here is in making an argument for the need to cede "greater discretion" (power) to the "legal authority" (him). What Rudy the baby-killin' hedonist totalitarian has done is twisted a classic conservative argument for obedience to God into a perverted argument for obedience to Government.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes

Conservatives once upon a time argued that the bedrock of a free society is in the moral character of the citizenry--that obedience to the authority of God is the source of freedom in society. Ethical behavior is what Rudy is talking about when he says 'we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based.'

then Rudy pulls the bait and switch...."Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Make no mistake, his interest here is in making an argument for the need to cede "greater discretion" (power) to the "legal authority" (him). What Rudy the baby-killin' hedonist totalitarian has done is twisted a classic conservative argument for obedience to God into a perverted argument for obedience to Government.

cheers

seems the answer is yes, you are an anarchist.

that is a conservative argument? funny, I've never heard nor read any "conservative" put forth the concept that there is no need for a "lawful authority" to insure our freedoms. yes, the classical pholosphy of conservatism is limited government authority, but not an absence of government authority such as you state.

under the guidlines that you attribute to conservatism it would be impossible for an atheist to be a conservative. that is ridiculous. Conservatism is a political philosophy, not a religious one.

and also, I'm not aware of rudy "killin'" any "baby". if you can show that he did, fill us all in...

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Well if the first actor is a joke (Walken), I think I can get behind this one:

He's definately got that killer smile.

[Mavdog]

it's getting fun to watch these two spar...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton, Obama rivalry flares over Iraq By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago



Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) Wednesday pushed back against accusations that his oft-repeated opposition to the Iraq war was not borne out by his Senate record.

In a conference call with reporters, Obama sought to squelch the accusations — raised by the campaign of his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton — saying his Senate votes to continue funding the conflict don't contradict his long-standing opposition to it.

"Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can. More importantly, you make sure the troops are supported," the Illinois senator said. "I don't think there's any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in, once we were in we had to make the best of a bad situation."

Earlier in the day on the Senate floor, Obama reminded colleagues of a speech he gave in 2002 warning of grave consequences if the U.S. invaded Iraq.

It was the latest flare-up in an escalating spat with Clinton, who is under fire from many Democratic activists for her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq and whose lead in political polls is being eroded by Obama.

Clinton's lead strategist, Mark Penn, told an audience this week that Obama's votes on the war since he arrived in the Senate in 2005 had been identical to Clinton's.

With both candidates' credibility on the line, Obama said he wanted to make his record clear.

Obama has cast his early and forceful opposition to the war as a key test of presidential leadership and judgment. The Clinton team recently began openly challenging his claim of political purity and authenticity on the volatile issue.

Beneath the squabble lay an acute recognition of the depth of voter anger over Iraq, especially among Democratic primary voters.

Polling shows most Americans now decisively oppose the war, but the figure is much higher among Democrats. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month found that 61 percent of the public now believe the war was a mistake; among Democrats, it was 91 percent.

"Iraq is the issue that is first among equals right now, and these candidates are under incredible pressure from party activists to talk about it in a detailed way," Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. "Obama is trying to be the insurgent candidate on the war, while the Clinton campaign is trying to level the playing field and change the frame of the debate."

On the presidential campaign trail, without naming names, Obama jabs at rivals who voted in favor of the invasion.

"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers at a rally Saturday in Oakland, Calif., "that I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

Clinton, meanwhile, has refused to repudiate her vote but has harshly criticized the conduct of the war, saying "if we knew then what we know now" she never would have voted as she did.

Clinton advisers insist that voters care more about ending the Iraq conflict than revisiting how it started. In recent months, Clinton has sponsored legislation capping troop levels and has spoken in detail of how she would resolve the conflict as president.

Still, the Clinton camp — keenly aware of Obama's increasing popularity among Democrats — has become more aggressive in challenging his careful positioning on the war. The first signs of a new strategy trickled out late last week, when former President Clinton was quoted in a New York tabloid gossip column complaining that not enough attention had been paid to Obama's Senate votes on Iraq.

At a Harvard University forum Monday, Penn answered a question by bringing up Obama's Senate record. He said Obama, like Clinton, has voted for spending bills to continue funding the war. And like Clinton, he opposed an amendment sponsored by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry last year that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for withdrawing troops.

"When they got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes were exactly the same," Penn said.

The claims provoked an immediate retort from the Obama campaign, which on Tuesday released a video and a detailed compilation of Obama's public statements opposing the war since his debut on the national stage.

"On the most important issue of our time, both for the primary electorate and the country, Barack Obama got it right," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Clinton and Obama both support legislation that would remove most U.S. troops by March 1, 2008.

For her part, Clinton refused on Tuesday to engage in the debate, leaving that to her surrogates.

"I think what unites Democrats is much greater than what divides us and we need to stay focused on trying to rein in the president and reverse this escalation and begin to bring our troops home," she said.

[alexamenos]

among other things...

Originally Posted by Mavdog

under the guidlines that you attribute to conservatism it would be impossible for an atheist to be a conservative..

no it wouldn't -- i harbor my own questions and quibbles re the nature and existence of a big dude in the sky, but I'm nonetheless quite comfortable with the argument that obedience to God is the bedrock of civil society (hint: even if said obedience is nothing more than a silly ole superstition, it's still the best we've got). this is classicly conservative on many levels...

.....it surprises me not that you mistake a baby killin' hedonist's plea for more power as "conservative", given the incredibly sorry state of conservative thought these days.

politely as I may -- I know the establishment liberal arguments by rote and I find them most uncompelling. pardon me if i'm curt.

and pardon curt if he's carl.

cheers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

among other things...

no it wouldn't -- i harbor my own questions and quibbles re the nature and existence of a big dude in the sky, but I'm nonetheless quite comfortable with the argument that obedience to God is the bedrock of civil society (hint: even if said obedience is nothing more than a silly ole superstition, it's still the best we've got). this is classicly conservative on many levels...

