WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.
And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.
Thanks!
Previous Open Thread is here
9481 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 9481 Newer› Newest»Russia going to war with a former member of the Soviet Union? Have you heard of anything stupider? Kind of like we attacking Canada. If China would just go ahead and invade Taiwan! There are how many Chinese? What 1.5 billion? They could use some good war that would kill some of their citizens, whether they choose to call themselves Taiwanese or whatever. They need a good intramural war.
I don't care if I'm called a fool-
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”-Mark Twain
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.”
Yes We Can Obama '08
The second quote was from Albert Einstein.
Jay Leno is picking up on satire-
http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/#mea=284289
Desperation causes 15 new jobs and on-shore drilling.
here's another quote:
Surely, in the light of history, it is more intelligent to hope rather than to fear, to try rather than not to try. For one thing we know beyond all doubt: Nothing has ever been achieved by the person who says, `It can't be done.'
Eleanor Roosevelt, You Learn By Living (1960)
vicki-I'm not trying to have the last word-
A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be. Rosalynn Carter
I'm not going to like the way every issue goes, but I'm aiming for the big picture.
Here's a quote we'll never hear from the Reps. or McCain and it reads like a collection of Ace of Base songs-
"Don't turn around", because "The Sign(s)" of the times aren't pretty and we're not a "Happy Nation."
I hope Bush knows the rules of chess or listens to someone who knows because this calls for some serius strategy-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
heh, these are good quotes! I don't care who has the last word, we are all winners.
Aunt Jean said...
BILL CLINTON DID NOT GET IMPEACHED!!!!!!!!!!!! Jean
Sorry to say, Aunt Jean, but you are definitely WRONG.
Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House of Represenatives, but was NOT convicted in the Senate.
Correcting another poster's false fact is not necessarily attacking that poster, but merely a correction of the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintonhome.html
There are 100s of thousands of sites that document the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and most of them also discuss the lack of a conviction by the Senate.
Doubt those sites? Then you can go to Thomas.gov to see the votes by the House. In fact, I'll provide the link to the full Congressional history of H.RES.611, "Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HE00611:@@@X
You'll see that four charges were brought. The first and third charges (first and third articles of the resolution) received a majority of votes, the second and fourth charges were defeated.
And just for your information, President Andrew Johnson was ALSO impeached, and also was NOT convicted. Thus Bill Clinton was the second President to be impeached, and also the second President to not be convicted.
Now, if you don't like your 'facts' corrected, don't post false facts. And if you don't like someone because they correct your false facts, it's no skin off my back.
Mike
I'm proud to be supporting an organized campaign-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?ref=us
Suzi,
I like this paragraph:
“I think a certain amount of tension is very healthy, and a certain amount of different views,” he said. “Because of the bubble that a president is in, and the bubble that a candidate is in, sometimes you find out afterwards something that — ‘Oh boy, I wish I had heard thus and such and so and so.’ So I appreciate and want some of the tension; I don’t want too much of it, obviously, because we have to have certain efficiencies. But I think there is a balance there.”
That is not the way to run a campaign, corporation or the Presidency.
You get all the information, even if it means someone has to play Devil's Advocate, come to a consensus or a decision is made, then you make an announcement (if necessary).
But BEFORE you make that announcement, you let everyone know the reasons why the decision was made the way it was, so that the opinions of those who disagree are shown to be respected.
If they don't like it that a decision is made differently than they wanted it to be made, then should they still be advising you? Most would say no. If they expect respect, then they will give respect when the decision is against their point of view, and understand that others were able to present stronger facts than they were capable of doing.
Mike
"I hope Bush knows the rules of chess or listens to someone who knows because this calls for some serius strategy-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"
This situation requires a leader who will exercise diplomacy, appropriate strength, is not easily rattled, and has proven sound judgment. An effective leader is not so arrogant that she/he will not consider the views of others when making decisions. S/he will NEGOTIATE to solve problems.
Let me renew my point regarding McCain's judgment. He has not demonstrated good judgment in many, many things including his comments at Sturgis. I admire his PATRIOTISM but there is a big difference between patriotism and sound judgment.
Obama is by no means Solomon. However, he has proven to have good judgment. The media is amazed how calm he remains when faced with attacks that would cause others to lose it.
Obama's willingness to modify his position on off-shore drilling indicates his lack of stubbornness. I remember during the debates when he "rejected" Farrakhan. HRC then asked him to "denounce him". I was irritated because it seemed redundant. However, he calmly did it demonstrating his lack of arrogance and respectfulness.
These are dangerous times. I pray that our citizens wake-up, put their biases aside, and vote correctly in November.
m in md-I agree. Also, why does he say he's in a bubble, and then says he understands the issues people are struggling with? That's another contradiction in his campaign.
beryl-I'm just very concerned that Bush will leave as big a mess as possible because he sees Obama winning.
