April 8, 2008 7:13 AM
Pelosi: lock it up by June
Nancy Pelosi wants her party to settle on a nominee by June and set its sights on defeating John McCain.
The Speaker of the House was in Denver to help launch the Democratic National Convention's "Green Delegate Challenge" and also addressed the growing urgency among party leaders to settle the nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
David Montero reports:
"There is so much at stake in this election," Pelosi said. "I am encouraging our colleagues to think about what happens after the nomination. We must come together in a unified way to elect a Democratic president of the United States."The Democratic National Convention is Aug. 25-28.
Nearly 800 party and elected officials make up the superdelegates who can support whomever they choose at the convention, regardless of what happens in the primaries.
Obama and Clinton are currently separated by 164 pledged delegates - 1,415 to 1,251, according to the Web site RealClearPolitics.com.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has asked all uncommitted superdelegates to commit by July 1, but Pelosi has urged them to commit even earlier - as soon as all of the states have voted.
April 8, 2008
8:34 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
Yea right...Like Pelosi or Howard Dean actually have any control over Hillary, Obama or even the Democratic Party..hahaha
Basically she is trying to tell Hillary that she has till June to either jab the final dagger in or back off and let the very Liberal Obama fall flat on his face in a one on one grudge match with the all mighty McCain....
It just keeps getting better and better!!
Nothing says Loser more than being a Democrat in 2008..
April 8, 2008
8:40 AM
Bob writes:
Its already decided Barack is the nominee. Hilary has earned the Vp spot if she wants it.
The next states will probably fall Baracks way anyway. Obama has won Texas with more delagates now that all the caucus votes have been counted.
It will be official by June. Then it gets nasty and fun when McCain goes against Obama.
April 8, 2008
8:42 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
ITS ALREADY LOCKED UP: OBAMA 7:1 OVER HILL:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/R_rC9uFFt5I/AAAAAAAAEKw/GQiA9ti6GXc/s1600-h/intrade.bmp
Money talks, BS walks...that means that HRC will try to STEAL the whole enchalada.
April 8, 2008
8:51 AM
jay writes:
I honestly don't know why hillary is still in the race. she can't win mathematically. obama is hanging tough in penn...consistently eating away into hill's "lead"...and she obviously isn't going to get the landslide there necessary to sway the superdelegates already committed to obama.
is it ego?
by the way...the latest
Gallup Poll daily tracking. Five-day rolling average. N=approx. 4,400 registers voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
McCain (R) 45 %
Obama (D) 45 %
Other 1 %
Neither 5 %
Unsure 4 %
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 3-April 7, 2008. N=1,196 registered voters nationwide.
"If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barak Obama, the Democrat, and John McCain, the Republican, would you vote for Barak Obama or John McCain?"
McCain (R) 42 %
Obama (D) 47 %
Other/Unsure 11 %
and this one still isn't changing....
Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. March 28-31, 2008. N=799 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
"Now thinking about the next election for president in 2008, if the election for U.S. president were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?" Options rotated
Republican Candidate 38%
Democratic Candidate 46%
Neither/Unsure 15%
April 8, 2008
8:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
Obama can't win mathmatically either.
April 8, 2008
9:02 AM
JW writes:
"I honestly don't know why hillary is still in the race. she can't win mathematically."
Neither she nor Obama can win the delegate count. She cant catch Obama in delegates, but she can in popular vote. She's only 700k behind (120K if you count Florida and Michigan). She is pretty much counting on doing that, then wooing SD's. If she does win the popular vote, I think she would have a legit argument.
Untill today, Ive been "anyone but MCSAME. Then Greenspan came out and supported him. I wish he would have been a little more forthcoming with the reasons...but that is too heavy an indorsement to ignore altogether.
April 8, 2008
9:10 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
"Looking ahead to the general election, John McCain currently leads Barack Obama 47% to 45% and Hillary Clinton 47% to 43%"--
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
jay you have a real problem with selecting only the polls that fit your agenda.
The new york times..hahahah...that cracks me up man..
April 8, 2008
9:12 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
hey jay how far ahead does Maediamatters, dailykos and moveon have Obama leading..hehehehe
After all, I would put all my stock into what they say..hehehe
April 8, 2008
9:23 AM
jay writes:
jw, she's dreaming. she's not going to be able to "woo" the number of superdelegates needed to beat obama. just isn't going to happen...particularly considering her dwindling lead in penn.
just ain't gonna happen. she needs to come to terms with it and consider the health of the party and nation
apparently shaggy still hasn't taken that stats class...he's still struggling with understanding the validity of scientific polling...
April 8, 2008
9:27 AM
Anonymous writes:
LoL jay we are getting sick of yer lying and cherry picking polls..
April 8, 2008
9:49 AM
KW writes:
Shaggy - These "stats" classes jay keeps referring to must have about as much substance as Obama.
Gallup polls appx 4500 registered voters and jay thinks that's the same as a measly 1100 from his "unbiased" CBS/NYTimes poll. Even funnier is the "strawman" poll of a whopping 799 voters who'd prefer a dem over a rep for pres (bay a small margin). Unfortunately that poll couldn't ask specifically if these same voters would want Hillary or Obama as pres because that would change the results to mirror what every other "credible" poll is showing. Heaven forbid.
So jay, please tell us specifically which college and which professor you took your stats class with. I want to be sure and avoid wasting my time and money as you apparently did.
April 8, 2008
9:55 AM
JMH writes:
So shaggy,
What do you think the majority of Americans will be voting for McCain for... What policies from this failed administration will they want continued?
You have been asked this for 4 weeks now and you dodge the question EVERY time. Grow a set and answer it! You gotta have at least some facts to support you tired prediction that McCain will win, don't you? Other than that is just what you HOPE will happen...(which is what I suspect it the real reason for your constant BS on the matter)
JW,
Greenspan's recommidation will have you vote against everything else you can see with your own eyes? He is a Republican, of course he would endorce McSame. It is always party over country with those fools.