.....it surprises me not that you mistake a baby killin' hedonist's plea for more power as "conservative", given the incredibly sorry state of conservative thought these days.

politely as I may -- I know the establishment liberal arguments by rote and I find them most uncompelling. pardon me if i'm curt.

and pardon curt if he's carl.

cheers

still waiting on the "baby" rudy is guilty of "killin'"

with the pervasiveness of laws and "do nots" that permeate our society, it does not register that rudy is seeking "more power" with the philospohical discussion in the aforementioned speech, and it certainly isn't apparent that he suggests, implies or asks for the same.

in fact, the underlying message that rudy seems to make is that there are reasons for our laws, and those laws which restrict in individual right to do anything they wish have a inrefutable basis for being.

it surprises me not that you are critical of "the incredibly sorry state of conservative thought these days" as none of the conservatives (or, at least none who have an iota of realism to them) expouse the need for no governmental authority such as you apparently advocate.

and how do any "establishment liberal arguments" which you may have memorized "by rote" have anything to do with the statements by rudy?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

still waiting on the "baby" rudy is guilty of "killin'"

with the pervasiveness of laws and "do nots" that permeate our society, it does not register that rudy is seeking "more power" with the philospohical discussion in the aforementioned speech, and it certainly isn't apparent that he suggests, implies or asks for the same.

in fact, the underlying message that rudy seems to make is that there are reasons for our laws, and those laws which restrict in individual right to do anything they wish have a inrefutable basis for being.

it surprises me not that you are critical of "the incredibly sorry state of conservative thought these days" as none of the conservatives (or, at least none who have an iota of realism to them) expouse the need for no governmental authority such as you apparently advocate.

and how do any "establishment liberal arguments" which you may have memorized "by rote" have anything to do with the statements by rudy?

duly noted.

cheers

[usafreedom3]

A true Reagan Conservative, and exactly what this nation needs.
Check out this site and get on board!!!

http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php

God Bless America!

[wmbwinn]

In a conference call with reporters, Obama sought to squelch the accusations — raised by the campaign of his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton — saying his Senate votes to continue funding the conflict don't contradict his long-standing opposition to it.

"Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can. More importantly, you make sure the troops are supported," the Illinois senator said. "I don't think there's any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in, once we were in we had to make the best of a bad situation."

Earlier in the day on the Senate floor, Obama reminded colleagues of a speech he gave in 2002 warning of grave consequences if the U.S. invaded Iraq.

It was the latest flare-up in an escalating spat with Clinton, who is under fire from many Democratic activists for her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq and whose lead in political polls is being eroded by Obama.

Clinton's lead strategist, Mark Penn, told an audience this week that Obama's votes on the war since he arrived in the Senate in 2005 had been identical to Clinton's.

With both candidates' credibility on the line, Obama said he wanted to make his record clear.

Obama has cast his early and forceful opposition to the war as a key test of presidential leadership and judgment. The Clinton team recently began openly challenging his claim of political purity and authenticity on the volatile issue.

Beneath the squabble lay an acute recognition of the depth of voter anger over Iraq, especially among Democratic primary voters.

Polling shows most Americans now decisively oppose the war, but the figure is much higher among Democrats. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month found that 61 percent of the public now believe the war was a mistake; among Democrats, it was 91 percent.

"Iraq is the issue that is first among equals right now, and these candidates are under incredible pressure from party activists to talk about it in a detailed way," Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. "Obama is trying to be the insurgent candidate on the war, while the Clinton campaign is trying to level the playing field and change the frame of the debate."

On the presidential campaign trail, without naming names, Obama jabs at rivals who voted in favor of the invasion.

"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers at a rally Saturday in Oakland, Calif., "that I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

Clinton, meanwhile, has refused to repudiate her vote but has harshly criticized the conduct of the war, saying "if we knew then what we know now" she never would have voted as she did.

Clinton advisers insist that voters care more about ending the Iraq conflict than revisiting how it started. In recent months, Clinton has sponsored legislation capping troop levels and has spoken in detail of how she would resolve the conflict as president.

Still, the Clinton camp — keenly aware of Obama's increasing popularity among Democrats — has become more aggressive in challenging his careful positioning on the war. The first signs of a new strategy trickled out late last week, when former President Clinton was quoted in a New York tabloid gossip column complaining that not enough attention had been paid to Obama's Senate votes on Iraq.

At a Harvard University forum Monday, Penn answered a question by bringing up Obama's Senate record. He said Obama, like Clinton, has voted for spending bills to continue funding the war. And like Clinton, he opposed an amendment sponsored by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry last year that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for withdrawing troops.

"When they got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes were exactly the same," Penn said.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I stole the above from the article quoted earlier.

This basically re-affirms exactly what I thought previously.

1)These Democrats voted for the war including Obama
2)These Democrats don't intend to withdraw funding including Obama
3)These Democrats may talk about withdrawing troops but they are backpedalling and admitting that they can't just leave Iraq.
4)These Democrats are finally sitting down and actually talking about strategy and plans to succeed in Iraq and at least leave a workable solution there for our security and that of Europe and the Middle East.
5)Politics is all impression and lies (partial truths).

Obama is among the leading candidates to say things like the "war is wrong" and "we should withdraw" and "we have to reign in this president". But, Obama is not going to withdraw the troops until we are successful (and all of you that think that will happen by 2008 need to take the joint away from your mouth). Obama is not going to withdraw funding. And, no one knows what Obama and Hillary have planned for a strategy that is substantially different than what Bush and the military planners are already working on.

The Democrats are just capitalizing on American emotion to win elections. The cost is that our enemies read the news also and they are as dumb as Americans to believe that US politicians actually intend to withdraw troops or reduce spending or take any other measure that might cause an outcome that is short of at least workable and at best a surprising success.

Nothing accomplished except deluding Americans, embrazening our enemies, demoralizing our troops, confusing our Iraqi allies, emboldening Iran, angering Russia, straining our alliance with Britain, scaring our Israeli allies, losing influence in Turkey, irritating Saudi Arabia (sunni), increasing the military planning of Lebanese and Syrian and Iranian generals, and increasing the liklihood of our failure.

All to win an election...

[Mavdog]

interesting endorsement. not sure if it's significant, but interesting nonetheless.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tax cut advocate Forbes endorses Giuliani in NY
Wed Mar 28, 11:16 AM ET

Fiscal conservative Steve Forbes on Wednesday endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's bid to become the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 race for the White House.

Forbes, chief executive of Forbes magazine who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 1996 and 2000, is considered a leader of the party's pro-business and tax-cutting wings.

"He is the man who can lead America in a world that is uncertain, fight the forces of evil and at the same time increase economic opportunity here at home," Forbes told a press conference.

Giuliani's Republican credentials have been questioned by some social conservatives in the party but he nevertheless is leading in early polls. Earlier this month he was endorsed by conservative Sen. David Vitter (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana despite Giuliani's past support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

interesting endorsement. not sure if it's significant, but interesting nonetheless.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tax cut advocate Forbes endorses Giuliani in NY
Wed Mar 28, 11:16 AM ET

Fiscal conservative Steve Forbes on Wednesday endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani's bid to become the Republican nominee for president in the 2008 race for the White House.

Forbes, chief executive of Forbes magazine who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination in 1996 and 2000, is considered a leader of the party's pro-business and tax-cutting wings.

"He is the man who can lead America in a world that is uncertain, fight the forces of evil and at the same time increase economic opportunity here at home," Forbes told a press conference.

Giuliani's Republican credentials have been questioned by some social conservatives in the party but he nevertheless is leading in early polls. Earlier this month he was endorsed by conservative Sen. David Vitter (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana despite Giuliani's past support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights.

You know, I think the phrase "forces of evil" needs to go. Evil men, ok. Aside from that, we just need to sound less supernatural. The only way to stop the "force" of evil is to defeat satan himself, which is solely to accomplishment of Christ. Though not all American's believe in Christ, they hare sensitive enough to be leary of anybody claiming to be supernatural with the phrase "defeat the forces of evil." Just a tuesday thought on wednesday.

[Mavdog]

everybody is trying to say they're doing what they can about their use (except guiliani....), can't help but note that hillary's camp doesn't have to actually do a thing by saying "it's not our decision".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Campaigns save energy with hybrid cars
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

This year's presidential candidates are trying to get good mileage out of getting good mileage. The candidates, who do a lot of talking about the need for greater energy efficiency, are not just asking who walks the walk but also, who drives the hybrid?

Democratic candidate John Edwards makes a point of telling people that after years of driving a regular sport utility vehicle, he and his wife bought a hybrid model to shuttle their kids, strollers, toys, luggage and other stuff between Washington, D.C., and North Carolina.

This month, Edwards announced his campaign would be "carbon-neutral," meaning it will do what it can to limit energy consumption and then buy "carbon offsets" to counterbalance the emissions produced by the energy it does use.

Edwards is not the only White House hopeful trying to make his own energy use part of the political equation this year.

Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., says he usually drives a flex-fuel vehicle, which can run on gasoline or a cleaner-burning blend of ethanol and gasoline. But he acknowledges that sometimes it is not practical to fill up with the ethanol blend, known as E85.

"My campaign leases a flex-fuel vehicle," he said in January, "but I'll be honest with you, a lot of times you're ... 30 miles from the closest E85 pump. It's going to cost you more to drive there and fill up than just filling up with regular gasoline."

Republican Mitt Romney, the son of a former Detroit auto executive, announced his candidacy while standing in front of a hybrid Ford Escape, which averages 36 miles per gallon in the city, and an old Rambler from American Motors Corp.

Romney said his father, George, who once headed AMC, championed the small, practical Rambler as "the first American car designed and marketed for economy and mileage. He dubbed it a compact car that would slay the gas-guzzling dinosaurs. It transformed the industry."

There still is plenty of transforming yet to be done, though — both nationally and by the politicians themselves.

Republican Rudolph Giuliani gave an energy policy speech in New York last summer that included a pitch for greater use of hybrid cars. Idling outside for him was a Cadillac Escalade. He did, however, opt to walk to his next destination rather than ride in the SUV, which averages 13 mpg according to the government's fuel economy guide. His campaign refused to say what he is driving these days.

Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a Republican candidate for president, drives a Cadillac CTS, which gets city mileage in the 15-17 mpg range, the guide says.

Romney drives a 2005 Ford Mustang and his wife a Cadillac SRX SUV. The Mustang gets 17-19 mpg in city driving; an SRX about 16.

Romney campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said the campaign usually rents vehicles when on the road, adding that a flex-fuel vehicle was used on a recent swing through Iowa, where alternative fuels are popular.

Democratic candidate Bill Richardson, the New Mexico governor and former U.S. energy secretary, made a big show in 2005 of giving up his gas guzzling SUV Lincoln Navigator for a hybrid Escape, proclaiming, "I believe I should lead by example."

A few months later, the 6-foot-2 governor ditched the hybrid for a flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe LTZ after deciding the Escape was too small for him and his entourage, including a security detail.

"I can't fit in it," Richardson joked. "It goes about 20 mph." The Tahoe averages 11 mpg in the city when using the E85 blend, and 15 when running on gasoline.

Aides said that whenever possible, Richardson uses the cleaner-burning ethanol blend, which is known for getting fewer miles to the gallon but generating lower exhaust emissions.

Currently less than half of 1 percent of all gasoline stations offer E85.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, as former first lady, rides in vehicles owned and operated by the Secret Service. At the Clintons' request, the fleet includes a Ford hybrid, according to campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

Edwards, happy to promote his energy-efficient Escape, also still owns a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV and a 1994 GMC truck, according to state vehicle registration records.

Campaign spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said the Edwardses, who have two small children, use the Pacifica when they need more than two seat belts in the back, and the truck when they need to move furniture or haul something.

Regardless of the candidates' personal vehicles, the whole adventure of running for president traditionally has been one colossal exercise in energy consumption, as candidates jet from state to state and then convoy from event to event in gas-hungry SUVS and vans.

The NRDC Action Fund, an affiliate of the Natural Resources Defense Council, estimates the leading candidates in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns flew a million miles each.

The fund sent letters to 20 declared or potential candidates in February urging them to make this the first "carbon-neutral presidential campaign," by using hybrid or flex-vehicles, compact fluorescent light bulbs, recycling paper and materials and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions by purchasing credits, which are sold by those who have reduced their emissions of carbon dioxide.

NRDC spokeswoman Julia Bovey welcomed Edwards' announcement, saying, "Anyone running for president who claims they're going to be able to lead this country out of the energy and climate crisis needs to show they can do it in their campaign."

David Friedman, research director for the vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, declined to comment on the specific steps taken by the candidates. But he said driving a hybrid vehicle can cut global warming pollution by about one-third compared with driving a nonhybrid of a similar model.

He said driving a flex-fuel vehicle, operating on ethanol made from corn, can reduce pollution by 10 percent to 30 percent. Also, carbon offsets, if properly verified and certified, can help support the use of renewable energy technologies that reduce pollution.

[Mavdog]

guliani takes a stand that could cost him the nomination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Giuliani defends his pro-choice beliefs
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Thursday defended his record favoring the use of public money for abortions, saying he wouldn't try to undo a Supreme Court ruling allowing the procedures.

"Ultimately I believe it's an individual right and a woman should make that choice," the former New York mayor said during a Statehouse news conference where he picked up three endorsements.

Support for abortion rights is unpopular with conservatives who dominate the GOP in South Carolina, an early voting state.

"I tell people what I think. I tell them (to) evaluate me as I am and do not expect them to agree with me on everything. I don't agree with me on everything," Giuliani said. "If that's the most important thing, then I'm comfortable with the fact you won't vote for me."

The comments came as South Carolina lawmakers push a measure that would require women seeking abortions to first view ultrasound images of their fetus. If the South Carolina measure is approved, the state would be the first to make such a requirement. Other states require the images be made available to women.

Giuliani said states should make the call on such issues. "The Legislature of South Carolina should make its decision about that," he said. He also said states should make the decision whether to use public money for abortions.