The surge has failed, Iraq is falling back it violence (again, like we all said it would) the economy is in the tank, science is being denied at every turn but your personal hero Greenspan trumps for another Republican (that helped put us in this mess in the first place and was in lockstep support every failed policy of this pathetic administration) and now you want to give him some props?.. Man it is sad how easily some are led. Think for yourself bro...
and jay,
Don't bother with facts. Shaggy finds one poll that is within the margin of error (which I'm sure he doesn't understand) and that is all he needs to tell himself he is right. Never mind that EVERY other poll shows the Dem nominee with a much larger LEAD. The only one he will lend any credibility to, is the one that backs up what he wishes to believe. Nevermind that a 2 point lead in a poll with a =/- of 3 % isn't a lead at all, he will take it. Shaggy for your info, that is a tie... oh and by teh way, I'm 100% sure that if teh NY Times poll said McSame was winning by 10%, you wouldn't be questioning it's accuracy. Typical double standard with you NeoCon tools!
...and as far as Hillary, she is done. She need to accept it. The whole "I'm going to not support un-fair trade practices with Columbia, while her campain manager works on a deal to do just that" will be the final nail in her coffin. This will not play well in Pennsylvania (or anywhere else that has a large union presence, don't think for minute they aren't paying attention to this)... thus every day we see her lead evaporate like it is now. It's over, face it!
Obama wins in November. The reason Hillary is fighting on so hard is she knows the real election is the Dem election. Winner is basically the winner in November because anyone with any sense knows once the general public gets a load of McSame's "stay the course" stratagy, it is over and wont even be close.
April 8, 2008
9:56 AM
JW writes:
"jw, she's dreaming. she's not going to be able to "woo" the number of superdelegates needed to beat obama. "
If she wins the pop vote, that is pure speculation.
"just ain't gonna happen. she needs to come to terms with it and consider the health of the party and nation"
Even Obama disagrees with this. I swear, why do you people put ANY faith in the media? So some freaking pundit says these guys continuing to duke it out is bad, who cares? And so the rest of them jump on the wagon because they need something to talk about. Again, WHO CARES?
You keep giving Shaggy these poll numbers that DIRECTLY refute the assumption that this battle is hurting the dems. Then you turn around and say Hillary is bad because shes hurting the dems. WTF gives man? The numbers dont back what you are saying, but you keep on saying it. Why is that?
April 8, 2008
9:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
Very dark times indeed for the party of intolerance and racism. Dems are on their way to sleeping with the fishes.
April 8, 2008
9:59 AM
jay writes:
the numbers continue to support my position jw...that is that hillary isn't going to win the popular vote...isn't going to woo the needed number of COMMITTED superdelegates needed to win and STILL isn't as electable as obama and STILL can't win against mcbush.
she needs to go...there is simply no reason she should have been in the race after feb. 19
April 8, 2008
10:00 AM
Anonymous writes:
She is going to drop out after Penn... that's my gut feeling.
She has completely lost her lead in that state, with yesterdays polls showing a tie. She is getting crushed in North Carolina and Oregon, so it is pretty much over.
April 8, 2008
10:04 AM
Anonymous writes:
Nowadays dems will eat their own children to get ahead of the next dem.
Just like crabs in a bucket they are.
April 8, 2008
10:09 AM
jay writes:
10 bells...my fear is that even after losing in oregon and north carolina and finishing the horse race in penn...she'll continue her ego-driven, futile march forward...continuing to leech valued time that could be spent crafting and delivering messages catered to beat mcsame in nov
don't get me wrong kids...i still believe that hillary would have made a fantastic president...possibly even better than obama...but this isn't her election to win any longer
April 8, 2008
10:15 AM
JW writes:
"the numbers continue to support my position jw...that is that hillary isn't going to win the popular vote...isn't going to woo the needed number of COMMITTED superdelegates needed to win and STILL isn't as electable as obama and STILL can't win against mcbush.
"
So thats 4 positions. The numbers support...NONE of them concretely. Those are YOUR ASSUMPTIONS based on some numbers YOU LIKE. The fact is she still can win the pop vote, and the numbers dont difinitively say otherwise. The fact is you have NO IDEA about what the super delegates would do if she were to win the pop vote, because there ARE NO NUMBERS there. Its pure opinion. The numbers put her about the same as Obama when in a head to head with McCain, so they dont support you assertion that she isnt as electable as he is. And finally, the numbers put her in a statistical tie with McCain, just like Obama, so they dont support the opinion that she cannot beat McCain EITHER.
Regarding the opinion we were discussing previously; That Hillary's continued campaign is hurting the Dems chances in November. The numbers vs McCain for either Dem candidate have not changed in any meaningful way since the media started trumpeting this BS position months ago...IE, the numbers say that this ISNT hurting the Dems chances at all, and so that position is BULLSHIT.
Period.
When (and if) we start seeing the numbers showing a meaningful slide toward McCain, THEN you may have a point. Untill then...WTF ever. Its media induced paranoia.
Need some evidence that youre being bent over and "puppeted" by the media jay?
"she'll continue her ego-driven, futile march forward"
Emotional based bullshit just like what Shaggy posts on a daily basis, and its lock-step with what the bobble heads are pimping in the Mass Media. That right there should make you at least take a second look. It is NEVER good to make these decisions based on emotions. NEVER.
April 8, 2008
10:19 AM
jay writes:
"The fact is she still can win the pop vote, and the numbers dont difinitively say otherwise."
sure...it's also possible that their's a giant skydaddy who monitors and manipulates the entire universe while partying with our ghosts...but is either scenario PROBABLE considering the information at our disposal? not so much. listen...i know you like hillary...but you need to come to terms with her inability to overtake obama in what we'd like to call reality. pipe dreams aside...again...it just ain't gonna happen
April 8, 2008
10:29 AM
benn writes:
That was me @ 10:00
April 8, 2008
10:32 AM
JW writes:
Thats just it jay...with what youre saying, we might as well not have the election. It wasnt "probable" that Bush would beat Gore. For a time, it wasnt "probable" that Bush would beat Kerry.