However, Giuliani's campaign aides say that if elected, Giuliani won't seek to change current federal law, which only allows public funding for abortions in the cases of rape and incest or when the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Conservatives and political experts in South Carolina said Giuliani's moderate stance abortion will hamper his ability to win votes here.

"He's toast," said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard. "I think it's going to be really hard for him to overcome this in South Carolina."

While Republicans in South Carolina oppose abortion by degrees — allowing abortions in certain circumstances, such as a mother's health, rape or incest — there's little room on public financing, said Oran Smith, executive director of the Palmetto Family Council, an anti-abortion group.

"That's usually one of the first things off the list when you talk about things related to abortion," Smith said.

Some Giuliani supporters said the abortion issue doesn't bother them. "I'm really for the whole package. I feel like I'm comfortable being for him," said Rosemary Byerly, a staunch abortion opponent from Inman.

But Alexia Newman, a state Republican Party first vice chairwoman who runs Spartanburg's Carolina Pregnancy Center, said she felt duped by Giuliani's recent comments to the state Republican executive committee that if elected he would appoint judges who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

However, Giuliani said those comments weren't a nod in the direction of undoing Roe v. Wade.

"If I'm going to appoint strict constructionist judges, which I'm going to do, for the reason that they are going to strictly interpret the Constitution, then, as president, I have to be a strict constructionist," Giuliani said. "The present state of the law on these issues is not something that I would seek to change."

Giuliani also said the state should be left to make its own decision about the Confederate flag, which flies outside the Statehouse.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

guliani takes a stand that could cost him the nomination.

Probably lost my vote. "public financing" is just euphemism for "forcing other people to pay for"

[Usually Lurkin]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3429.html

ah, May 4th

Fred Thompson, the “Law & Order” actor and former senator from Tennessee, has moved beyond pondering a bid for the White House and begun assembling the nucleus of a campaign should he decide to run, according to people involved in the effort.

Thompson has not yet decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination. But “he is getting more serious every day,” said an adviser familiar with Thompson's plans.

Thompson’s coming-out as a candidate-in-waiting will be a May 4 appearance at the 45th annual dinner of the Lincoln Club of Orange County in the heart of Ronald Reagan country in Southern California. The invitation was widely sought by aspiring Republicans, and his advisers expect considerable media attention around the visit. But there are no plans now for an announcement then...

May 4th is my birthday, Spidey3 release date, deadline for graduation materials, and possibly Fred Thompson's presidential announcement. Could be a great day.

[Mavdog]

you gotta respect the fact McCain has taken a position and not wavered in that position as public sentiment has gone against him, yet at the same time his continued support of the bush plan may mean he will fall short of his goal of becoming the next pres.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCain assails Democrats on Iraq
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Republican presidential contender John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday the four-year war in Iraq is "necessary and just" and accused anti-war Democrats of being reckless.

McCain, struggling to reinvigorate his troubled presidential campaign, also criticized President Bush for initially going to war without a plan to succeed. But the decorated war hero staunchly backed the commander in chief's recent troop increase and said Bush is right to veto legislation that places conditions on the war

"In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering" when House Democrats enthusiastically passed legislation setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal, the Arizona Republican said in prepared remarks of a speech meant to reinvigorate his troubled presidential campaign.

"A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning, not celebrating," he added.

Staking his struggling candidacy on the war's outcome, McCain planted himself firmly on the side of the president he hopes to succeed, as well as the three out of every four Republicans who view the war as a worthy cause.

In a speech slated for the Virginia Military Institute, McCain cast himself as the most qualified Republican candidate to counter Democratic calls for withdrawal.

McCain ignored his GOP rivals, all of whom support the president on the war but none of whom has McCain's military experience or has been as closely aligned with the conflict as the senator. Instead, McCain focused on Democratic critics, saying their pullout policy was politically expedient but strategically disastrous.

Democrats, including the party's presidential candidates, were acting in "giddy anticipation of the next election" instead of in the country's best interests, McCain said.

"Lets put aside for a moment the small politics of the day," he said. "The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."

Calling the war "necessary and just," McCain said those like him who support Bush's troop increase chose the "hard road" but "right road."

"Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road," he said, referring to the standoff between Democrats in control of Congress and Bush over war funding. "It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election."

Predicting severe consequences of failure, McCain called "this frustrating war" in Iraq a significant part of the larger battle against terrorism. The former Vietnam prisoner of war also alluded to his own military service, saying: "I know the pain war causes." And, the senator insisted that Bush's troop increase showed "glimmers of progress" even as he stood accused of painting too rosy a picture of security in Baghdad last week during his fifth trip to Iraq.

The episode threatened to undercut McCain's credibility on a signature issue, defense. A former Navy pilot, McCain is the only top-tier Republican candidate to have served in the military and he is the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Once the chief GOP critic on how the U.S. was waging the war, McCain became Bush's top Senate pitchman in January as he sought to sell skeptics on the troop increase. The senator long had sought more forces — and his political fate became entwined with the new strategy.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed that a majority of Americans say going to war in Iraq was a mistake and half call it a hopeless cause. But among Republicans, roughly three in four say the United States made the right decision in going to war and call the cause worthy.

[Usually Lurkin]

lingering resentment over McCain-Feingold will keep McCain out of the Presidency

[chumdawg]

Saw Mitt Romney tonight at the Reagan Days Dinner for Dallas County 'Pubs. Not impressed. He came across as slicker than goose shit, and probably underqualified to boot.

[Mavdog]

Tax hikes on rich possible, Edwards says
By LAURA KURTZMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 29, 8:05 PM ET

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.

Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.

Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.

"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."

Edwards said his plan to provide universal health coverage would cost $90 billion to $120 billion a year.

He spoke on the last day of a convention that, because of California's early presidential primary, attracted nearly all the major candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record).

Sen. Joe Biden, campaigning in South Carolina, was the only hopeful to pass up the convention.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also appeared, contrasting himself to Edwards as a business-friendly Democrat who would not raise taxes. And while the other candidates praised California for leading the way on environmental legislation, Richardson said his state was doing even better.

"New Mexico today is the clean energy state," he said. "We've surpassed you here in California."

During an extended news conference, Richardson acknowledged making a mistake at last week's Democratic debate in South Carolina when he named Byron White as his favorite Supreme Court justice. White, who died in 2002, dissented from Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973.

Richards, who supports abortion rights in keeping with Democratic Party orthodoxy, said he named White in the debate because he had been appointed by President Kennedy and he was an All-American football player. Richardson said he had not remembered White's role in the abortion case.

Obama continued campaigning in California on Sunday, appearing at the First A.M.E. church in Los Angeles on the 15th anniversary of the Rodney King riots.