The fact is we have 10 states yet to vote, and Hillary is only 700k behind on the popular vote. Polls say things about her chances, some better than others...but we need to see what happens.
And EVERY SINGLE ARGUEMENT about why she shouldnt give the people a chance to vote and see what happens is RANK BULLSHIT. There is NO REASON why she shouldnt go right on and see what happens. Every one of the reasons youve given are directly contradicted by the numbers. PERIOD.
So, I've got nothing to get over. Yea, Id rather it was Hillary, but if its Obama I'm fine with that. I'm basically just supporting letting the electoral process work.
You? You want her out because you've bought the media spin about how she is a horrible, ego driven bitch who is hurting the party, and consequently you want to cut off the democratic process...
There is no data that says she is hurting the dems chances, or that Obama is the superior candidate. Yet for some unknown reason, youve bought the media spin that both those things are true.
Data brother...its whats good for decisions. Listening to the media? Not so much...and you should damn well know that by now.
April 8, 2008
10:38 AM
JMH writes:
benn, I agree with you. Hillary will drop out after Penn. For the reasons I started before. Personally my gut feeling is Obama will win outright in Penn. and she will ahve no choice but to drop out at that point because teh pressure will be on her to do so so this country can move on.
That doesn't mean I disagree with JW, all this "infighting" isn't hurting either one really. If anything I think it is hurting Hillary a bit, it is making her look desperate and is showing off the cracks in her campain... (ie The Penn / Columbia affair).
But JW, I gotta agree with jay, you are starting to sound like shaggy, while you may be right that Hillary can pull it out, it is HIGHLY unlikely and it is looking more and more that you are sticking to what you want to happen, but not looking at the reality of what IS happening... (like shaggy does with every post) JMO.
April 8, 2008
10:53 AM
JW writes:
"But JW, I gotta agree with jay, you are starting to sound like shaggy, while you may be right that Hillary can pull it out, it is HIGHLY unlikely and it is looking more and more that you are sticking to what you want to happen, but not looking at the reality of what IS happening... "
OH for fucks sake. I have NEVER argued that Hillary WILL win.
I have argued 2 points ONLY;
1 it is still possible for her to win (even if its unlikely)
2 the reasons people are giving that she should drop out are not supported by data (not as good a candidate as Obama in the GE, shes hurting the dems).
Going by the data, it is possible (though unlikely) she could win the pop vote.
Going by the data, shes not hurting the dems chances in november, which is one of the main reasons people are arguing she should get out.
Going by the data, shes got the same chance to beat McCain that Obama does, though people are arguing otherwise as a reason she should drop out.
Blah blah blah.
Let them finish up the campaign, because she isnt hurting the dems chances, Obama is not clearly better in the GE, and its still possible for her to win.
That is ALL Im saying.
Now Im gona say YOU should take a critical thinking class JMH, because youre reading stuff that isnt in my posts.
JMO.
Oh, sorry, I did argue a 3rd point;
You people parroting this media induced bs about how Hillary is hurting the dems chances and Obama is the better candidate need to wake up. Youre actually supporting cutting off the democratic process for BS reasons that are totally unsupported by data. It doesnt matter that Obama is the likely winner. That doesnt make it right to stop the democratic process, and it doesnt make it ok for you to let yourself be suckered by the media.
April 8, 2008
10:54 AM
jay writes:
she's lost what...13 out of the last 14 states, jw? how many more states does she need to lose before throwing in the towel? if she loses 4 out of the next 5 will that do it for you? will you then concede that the people have spoken?
April 8, 2008
10:57 AM
benn writes:
Hmm...
I had a long post, but when I submitted it said 'it went to the moderator for review and approval'.... so hopefully it shows up.
April 8, 2008
11:00 AM
JW writes:
"she's lost what...13 out of the last 14 states, jw? how many more states does she need to lose before throwing in the towel? if she loses 4 out of the next 5 will that do it for you? will you then concede that the people have spoken?"
Sure. But why not just let all the states vote jay? What reason is there for her dropping out, and denying those people their votes?
And remember...
Dont say because shes such an ego maniac shes willing to hurt the party...because the data doesnt support that.
And dont say because Obama is a better candidate in a head to head with McSame...because the data doesnt support that.
April 8, 2008
11:01 AM
JMH writes:
"You people parroting this media induced bs about how Hillary is hurting the dems chances and Obama is the better candidate need to wake up. Youre actually supporting cutting off the democratic process for BS reasons that are totally unsupported by data. It doesnt matter that Obama is the likely winner. That doesnt make it right to stop the democratic process, and it doesnt make it ok for you to let yourself be suckered by the media." - JW
JW, now you are reading into things I DIDN'T say. If you read my last post again, I said I DID AGREE with you that this going on is not hurting either one like the media says, I'm just saying the "writing is on the wall" in my opinion and it looks over. If she doesn't win in Penn, she should step down so we can move on.
I for one am not scared by any of this long campain, but I can recognize that Hillary has on foot in the grave at this point. Not sure you do...
April 8, 2008
11:02 AM
jay writes:
actually jw the data shows that clinton continues her very long trend of being less electable than obama...and EXTREMELY unlikely (let's be fair) that she'll win the nomination...extremely unlikely in that she needs obama to be hit by a bus to win this race
like i said...pipe dreams aside...the data still supports the position that hillary has no chance to win the nom
again man...i know you like hillary...but at this point we need you folks to come to terms with her inevitable (yes...it's that probable) defeat and rally behind the candidate with the best (again...according to the data) chance of beating capt combover
April 8, 2008
11:06 AM
benn writes:
JW,
I agree with you that this race isn't hurting the Dems chances come Nov.
My feeling is that Obama and HRC are polling even with McCain (Obama actually pulled ahead slightly today... still in MOE: http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/election2008_HP_2.gif)
But currently the Dem party is very divided, yet even with that division McCain can't gain a lead. No matter what happens, I find it highly IMPROBABLE that folks are going to look at McCain - someone who has admitted wanting to stay in Iraq, and someone who has admitted being clueless on the economy (Arguably our two biggest issues), and pull the lever for him.
Some folks like Shaggy will pull for an R even when it goes against his interests, but I think if you give the Dems a few months to let tensions cool, you will see a big boost for whichever Dem candidate comes out on top.
April 8, 2008
11:21 AM
JW writes:
"JW, now you are reading into things I DIDN'T say."
No, JMH, I wasnt. I was reading things jay DID say.
I was simply laying out the three points I have argued. It was not directed specifically at you.
"actually jw the data shows that clinton continues her very long trend of being less electable than obama."
No jay, it doesnt. In head to head with McCain, the trend for both Obama and Hillary has been FLAT for months. They are both statistical ties.
"and EXTREMELY unlikely (let's be fair) that she'll win the nomination"
SO....WHAT? So its "unlikely" that she will win? Thats your reason why she should drop out now? Who cares? Unlikely is still "possible". Why should she drop out just because its "unlikely"?
"extremely unlikely in that she needs obama to be hit by a bus to win this race"
Well, she needs to catch up by 700k in the popular vote. Its going to really depend on Penn, which appears to be going badly for her chances. But again, who gives a shit? Let them vote.
"like i said...pipe dreams aside...the data still supports the position that hillary has no chance to win the nom"
No. The data supports the conclusion that it is unlikely she will win, which is different than what you are saying, and STILL ISNT A REASON TO STOP VOTING. Thats the main point here. Yovue got NOTHING regarding a good reason to call off the vote.
"again man...i know you like hillary...but at this point we need you folks to come to terms with her inevitable (yes...it's that probable) defeat and rally behind the candidate with the best (again...according to the data) chance of beating capt combover"
No you dont. What you need is that to happen AFTER THE VOTE. And it will. Like I said, Ill support Obama in the general in the LIKELY event hes the candidate. But there is no reason that needs to happen now. You THINK there is, because you THINK shes hurting the dems chances despite the data, and you THINK Obama is the better candidate head to head with McSame despite the data. You want to stop the democratic process early because the media has you scared (despite the total lack of data) that this process is helping McSame.
Its pathetic. After the complete and utter failure of our media over the last few years, you should know better man. Hell, Shaggy agrees with you, that should have been a BLAZING clue that something was off...
It doesnt matter that the bobble heads keep saying she is hurting the dems chances if the data says otherwise. It doesnt matter if the media says Obama is more electable in the GE if the data says otherwise.
But buying into it, and then getting all emotional about it (shes an ego maniacle bitch who will hurt everyone in her quest for power) is being a sheep, and I know damn well that you know better.
Calm down, take a look at the data, and you will see there is no reason for her to drop out now. Shes not hurting any chance for beating McCain, and the decision is not set in stone yet. Just let our DEMOCRACY do its thing like its supposed to. Who ever the Dem is will have just as good a chance at beating McSame, and no one has to be disinfranchised from the process of picking who that will be.
April 8, 2008
11:27 AM
steveo writes:
Who says the contest between Obama and Clinton is hurting the Democratic party? Dems will come together under the party's nominee no matter what the outcome. In the mean time, the media's preoccupation with the horse race will put the spotlight on the Democratic party, leaving the Republicans in the shadows. What more could the Dems want (except maybe to have real issues in the spotlight)?
April 8, 2008
11:30 AM
steveo writes:
Who says the contest between Obama and Clinton is hurting the Democratic party? Dems will come together under the party's nominee no matter what the outcome. In the mean time, the media's preoccupation with the horse race will put the spotlight on the Democratic party, leaving the Republicans in the shadows. What more could the Dems want (except maybe to have real issues in the spotlight)?
April 8, 2008
11:38 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
The battle between jay and JW just furthers my assumption that the Democrats are dividing apart.
Those who like Obama tend to be far left nutjobs vs those who support Hillary.
You go Democrats.
I hope like hell the super d's pull the rug from underneath Obama and give it to Hillary.
The Democrats are the party that just keep on giving and giving and giving....just when you think they got their shit together they give some more.
Ohh..It's good to be republican.
I would like to ask McCain what his first objective will be when he sets up home in the WH?
April 8, 2008
11:49 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
Hey KW,
Even the Democratic bloggers are starting to attack each other.
Can you just imagine what it is going to be like when it comes here to Denver for the decision?
"the night the lights went out in Denver"
Hillbill isn't going anywhere..if she can't have she will make sure Ohhbama won't get it either.
That will be just as good as a victory in the Clinton machine mind.
Here's the real kicker..those two could be going at each other again in 2012...McCain will stay for another 4 years.
It may take the Democrats 20 years before they regroup and are respected enough to vote for.
Lets get this party started..hehehe
If I were a Democrat I would be fuming at the party elders for creating such a stupid way to elect a nominee.
I'll bet many of them are.
April 8, 2008
11:57 AM
benn writes:
Keep up the ignorance shagman - it is going to be fun watching your world collapse around you come November
April 8, 2008
12:01 PM
KW writes:
Lots of infighting here Shaggy, that's for sure. Hillary this, Obama that, blah, blah, blah.
As for your question to McCain, first thing he'll need to do is inventory the furniture. Not that Laura will swipe anything mind you, it would just be a good idea to have documentation as evidence once the false accusations from the sore loser begin flying. These people fight dirty you know.
April 8, 2008
12:18 PM
Ben-Former Democrat writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s
April 8, 2008
1:13 PM
Democrats are failing again writes:
So pathetic that it is actually funny.
Hillary is bellyaching that it would be unfair to deprive voters of the chance to vote for her, while out of the other side of her mealy mouth she claims there is no such thing as a pledged delegate.
Can no unilobed liberal in this blog recognize the supreme hypocrisy of this set of statements from the experienced sniper-dodging misspeaker?
(chirp, chirp)
OK, how about a few syphilitic superdelegates?