He recalled watching them on television when he was a law student at Harvard University and feeling a "sense of despair and powerlessness." He said inner-city problems of poverty and inequality that stoked the violence were not unique to Los Angeles.

"Although the fires, violence were at a magnitude that had not been seen for a very long time, there had been a quiet riot taking place not just in Los Angeles but all across the country," he said.

Pop star Stevie Wonder listened from the front row, then joined Obama onstage and broke into song.

Edwards, attended a fundraiser later Sunday in Reno, Nev., where he said in an interview that his rural roots and seasoning in a national campaign set him apart from Clinton and Obama.

"Because I grew up in a rural area, I understand a lot of the sort of independent spirit that people in the West have," Edwards told The Associated Press. "I saw the same things where I grew up. I have a natural connection with a lot of people in the West the way I grew up."

[usafreedom3]

FRED THOMPSON BABY!!! He will be announcing in early June!

[Mavdog]

McCain takes issue with Google employee
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), courting a Silicon Valley giant, showered Google employees with praise Friday but took issue with one who challenged his insistence that the United States must prevail in Iraq.

At a town hall appearance before the Google staff, the worker challenged the Republican presidential candidate for discounting the possibility that no one will win the war.

"Any rational observer would say that if the war's lost, then someone won the war," McCain responded. "Al-Qaida will win that war."

His voice rising, the Arizona Republican recounted atrocities by suicide bombers who had blown up their own children and beheaded captives on videotape. "These are evil, extreme, terrible people that are bent on our destruction," he said.

"Now if you think there's some common ground there, or I'm acting in an extreme fashion, I respect your views," McCain said. But, he added, "I know too many people who have sacrificed their limbs and their lives in the cause of freedom for the people of Iraq. We have an honest disagreement, sir."

McCain is the second presidential contender to visit the Google campus and address an auditorium packed with the search-engine leaders workers. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., made an appearance in February.

The Internet company has extended invitations to all the major candidates and hopes each one will appear, said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.

"We want to see where the candidates stand," Kovacevich said. "Googlers are a politically minded lot, and our employees are already pretty engaged in the campaign and really anxious to hear from the candidates."

The candidate appearances, moderated by CEO Eric Schmidt, are eventually uploaded to Google-owned YouTube, making them accessible to the broader electorate, he said.

[Usually Lurkin]

rather than junk up the forum with a new thread everytime a candidate says something stupid, I figured I'd post this awesome gaffe here: (this was a post at instapundit)

"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."

I'm pretty sure it's different from the Europe of the present, too. I've got family in France, and I've never heard of such a thing.

Eugene Volokh points to a post by Ana Marie Cox suggesting that Romney got this from an Orson Scott Card science fiction novel set in the future, in outer space.

Now look, I like science fiction, and I wouldn't mind a President who read science fiction -- though I'm not sure the Battlefield Earth thing helps him here -- but I also want a President with a firm grip on the difference between fiction and, you know, reality. This is just weird.

UPDATE: Ace:

A truly outrageous move on France's part to so undermine the very foundation of civilizational organization.

One problem: It's not true. . . . Coming Next: Romney explains his flip-flop to the pro-life view as caused by the new respect for life gained after witnessing the destruction of planet Alderaan, where "a million voices cried out... and then were silenced."

Of course, Ace also notes some other alternate-reality enthusiasms that are getting less press attention. Edwards should be ashamed, and needs some book-learning of his own.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader David Fleeger writes about Romney and Edwards (well, mostly Edwards' "trutherism") and observes: "I don't know about you, but for the first time I have begun to feel a little fear for the next year's elections. The nation can (probably) survive incompetence. Reality-denying psychosis is something else."

As I've said before, our political class was obviously dysfunctional in the 1990s. Times have gotten worse, but they haven't gotten better. Further thoughts from Rob Port.

[purplefrog]

What I find interesting about this article is that while Hillary has a hefty lead over Obama and Edwards among Democrat voters, when you put these candidates against the Republican front runners (McCain, Rudy, and Romney) her margins of victory put her in third place. I also can't believe that Edwards is doing this well. Then again, it would be par for the course if he gets the nomination... typical of the Dems. Edwards fits the mold of Gore, Kerry, and Dukakis. In other words he walks around with a big "L" on his forehead.

Poll: Bush Hits All-Time Low
By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek

Saturday 05 May 2007

George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major '08 Republican. Coincidence?
May 5, 2007 - It's hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every '08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public's approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.'s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP's chances for victory in '08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Perhaps that explains why Republican candidates, participating in their first major debate this week, mentioned Bush's name only once, but Ronald Reagan's 19 times. (The debate was held at Reagan's presidential library.)

When the NEWSWEEK Poll asked more than 1,000 adults on Wednesday and Thursday night (before and during the GOP debate) which president showed the greatest political courage - meaning being brave enough to make the right decisions for the country, even if it jeopardized his popularity - more respondents volunteered Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (18 percent each) than any other president. Fourteen percent of adults named John F. Kennedy and 10 percent said Abraham Lincoln. Only four percent mentioned George W. Bush. (Then again, only five percent volunteered Franklin Roosevelt and only three percent said George Washington.)

A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is "stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes," compared to 30 percent who say Bush's actions demonstrate that he is "willing to take political risks to do what's right."

Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani receives the highest marks for having shown political courage in the past among the current major candidates from either party (48 percent of registered voters say he has), followed by Hillary Clinton at 43 percent, John McCain at 42, John Edwards at 33 and Barack Obama at 30. Mitt Romney comes in last among the six leading candidates at 11 percent.

Clinton receives the highest marks for showing political courage in the current campaign, though, with 34 percent of voters saying she has, followed by 33 percent for Obama, 30 percent for Edwards, 28 for McCain, 25 for Giuliani and 11 for Romney.

Obama is seen as the most optimistic candidate (a consistent measure of electability) in either party: 51 percent of registered voters say the Illinois senator is optimistic, compared to 47 percent who say Edwards is, 46 percent for Clinton, 45 percent for Giuliani, 40 percent for McCain, and 27 for Romney.

While the poll has some high marks for Clinton, it's not all good news. Though the New York senator and former first lady aims to project an aura of inevitability that she will win the Democratic nomination, Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.

Like Obama, Edwards defeats the Republicans by larger margins than Clinton does: the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee outdistances Giuliani by six points, McCain by 10 and Romney by 37, the largest lead in any of the head-to-head matchups. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton wins 49 percent to 46 percent against Giuliani, well within the poll's margin of error; 50 to 44 against McCain; and 57 to 35 against Romney.