Anyone?
April 8, 2008
2:22 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you...." writes:
JW,
I am glad to see you sticking up for the rights of voters. Contrast the Dems looking for intent on hanging chads in Florida in 2000 and today with two states being compeletly disenfrancised, and the powers that be wanting all the voters who have not voted disenfranchised by fiat. In that process they allie themselves with the likes of Stalin and Hitler, those who are power mad and will force their will on people without regard for due process. The Republicans are not much better with their treatment of Ron Paul, Romney quiting and the criticism of Huckabee before the votes were counted.
April 8, 2008
2:25 PM
Paul Torres writes:
Such negative comments by Americans. Are you scared that a Democrat might have to lead the country for next 4 years? The last four years of Republican leadership has left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Lets see are leadership was/is Bush & Cheney team.
Don’t worry about the Democrats so much if you’re a republican be concerned about about what the next four years will look like under a McCain leadership. I will give you some hint; WAR, Inflation, High oil prices, raising health care costs for all American workers, and large defense contract awarded to Halliburton’s etc, good luck sheep.
April 8, 2008
2:27 PM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
I just heard that Obama put up an on-going apology to anyone who will be offended in the future by his hand picked racial spiritual adviser when more racial comments surface.
But he wants us all to know that he cannot denounce him as a person any more than he could denounce his white mother even though he isn't directly related to him.
He will only denounce the specific statements the racial reverend has made as they surface and only when the majority of Americans are offended.
20 years of believing in his hand picked spiritual advisers every racial word is just too much to throw away, even if it costs him the election.
April 8, 2008
3:06 PM
jay writes:
"No jay, it doesnt. In head to head with McCain, the trend for both Obama and Hillary has been FLAT for months. They are both statistical ties."
again...obama has faired better against mccain...beating him...for months now...whereas hillary has very consistently done worse than he in the same polling...it's just data...there is no smoke and mirrors.
again...sure it's POSSIBLE that obama could make some major gaffe or get hit by a bus or run down a first grade class with his tour bus...but aside from those kind of pie in the sky pipe dreams it is statistically nearly impossible that she will win the nomination...again man...i know you're a fan...but it just ain't gonna happen.
furthermore...all of the money that obama is having to use now to campaign against a member of his own party who has a near ZERO chance of winning the nomination could be used to craft and deliver messages against the republicans...which means that yes...hillary is thus hurting the party's chances in november by egotistically staying in a race that it's nearly certain she'll lose.
all the spin or pollyannish thinking in the world isn't going to make this scenario any rosier for hill.
it's just math. data. you of all people should understand that.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
by the way....did any of you guys on the far right ever figure out how you're going to answer the campaign question of the year?
what bush accomplishments makes you want to vote for a third term under mccain?
remember kids...all the personal attacks and swiftboating in the world isn't going to make your horrible policy stances and incompetent track record go away...try as you might
April 8, 2008
3:07 PM
Day job, get one please writes:
Do you get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over Shaggy? How many times can you cry wolf. Day after day. You need a day job.
April 8, 2008
3:50 PM
Jeff writes:
By June. Right.
If they decide by June there will be serious unrest. If Hillary comes away with it there will be rioting in the streets. If Obamma comes away with it, there will be a sizable chunk of democrats moving to McCain.
Neither really bother me as it's so characteristic of the democrat party but as usual, the GOP will have to pay for everything that gets broken because the democrats never do.
April 8, 2008
3:56 PM
Shaggy writes:
Day job,
Yes I do get tired of teaching the loons everyday. I have never met a bunch slow learners or people who just refuse to learn.
Do you want me to hold down two jobs simotaniously during the day?
Who will run my business?
April 8, 2008
4:19 PM
history buff writes:
This tiff seems to be a way for the reactionaries to exercise their fantasies, probably because it looks like curtains for the GOP in the coming election. I actually like the drama. Hillary has to foul and hope Obamma misses his free throws. Who knows, maybe she will sink the three pointer at the buzzer that will send the game into overtime. Weirder things have happened. Pelosi and Dean want the party to get on message, but I think events have to run their course. That is how things are in a democracy sometimes. Look how the current administration has manipulated everything into a serious problem for the country. I'd rather let the candidates play their game to the end than manufacture a false reality that will come crashing down like the George Bush Presidency.
April 8, 2008
4:45 PM
KW writes:
jay - "If" I was to defend McCain and debate with you, we'd be debating McCain's policies as outlined on "his" website. You're little game of "third term Bush" might work at the kindergarten blogs but in case you haven't noticed (for about a month now), nobody here is falling for you're childish games.
I will however take policy stances with you one by one on McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Hillary (since you guys still can't decide the lesser of your own evils).
Last years earmark spending, you know, the "swamp" that the dems promised to "drain." Lets look at who stole what from the US taxpayers:
Hillary - $342 million in earmarks
Obama - $91 Million in earmarks
McCain - $ZERO in earmarks
McCain's "policy" stance on earmarks hasn't wavered in nearly 22 years as a senator so for one, this policy puts him strides ahead of either of the other two candidates. He's been adamantly against any and all earmarks and he walks the walk unlike..., Well, you get the picture.
And in case you're score challenged:
Policy debate scoreboard -
McCain 1
Hillary 0
Obama 0
Please let me know if you'd like to debate any other of MCCAINS policies and maybe I'll oblige you. But if you continue with this "third term Bush" you will have forfeited the game.
Can you grow up enough or are we through?
April 8, 2008
5:08 PM
jay writes:
if you refuse to acknowledge the politically inconvenient fact that mccain's platform nearly exactly dovetails with a third bush term, kw...then by all means...support your position.
tell us how they differ using the details of their respective policy stances.
we'll listen...make your case or concede the point
April 8, 2008
5:32 PM
Jeff writes:
jay,
Really like your comparison to a basketball game. I rarely give you kudos but in this case, Kudos! Nail on the Head.