Where Clinton remains the undisputed champ is among Democrats. When matched against her main rivals for the Democratic nomination, Clinton is the choice of 51 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters over Obama's 39 percent; and she defeats Edwards 57 percent to 38 percent. Obama has not substantially narrowed Clinton's lead since the early March NEWSWEEK poll, where he trailed Clinton by 14 points. Edwards has narrowed Clinton's lead over him though. Back in March Edwards trailed Clinton by 31 points; now her lead is down to 19 points.

Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, might want to look over his shoulder too. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, Giuliani leads McCain 56 percent to 41 percent (15 points). But two months ago in the NEWSWEEK Poll, Giuliani held a 25-point lead. Both candidates trounce Romney, despite his placing first in the first-quarter fundraising sweepstakes. Giuliani holds a staggering 51-point lead over Romney and McCain holds a 41-point lead over the former Massachusetts governor.

With 38 percent of Republicans dissatisfied with their party's field, things could get interesting if former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson joins the race; 46 percent of Republicans who are dissatisfied with their candidates say he should (34 percent say he shouldn't). Of the much smaller 14 percent of Democrats who are dissatisfied with their candidates, 60 percent say they want former vice president and Democratic nominee Al Gore to join the fray. Current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat who changed parties shortly before running for mayor, receives unenthusiastic support from both Republicans and Democrats: 18 percent of dissatisfied Democrats would like to see Bloomberg join the Democratic field, and an even more anemic 14 percent of Republicans would like to see him join theirs.

All of the candidates can perhaps take some solace in Americans' dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the United States at this time (only 25 percent are satisfied; 71 percent dissatisfied). American dissatisfaction ratings last hit 71 in the NEWSWEEK poll in May 2006, at the height of the scandal over secret government wiretapping inside the United States. The last time that even half of our survey respondents were happy with the direction of the country was in April 2003, shortly after the start of the Iraq war. With that many unhappy Americans, the nation should have a strong appetite for new leaders and new ideas.

The NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International May 2-3. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,001 adults, age 18 and older; the overall margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

-------

[alexamenos]

oh that amnesty bill....Inasmuch as support for amnesty in Washington is bi-partisan and extends upwards to his Bushness, that amnesty bill will be Godzillary's best friend, I believe.

My thinking on illegal immigration is inchoate, to say the least. But it isn't so muddled that I can't see which way the political winds are blowing. If (when) the 'pubs fail to kill this bill, and when Bush passes on the opportunity to veto the bill, the Repub's fate in the next election will be sealed as the next Republican candidate/sacrifice must bear the wrath of a conservative base scorned.

Alot of dems will be pissed too, but the Socialist Lesbian Lizard Queen could nonetheless be caught snacking on baby kittens while bathing in a pool of children's blood between now and the coming election and yet still win by a comfortable margin.

[Usually Lurkin]

Well, therre should be an oppening in the Hilllary camp for new spellling bee chammpion Evan O'Dorney!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...If (when) the 'pubs fail to kill this bill, and when Bush passes on the opportunity to veto the bill, the Repub's fate in the next election will be sealed as the next Republican candidate/sacrifice must bear the wrath of a conservative base scorned.

Peggy "Pom Pom" Noonan takes note of Alex's trenchant insight.....

Too Bad

President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.

What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.

The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill--one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions--this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position--but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate.

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done--actually and believably done--the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.

What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose his party the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

[alexamenos]

Here's an interesting political ploy, and it will be really interesting to see how it plays out:

1) Oppose "runaway government spending" while power over spending is limited or non-existent;

2) Spend recklessly while having a lock on power to spend;

3) Oppose "runaway government spending" as power slips away;

4) Pray that no-one notices that this is a cynical ploy to lure fiscal conservatives back into the fold.

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush warned Congress on Saturday that he will use his veto power to stop runaway government spending.

"The American people do not want to return to the days of tax-and-spend policies," Bush said in his radio address.

link.

I suppose it's possible that some will buy it -- some will say, "sure the Republican's record has been bad, but just think how bad it would have been with the Dems!" But still....the hypocricy and the crassness of Bush's new-found fiscal conservatism is dumbfounding. Bush and the Republicans this coming election will prove the old adage: "you can fool some of the conservatives sometimes, but you can't fool all the conservatives all the time."

Hillary will have to be photographed feasting on the entrails of puppies while using a crucifix as a *toy* to give the Republicans a chance next year.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Here's an interesting political ploy, and it will be really interesting to see how it plays out:

1) Oppose "runaway government spending" while power over spending is limited or non-existent;

2) Spend recklessly while having a lock on power to spend;

3) Oppose "runaway government spending" as power slips away;

4) Pray that no-one notices that this is a cynical ploy to lure fiscal conservatives back into the fold.

link.

I suppose it's possible that some will buy it -- some will say, "sure the Republican's record has been bad, but just think how bad it would have been with the Dems!" But still....the hypocricy and the crassness of Bush's new-found fiscal conservatism is dumbfounding. Bush and the Republicans this coming election will prove the old adage: "you can fool some of the conservatives sometimes, but you can't fool all the conservatives all the time."

Hillary will have to be photographed feasting on the entrails of puppies while using a crucifix as a *toy* to give the Republicans a chance next year.

Why is it "spend recklessly" when you have the power but oppose "runaway government spending" when you don't?

Isn't it "spend recklessly" in both instances?

Or conversely "learn a lesson" in 06 elections?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Isn't it "spend recklessly" in both instances?

yes, the point being that the Republicans do it when they're in power and (pretend to) oppose it when they're not.

Or conversely "learn a lesson" in 06 elections?

I think '06 was a harbinger of the *landslide* to come....that is, the election will be landslide because of the republicans disinterest, not because alot of people want to empower the lesbian lizard queen.

[Mavdog]

one has to admit, this is refreshing to have a candidate who is frank and honest about the whole scene...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama: Presidential bid at times insane
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 23, 4:19 AM ET

Hey, Barack Obama, just how insane is the process of running for president? "Every day it reveals itself in new ways," Obama told host Jon Stewart Wednesday night on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

"I think that's part of what people are looking at our campaign to see, just some normalcy and some common sense," he said.

The Illinois senator offered the recent Sunday televised Democratic debate in Iowa as an example. "It's always a shock to the system when Sunday morning you wake up and you're face to face with Mike Gravel" — the crusty former Alaska senator in a long-shot bid for the nomination.

Amid laughter, Obama continued: "So we're preparing and one of my staff said, 'The thing you've got to understand is, this isn't on the level.' And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics, is that so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing — and in the meantime you've got these hugely serious problems, which are true."

Obama suggested that presidential candidates who have been governors have an advantage over those who have been in the Senate, which he described as "paralyzed" and "designed for you to take bad votes."

"A governor is more likely to set the terms of the debate," he said. "They can give a speech, they can say, 'This is my initiative, this is my proposal. I won't sign it unless I agree with it.' Dealing with senators, you end up, you know, having to actually vote on stuff that has no relevance whatsoever but can be used later on to attack you."

Asked if he admired any of the Republican candidates, Obama offered faint praise: "Yeah, I think some of these folks are decent people."

Obama cited only former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by name. Then he criticized the GOP field for "outbidding each other" while arguing that the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be expanded rather than closed.

"That kind of stuff, I think, is not serving the Republican Party well and is not going to serve the country well," he said.

Noting that Obama has been criticized for lacking experience, Stewart asked, "Have you thought about running a smaller country first?"

Obama smiled and said, "You know, what I did think about though was invading a smaller country ..." He suggested the island nation of Grenada.

[DevinFuture]

Survey: Majority of Americans Agree with Dennis Kucinich

In the political equivalent of a “blind taste test” taken by more than 67,000 participants, an independent website surveying public attitudes on various issues is reporting that Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is the first choice of a phenomenal 53% of respondents.

The website (http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ ) has been asking respondents to express and rank their opinions on 25 different issues – the war in Iraq, health care, the environment, Patriot Act, etc. -- that have been raised and debated among the Presidential candidates in both parties.

Those taking the survey vote only on the issues, not for or against any individual candidate. The 67,000-plus responses were then correlated with the positions of all of the candidates as reported on www.2decide.com/table.htm . The results are here: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

As of August 3rd (the survey is recalculated every five minutes), more than 35,600 respondents were “in sync” with Kucinich on the issues. Democratic front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton was the first-place choice of only about 2,400 respondents (3.6%). Other leading candidates fared even worse: Senator Barack Obama (3%), and former Senator John Edwards (1.3%).


“When people vote exclusively on the issues that are important to them, without being influenced by name recognition, celebrity, or millions of dollars in advertising, Congressman Kucinich wins in a landslide,” his campaign said today.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/h...nnis-kucinich/

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

[alexamenos]

devinfuture -- ^^^ that's interesting, thanks.

[Mavdog]

edwards takes his campaign straight down the populist path and tries to say he is not like the rest of the candidates. the polling must show a very deep rooted preference for change
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover, New Hampshire
August 23, 2007

This election is unlike any we have faced before. The stakes are higher. And the challenges we face as a nation are greater than at any time in memory.

We as a nation must choose whether to do what America has always done in times like these -- change direction and move boldly into the future for the sake of our children, if not for ourselves, or wander in the same stale direction we have traveled in our recent past.

The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.

It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.

A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.

A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.

Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.

It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.

It is the establishment elites versus the American people.

It is a choice between the failed compromises of the past and the bright possibilities of our future. Between resigning ourselves to Two Americas or fighting for the One America we all believe in.

As always, at these moments, the choice we make is not for us, but for our children and our great country. And this time, like no other time, the consequences for our children are truly profound.

Will we halt global warming, protect our environment and humanity from the cataclysmic consequences of inaction and leave our children a livable world rich in the resources that were left to us?

Will we prevail against terrorism by stopping those who would harm us and winning over the minds of those who have yet to take sides so that instead of an ever more dangerous and war-torn world, our children live in a nation that is safe, strong and once again viewed throughout the world as a truly moral leader?

Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?

Will we face our future as individuals, each of us asking, "What's in it for me?" Or will we return to the central value that makes our nation great? That we are all in this together and each of has a responsibility to the common good.

The choices we make will determine not just the quality of life our children will inherit, but the fate of the world we leave behind.

To succeed for our children where we have too often failed for ourselves, we must choose a new course. Those wedded to the policies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s are wedded to the past -- ideas and policies that are tired, shop worn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.

And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.

But cleaning up Washington isn't enough. If we are going to meet the challenges we face and prevail over them, two principles must guide us -- yes, we must end the Washington game, but we must also think as big as the challenges we face. Our ideas must be bold enough to succeed and our government must be free to enact them without compromising principle or sacrificing results.

One without the other isn't good enough. All the big ideas in the world won't make a difference if they have to go through this broken system that remains controlled by big business and their lobbyists. And if we fix the system, but aren't honest with the American people about the scope of our challenges and what's required of each of us to meet them, then we'll be left with the baby steps and incremental measures that are Washington's poor excuse for progress.

As Bobby Kennedy said, "If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors."

But if we do both -- if we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington -- then we will be build the One America we dream of, where every man, woman and child is blessed with the same, great opportunity and held to the same, just rules.

For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care. And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform. Instead, they've grudgingly allowed incremental measures that do nothing but tinker around the edges -- or worse, they've hijacked reform to improve their own bottom line. So today, more Americans go without health care than ever before. Instead of prescription drug reform that brought down the cost of drugs, the lobbyists for the big drug companies got us a prescription drug bill that boosts drug company profits but doesn't cut patient costs.

I have a bold plan to finally guarantee true universal health care for every single American and cut health care costs for everyone. My plan will require everyone -- business, government and individuals -- to contribute something to reach universal coverage. And I am honest about the cost: $90 to $120 billion a year, and I'll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts for families above $200,000. If we end the game in Washington, we can finally have a health care system that treats the health of all our people with equal worth.

Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse.

When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.

And look at our economic policies -- from top to bottom, they're a twisted reflection of American values. Instead of expanding opportunity for all and preventing special privileges for any, they hoard opportunity and protect special privileges for the very few at the very top.

Trade policy is all about corporate profits for big multinationals and not at all about lifting workers' wages or creating American jobs. The tax code provides breaks for hedge fund managers -- amazingly, even Democrats backed down from asking them to pay their fair share when Wall Street lobbyists put the pressure on. By the time a decade of corporate opposition to a minimal increase in the minimum wage is overcome, even its own supporters admit that the increase isn't enough -- so another decade of corporate opposition begins anew, and workers lose again.

It's time we put our economy back in line with our values. Let's restore fairness to our tax code by insisting on a simple principle -- nobody in the middle class should pay higher taxes on the money they make from hard work than the wealthiest pay on the money they make from their investments. Let's restore opportunity and responsibility to our trade policy by requiring that every new trade deal puts workers and wages first. Let's reward work by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes on working families and with a national commitment to end poverty within a generation.

And let's support our troops and end this war in Iraq. We should immediately withdraw 40-50,000 combat troops immediately and have the rest out in about a year. And when President Bush refuses to act, Congress should use its funding power to force him to act.

None of this will be easy, but all of it is possible.

I know. I've been doing it my entire life.

I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. My father had to borrow $50 to bring me and my mother home from the hospital. I am here today because, like all the people my father worked with in the mill, my parents got up every day believing in the promise of America, and they worked hard -- no matter what obstacles were thrown against them -- to give me the chance for a better life.