I do think you should carry it one step further though as once the decision is made it'll be like the Ron Artest show, jumping into the stands and beating the fans up. This will be the funniest Democrat convention in sometime. The excitement is building though... Will we have mass rioting and looting in LoDo or will the democrats show they've grown up a bit. Ha!
My bet is that we'll have mass rioting, looting, maybe a e-terrorist act, possibly a Tibeten protest that gets out of hand. It'll be someting for sure. Democrats just can't get over themselves.
I think having Bill Clinton as the keynote speaker will be a huge boon for a Hillary win. Wonder if Obamma would accept the VP spot after all the racial comments. Bet not, who'd want to be VP under the Bill and Hillary show?
April 8, 2008
5:39 PM
KW writes:
Oh childish one (jay), I already lead the way and provided the first policy difference between the three possible candidates. And so far you've conceded the point to McCain... Unless you would like to defend your mans $91 million in earmarks. Talk about more of the same, he hit your nail square on the noggin. I guess I can understand why your response completely ignored the policy difference, there's no excuse for wasting $91 million and you know it.
Well jaybird, I'd say "balls" in your court now but you obviously haven't the nads to debate like an adult. If you think you do, please present the next "McCain" policy up for discussion.
Otherwise you haven't grown up one bit.
April 8, 2008
5:42 PM
Mickey Randolph - the Boss writes:
Hillary's duplicity is lost on the liberal mass media
(and most leftward souls in this blog).
Great post @1:13
How the hell can any Democrat keep talking about voters rights while they try to subvert the democratic voting process by way of delegate stealing and back door dealing with superduperdingdongdelegates?
There is an obvious cancer of integrity in the Democrat party. This seems to explain the polls that show how large chunks of voters will choose against the party in the general election.
And Rome continues to burn.
April 8, 2008
5:53 PM
jay writes:
kw...i'll ask again. you can answer or you can concede the point instead of running like a little girl
By giving specifics...please tell us why you refuse to acknowledge the politically inconvenient fact that mccain's platform precisely dovetails with a third bush term. if you refuse to believe it...then tell us how mccain's policy stances on the major issues differs from bush's...or again....concede the point. there's isn't an option C.
April 8, 2008
6:12 PM
Anonymous writes:
Crap.
Over and over again this meat puppet tries to get people to respond to his bleating.
When does jay's supervised work-release end?
What an ahole.
April 8, 2008
6:52 PM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
Hey jay, if the only thing all of you on the left are banking on is swift boating McCain as a third term Bush shows your desperation bud.
Sorry fella....that won't fly as far as Hillarys sniper bullets and Obamas racial hand picked spiritual adviser for 20 years.
Plus many many other factors.
I'm kinda leaning for Mr.John McCain to pick Condi as his V.P now.
McCain for 8 then Condi for another 8...sounds great.
April 8, 2008
7:17 PM
jay writes:
shaggy...nice try.
acknowledging the inconvenient political fact that mccain's policy stances translate precisely to a third bush term isn't "swiftboating". It isn't an "attack", it doesn't make me "unpatriotic" or "unamerican" or any of the other talking points far right wingers like yourself like to use when you don't like hearing accurate criticism or acknowledgement of republican incompetence. do you understand the difference or are you, like your buddy kw, simply going to refuse to acknowledge yet another politically inconvenient fact and insist that instead it is somehow a "smear campaign" to be honest about one's track record/policy stances?
kw...still waiting....
April 8, 2008
7:26 PM
jay writes:
oh...and as far as condi for vp goes...i think it's a brilliant idea...absolutely brilliant. i'd be thrilled to have her in front of a national tv audience in a debate and have to answer some very uncomfortable questions that she has so far refused to...you betcha...i'd even send her money.
as far as the architects of the occupation are concerned...i think any of them would be great additions to the mccain campaign. he's already tapped rove...let's get rummy, cheney, wolfowitz, perle, feith, kristol, et al on board as well.
April 8, 2008
8:51 PM
KW writes:
I thought they had a spam prevention device here.
Why is it this poster named "jay" can reproduce the same illogical, fact-less based, moveon talking point mantra, under the pretense of being a legitimate "question" is beyond comprehension. There seems to be no (at least humanistic) intellectually programed device behind this spam-droid capable of responding to direct questions. Sort of an odd possession of a twisted mental malfunction, somehow creating his inability to understand basic, normal sentence structure... which is obviously a direct fault of this creatures creator.
Can you give us some insight here Mark? Never mind. I understand the term "it's a free country" applies to everyone here... even post turtles.
April 8, 2008
9:39 PM
jay writes:
"You're little game of "third term Bush" might work at the kindergarten blogs but in case you haven't noticed (for about a month now), nobody here is falling for you're childish games."
You can either defend this ridiculous statement and position or you can't, kw.
which is it?
Can you defend your position that mccain doesn't represent a third bush term, or can't you?
i'm calling you out.
put up or shut up
don't pout to mark when you're cornered....he can't help you...either you can justify the remarks you make here or you are talking out of your arse...
again...which is it?
April 9, 2008
8:26 AM
JW writes:
"again...obama has faired better against mccain...beating him...for months now...whereas hillary has very consistently done worse than he in the same polling...it's just data...there is no smoke and mirrors."
Hmmm. Looks like maybe YOU need to take that stats class. If they are both statistically tied in head to head (within the margin of error), which has been the case for months, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS when you say Obama has consistantly faired better. 47% to 44% is a TIE.
"again...sure it's POSSIBLE that obama could make some major gaffe or get hit by a bus or run down a first grade class with his tour bus...but aside from those kind of pie in the sky pipe dreams it is statistically nearly impossible that she will win the nomination...again man...i know you're a fan...but it just ain't gonna happen."
I pretty much agree with this. What I dont agree with is that she should drop out because she is hurting the party's chances come november (your original argument) or because its so unlikely she will win she might as well not try. If she isnt hurting the Dems chances come november, as the data tells us, then the fact that the media says so and YOU bought it means...nothing, to me. She can run until the end for all I care. Win or lose, shes not doing damage to the party, so I see no RATIONAL reason for her to quit. You want to buy the media crap like Shaggy consistantly does...have at it brother. Realize, it makes you a sheep, just like him.