That's the promise at the heart of the American Dream. What matters to our generation is of little consequence -- in America what has always mattered most is the consequences for our children and their children after them. And no amount of power or money gives anyone the right to break that promise with our future.

I have stood with ordinary Americans at the most difficult times in their lives, when all the power of corporate America was arrayed against them. I have walked into courtrooms alone to face an army of corporate lawyers with all the money in the world. I have walked off the Senate elevator and been besieged by an army of corporate lobbyists. And I have beaten them over and over again.

But let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience -- you cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them.

We cannot triangulate our way to real change. We cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And we can start today.

Nearly ten years ago, I made the decision that I would never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist -- I wasn't going to work for them, and I didn't want their money.

Because in the courtroom, when you present your case to the jury, you can offer facts and evidence, you can argue your heart out -- and I have -- but the one thing you can't do, is pay the jury. We call that a bribe. But in Washington when an oil lobbyist gives money to office holders to influence our energy policy, they call it politics. That's exactly what's wrong with this system.

Money flies like lightning between corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. We need full public financing to reform the system once and for all. But we don't need to wait to reform our party. Two weeks ago, I called on all Democrats to reject contributions from federal lobbyists. To tell them -- we know that you give money to influence politicians on behalf of your corporate clients. Well, we're not going to take it anymore. Your money's no good here.

I repeat that challenge today. Let's show America exactly whose side we're on. We can reform our party and truly be the party of the people. And we can expose for all time who the Republicans in Washington are really working for.

There are 60 lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. The big corporations don't need another president that looks out for them -- they've got all the power they need. I want to be the people's president.

A few weeks, ago I met a man named James Lowe in Wise, Virginia. James spent the first fifty years of his life without a voice -- literally without a voice -- because he didn't have health care. All he needed was a simple operation to fix a cleft palate. That a man in the richest country in the world could go unable to speak for 50 years because he couldn't pay for a $3,000 operation is something that should outrage every American. We are better than that. America is better that that.

It's a stark reminder of our broken political system that leaves millions of Americans without a voice in their government -- a government that is supposed to work for them.

But it doesn't have to be that way. And we can change it together.

We must think big and end the game.

It's not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past.

It's about being ready to lift our country up, reform our party, and remake our government in line with the values of our people. It's about real change and a new vision that meets the challenges of the future and inspires the American people to work together for the common good.

We're all angry at what George Bush has done to our country. But with courage and conviction, with an unblinking eye on the future we believe in and an unbending knee on the road to get there, not only can we undo the damage, we can transform the world. No matter what life has thrown at us, Elizabeth and I have always chosen to be optimistic about the future -- and determined to make a difference as we strive toward it everyday.

I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Because of them, I believe in people, hard work and the American Dream. I believe the future belongs to us if we only dare to seize it. And I believe to seize it, we must blaze a new path, firmly grounded in the values that first made America great. We must cast aside the established ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We must end the game controlled by a privileged few and restore the promise that America owes to us all.

On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one's God-given potential is every individual's common right.

I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards.

And I believe in the promise of America.

[Janett_Reno]

Obama Holds On to Slim Leads Over Giuliani, Thompson

45% - 43% over Rudy

45% - 41% over Fred

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...liani_thompson

Congressional Ballot

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

Now this is bad. Remember dude reports that Fox say's Democrats in congress is approved by only single digits. I agree, these are very bad numbers for the Democrats but what we all forget is how much the Republicans are approved. I think the public has not seperated a neocon from a Republican and have put both in the same basket. I think in the up comming months you will see more and more jumping ship and getting as far away as they can from Bushie & Chains. Oh here is the poll on the next house election if it was help now.

If the Congressional Election were held today, 47% of American voters say they would vote for the Democrat in their district while 37% would opt for the Republican. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found 6% favoring a third-party option while 10% are not sure. That’s virtually unchanged from the 46% to 37% advantage the Democrats enjoy a month ago.

Seventy percent (70%) of American voters now believe it is likely Democrats will retain control of Congress following the 2008 elections. That figure has changed little in recent months and includes 40% who say it’s Very Likely Pelosi’s party will keep running Congress.

20% Say Country Heading in Right Direction

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ight_direction

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has eked out a 46 - 43 percent lead over her chief Republican rival in the 2008 presidential race, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and has improved her favorability among American voters, according to a
Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1091

Clinton leads Arizona Sen. John McCain 47 - 41 percent;

Clinton tops former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 49 - 38 percent;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is funny, is any Democrat is going to vote for whatever Democrat is the nominee. Most non political party will also as they want to get out and vote every anti Bushie/Chains vote they can. The public will come out and vote again, just like they did in the house and senate races, when the Democrats had a strong showing. On the other hand, some preachers and the religious base down south said other day, it is alot that refuse to back Rudy. They do not believe in some of the things Rudy does and they are having trouble with that many wifes to say "faith and morals".

Most Republicans see this and know this and believe Fred is their only hope against Hills or even Obama but what is funny is they do not know how the Democrats will rip Fred. The media will and he will not be able to stand up and say "well", not sure about that. Atleast Rudy will get up and talk and yes he get's himself in some bad situtaions at times but atleast he will try to talk about it. Neither one can hold a candle to Hills or Obama in a debate. I do not think Fred is any spring chicken and i need to look up and see how many times he has been married. He has him a 40 year old trophy wife now.

Even if the faith and morals preachers try to turn Fred into this, it won't play good. Wifes, young wife, he flips flops back and forth on abortion and gay's. If it was truely a faith and morals issue, they would want Mitt or McCain because they are much more the faith and morals people that is running but they know those two haven't got a chance againt Hills or Obama.

I have been trying to figure out who Rudy and Fred pick for their vice. Both Rudy and Fred carry alot of baggage when they bring up, "the faith and morals party" or "compassionate conservatism". Maybe Rudy would pick Jeb Bush for his vice and Fred could pick Neil Bush for his.

[Usually Lurkin]

Obama Doesn't much matter. Clinton by an average of +15:

Poll Date Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Gore Spread
RCP Average 08/06 to 08/22 37.8 22.2 11.7 3.7 12.8 Clinton +15.6
FOX News 08/21 - 08/22 35 23 6 3 10 Clinton +12
Rasmussen 08/19 - 08/22 38 26 15 3 -- Clinton +12
Gallup 08/13 - 08/16 42 21 11 1 15 Clinton +21
Quinnipiac 08/07 - 08/13 36 21 9 3 15 Clinton +15
American Res. Group 08/09 - 08/12 36 21 16 7 -- Clinton +15
CNN 08/06 - 08/07 40 21 13 5 11 Clinton +19

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...primaries.html