"furthermore...all of the money that obama is having to use now to campaign against a member of his own party who has a near ZERO chance of winning the nomination could be used to craft and deliver messages against the republicans...which means that yes...hillary is thus hurting the party's chances in november by egotistically staying in a race that it's nearly certain she'll lose."
Dude, now youre starting to sound like Hogar. You throw up an argument that shes hurting the party with this fight. I blast it apart with DATA. Then you go off on this "she has no chance to win, so she should just quit" crap. I blast THAT apart. Now we are on to another bs argument.
You have an EMOTIONAL stake in the belief that Hillary continuing her run is bad for the Dems, and it doesnt matter WHAT the reality is.
BTW, just to hit this latest bs...
Both dems are consistantly FAR FAR FAR out fund raising McSame. He won't have as much cash as either one of these guys will for the GE. So, thats yet ANOTHER bs argument down. Whats next?
"all the spin or pollyannish thinking in the world isn't going to make this scenario any rosier for hill."
Man, Ive been pretty straight and rational about her chances. Youre still shoveling utter bs trying to make a legit point as to why she should quit...and you keep failing utterly.
And jay, just so you get it...
I usually agree with you. I usually think you are pretty sharp.
But regarding your thinking here, youve bought the media spin, and its pretty damn pathetic because again, I know you know better.
She isnt hurting the party. Her chances of winning are meaningless as an argument for why she should drop out. There is no reason to short change the democratic process here, and you need to deal with it. In the end, Obama will likely be the nom...and if he cant beat McSame it will have NOTHING to do with Hillary.
April 9, 2008
8:35 AM
KW writes:
jay - I've asked you numerous times to be specific in your accusations. I've tried to get you to discuss McCain's policies as listed on his website vs the dem hopefuls websites. I've even led the way by providing the first policy stance of McCain's that's clearly different than Hillary, Obama or even Bush. But you just keep repeating your same old tired mantra "third term Bush, third term Bush, third term Bush."
Try as I have, there just doesn't seem to be a way to have any sort of debate with this brick wall known as "jay."
BTW - Your concrete is crumbling.
JW - I don't think your surprise in jay's statements stems so much from you thinking you "know" him better.
It's just that now you're finally beginning to "see" him better. And it's a side you hadn't seen before.
April 9, 2008
8:42 AM
Observer writes:
The current spat between jay and jaydumbya is evidence of what happens when one guy forgets to bring KY on a date. Things get ugly fast.
Do yourselves a favor guys, since you both need that critical thinking class, just stop at Walgreen's on the way home.
April 9, 2008
8:50 AM
jay writes:
again kw....we're not talking about mccain vs. the other dem candidates...nice try though.
we're talking about your refusal to acknowledge that mccain's policy stances translate directly to a third bush term. don't try to run away from your own position by trying to say that you're attempting to defend it by comparing mccain with obama or hillary. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
now...either you can defend your position that mccain doesn't equal a third bush term....or you CAN'T
which is it?
stop running
April 9, 2008
9:22 AM
KW writes:
jay echoed himself: "we're talking about your refusal to acknowledge that McCain's policy stances translate directly to a third bush term."
jay - For the umpteenth time... What SPECIFIC policy stances are you referring to? What'sa madda, hasn't moveon given you that detailed portion of your phony mantra yet? Just repeating "third term Bush" over and over is just plain childish. Grow up already for Christs sake.
April 9, 2008
9:29 AM
jay writes:
jw and i went over very publicly the specifics you're talking about over a month ago kw...they're in the archives.
let's start one at a time.
the rest of us have already discussed the similarities of mccain's and bush's iraq policies.
why do you think they're different?
April 9, 2008
9:31 AM
KW writes:
Gee jay, thanks for being so specific.
/sarcasm
April 9, 2008
9:38 AM
jay writes:
don't pout because you're cornered, kw.
how does mccain's policy in iraq differ from bush's?
April 9, 2008
10:13 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
jay, hasn't KW debunked your wild conspiracy theories enough times already?
KW is right..I think jay is a spam creation to repeat the same garble day in and day out.
Hold on what was that comment the other day that described him to a tee????...oh yea....getting jay to actually answer a Q is like catching a high tech greased pig...rotflmao....
JW,
I know you don't want to realize the facts about what very well could happen if the rug is pulled from under Obamas feet. That just makes it all the more interesting because you don't see what we see on the outside of your party and that is that your party is consistently becoming divided.
But I keep forgetting that you know more about what is happening than the people who run the Democratic party and know all the inner workings.
I say elect your nominee here in Denver.
April 9, 2008
10:13 AM
history buff writes:
jay,
"Really like your comparison to a basketball game. I rarely give you kudos but in this case, Kudos! Nail on the Head."
Posted by Jeff on April 8, 2008 05:32 PM
Dude, that was my post. Don't be giving other people credit for my brilliance.
April 9, 2008
10:20 AM
jay writes:
maybe i missed it shag....in fact, i haven't seen either you or kw defend your positions that mccain doesn't represent a third bush term
by all means...post the date and time of the post in which either of you have done this....or do it now...or concede the point.
why does it always come down to chasing you two when you're cornered?
step up to the plate and defend your positions or admit you are wrong.
isn't that why you're here?
April 9, 2008
11:09 AM
KW writes:
jay inserts foot in mouth:
First off o' greased one, I've never taken a position that needs defending. It's you trying to create false positons in others so you can recite from your moveon "art of mindless debating without substance" script.
Secondly, o' ye of swiney spine, have NEVER ONCE defended your position that McCain IS representative of a "third term Bush." NEVER!
I'd be glad to debate specifics (as in policies) with you but as I said before (and Shaggy so eloquently remembered), getting you to answer specifically to a direct question is like chasing a greased pig.
Shaggy - I left off the "high tech" portion of the quote. Jay's rhetoric is so mundane he doesn't even begin qualify as state of the art anymore.
April 9, 2008
11:30 AM
jay writes:
well then i guess we're done here...and in the future...since you can't refute it and since the rest of us have established the specifics more than a month ago...i'd appreciate it if you didn't try to lie about the fact that mccain does indeed represent a third bush term.
thanks for conceding the point.
if you disagree with anything i've just said...by all means...STATE YOUR CASE....otherwise...i'll consider the matter closed.
April 9, 2008
11:38 AM
KW writes:
"S" as in "Specifics."
Oink, oink.
April 9, 2008
11:45 AM
jay writes:
still running?
fine...let's go back to the beginning.
specifically....how do you think mccain's policies in iraq differ from bush's?
April 9, 2008
12:12 PM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
jay, does defeat in Iraq equate to victory for you?
Just want to get a feel for your true Patriotism.
April 9, 2008
12:12 PM
KW writes:
jay - When I said "specific" I wasn't asking you to ask me to be more specific. But let me see if I can put this on a third grade level for you to understand.
Most "specifically," McCain has been saying since the onset that more troops are needed. Bush didn't see this need until after several years of little or no improvement. HUGE DIFFERENCE MY FRIEND. In addition, McCain wants to cease the rotation of generals. He sees this practice as "deeply flawed" because the experience gained by the generals is lost as they exit the theater.
So there's 2 HUGE differences for you jay.
Now, shall we compare OTHER policies of McCain or are you hanging your "third term Bush" slogan on only this one measly thin thread of hope.
Shall we discuss earmarks again? If you're not comfortable with that policy then you name the topic. Do you have anything other than Iraq? Anything to support your "third term" rhetoric.
Anything???
April 9, 2008
12:17 PM
jay writes:
we're talking about mccain's current policies in regards to iraq...what he plans on doing NOW and in the near future...and how those plans are different that bush's plans, kw.
any thoughts on how his current policies are different than bush's?
April 9, 2008
12:25 PM
KW writes:
I just gave you 2 jay, but oh well. At least you've proven to everyone here that Iraq is your only measly thread of hope for portraying McCain as a "third term Bush."
Too bad the thinking voters don't agree with you, but hey, good luck with that bumper sticker thingy you keep peddling. I'm sure some suckers will buy into it.
April 9, 2008
12:31 PM
jay writes:
no...you gave one current policy stance...that mccain disagrees with bush's tradition of replacing the generals that don't agree with his myopic view of the war...which isn't a strategic difference at all...
is that all you have?
you're making my point for me here.
if that's the only difference you can come up with then we can then deduce that mccain's policy stances on iraq are alike in every way that counts with bush's.
so...unless you have something else...let's move on to fiscal policy.
mccain has said that he will make permanent bush's tax cuts. are there any differences that you can muster?
April 9, 2008
12:51 PM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person writes:
Jay,
I think you must have honestly mistaken to answer my question so I will pose it again to you in good measure so this time you can answer it so we don't think you are avoiding it.
Does defeat in Iraq equate to victory for you?
If you don't understand that one let me give you another one.
Would you consider having a significant amount of progress in Iraq between now and November to be a bad thing?
April 9, 2008
1:22 PM
jay writes:
again shag....i support the majority position on iraq...that being that we should disconinute those policies that make our country weaker and our enemies stronger. do you disagree with that position? victory in iraq is impossible without the resources (troops) necessary to do the job. those resources are unavailable without a draft.
April 9, 2008
1:44 PM
Shaggy writes:
I'm sorry jay..I am having a hard time seeing where you answered me..you keep saying again so could you point out the answer to my direct question please...thanks bud.
Does defeat in Iraq equate to victory for you?
April 9, 2008
1:52 PM
jay writes:
why in the world would you think that anyone in america would equate "defeat" in iraq with victory, shagggy? once again...if you were worried about losing a war that we shouldn't have fought in the first place...you should have voted for different folks.
again...my position on iraq is simple.
I believe that the US shouldn't continue failed policies that have made our country weaker while making our enemies stronger.
do you disagree with that position?
April 9, 2008
1:57 PM
Anonymous writes:
The only thing that the dums are going to have locked up by June is the gift-wrapped victory that their infighting will be handing to McCain.
April 9, 2008
7:21 PM
Dems are in real trouble writes:
McSame, McBush, etc. - brilliant creations by the Libiot Puppetmasters.
Pre-chewed alliterative phrases for the simple minded sheeple who's empty stares fix on the Daily KOS and MediaMatters webpages as their drool strikes the sheet of paper on the desk informing them that their syphilis test was positive.
Is that ALL you can come up with girls?
April 9, 2008
7:51 PM
jay writes:
shaggy if you're going to post this kind of crap in the evenings....you shouldn't post under your real handle on another topic so close to the same time.
now...again...if you're going to try to refute the fact that mccain represents a third term...as you've tried to do below with that funny little cowardly moniker...you're going to have to support your position.
so....give us some ways in which mccain's policy stances differ from bush's or concede the point and promise never to imply otherwise again.
April 9, 2008
9:42 PM
Shaggys dog writes:
"I'm kinda leaning for Mr.John McCain to pick Condi as his V.P now.
McCain for 8 then Condi for another 8...sounds great."
I'm leaning for McCain to pick
Achmed chalabi for his VP
McCain for 8 then Achmed for another 8
sounds better.
April 10, 2008
8:06 AM
The money flow says Obama writes:
Seems to be a correlation with Jays polls and campaign fundraising.
Polls favors Dems over Pubs
and Obama over Clinton
money is flowing to the Democratic side and the top fund raiser is Obama
This is your next president
April 10, 2008
10:20 AM
jay writes:
i take it that since kw is hiding from me that he's conceded the point that mccain does indeed represent a third bush term.
last chance, kw...make your case or concede the point
April 10, 2008
10:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
McSame....McBush.....
(snicker)
It rhymes.
Cool.
-jayhole