There are a lot of conservative bloggers wanting Mc"Needs a"Cain to pick Romney for his VP candidate. It's funny/scary seeing some of their reasons.
I think the two MOST funny/scary reasons are:
1. He'll attract the Mormons of Colorado and Nevada. Most of them posting this don't consider the facts, which are how many of the Mormons of Nevada are not already going to vote for Mc"Needs a"Cain? and do they realize that Colorado only has about a 3% Mormon population? They think "Colorado. Mountain state. [True] Borders Utah. [True] Lots of Mormons. [False]" In other words, they don't check the facts.
2. They don't consider that a LOT of evangelicals think of the Mormons as a 'cult,' and would rather stay home than vote for a ticket that has someone who is a member of a 'cult' on it. There are lots and lots of evangelicals, vastly outnumbering Mormons, in Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado, Georgia and other states. Since there are many more evangelicals than Mormons in those states, they risk picking up (maybe) Nevada, but putting several states, already 'at risk' of going blue into a much more 'risky' position, or actually going blue.
It's fun seeing them do flip-flops when someone actually points out these facts to them.
Mike
m in md-lol, yes, funny/scary that neocons see in absolutes, black and white, and good or bad.
Hello all, I'm checking in....my brother and niece finally left this morning (and as promised I'm taking about a 2 week hiatus - but will be checking in) but I see everybody went ape-sheeeeeeeeeeit when I left again. :)
But remember I will be in and out over the course of the Olympics. Unfortunately I have not seen the Opening ceremony yet. Thanks for the heads-up on the bagpipes jean, I can't stand the bagpipes (although I do like kilts (VVVVBG).
The only thing I don't like about going back to the "old" system is that I don't know what led to the beginning statements about Clinton (NOOOOOO I don't want to know what got everyone to go ape sheeeeeit to begin with. Basically leaving the dead horse dead without kicking it anymore.)
--------
Suzi, it doesn't matter what you use the other forum for. Sorry, hadn't checked until now :)
--------
I am SOOOOOOOO glad that the Olympics are running right now. This way, McArsehole can keep "campaigning" and making his stupid statements and Obama is taking a "mini" vacation, but at least McStupid won't be getting the free face time with the media. At least I don't think so.
I do have a birthday party to go to right now, so I will check back in tomorrow.
By the way p'd ant - I know you don't want to disclose your boys name, but what was the name going to be if it were a girl?
Dave,
Not surprisingly, it started with a comment by "mike".
i v-Did you know Paul Harvey found out what's worn under the kilts? VBG
apissedant said...
Dave,
Not surprisingly, it started with a comment by "mike".
--------
apissedant - But the comment made by 'mike' was correct, it was the comment after his that started battle ;)
I don't think that any blame should be directed towards 'mike' it was not any of his doing.
Obama/Sebelius '08
Independent voter-
The Opening Ceremony was AWESOME!
300 million dollars worth of awesome!
Leah,
I would disagree completely...
These "innocent" comments are meant to stir up divides. He started by bashing all Edwards supporters as idiots and bashing Edwards in general, knowing full well that many of us had previously supported Edwards. None of us took the bait, so he went on to Clinton supporters. Not surprisingly, someone took the bait. It isn't about who is right or wrong, it is about the fact that the ENTIRE CONVERSATION HAS NO POINT OR PURPOSE IN BEING IN THIS THREAD.
Read back, almost every time mike posts, a very personal argument ensues. You may have a short memory, or believe in coincidences, but I don't.
If you don't believe me, go back and search for various places mike has posted. Many have already been deleted, so you can see the argument surrounding his comments, but not his. Others are still available for viewing.
Now he is advocating death and destruction on innocents with the campaign platform, "misery loves company."
Please explain to me how speaking gleefully about scenes like this possibly carries out the mission of this website.
He has made no positive contribution to this site at all. His comments are often bigoted, and always have the intent of arousing conflict.
I would also mention that I stated the page needed a good cleaning after the statements by both mike and Stop, and before aunt jean's incorrect retort. Had the page been properly cleaned when the problem first arose, there would have been no need for the negative and highly personal argument.
You say you want a forum that is free from the irrelevant arguments and that contributes, even in whatever way it can to the success of Senator Obama. Stay true to your convictions, put your money where your mouth is, and speak out against statements that have no purpose other than to divide the forces and pit them against each other. I don't care how much you dislike aunt jean, or how little respect you have for her. You DO support and respect Senator Obama, so you ought to be all for what is best for him. A divided Democratic forum, assisted and pushed into that division by a man that has clearly stated how much he detests the Democratic party, is in no way best for Senator Obama.
Talking about the pretty boy democrat with $400 haircuts, the character of the candidate is germane. Why is there nothing further about McCain’s most recent lobbyist mistress, Vicki Iseman? She has been deep-sixed. She disappeared without a word. What use is the media? I want to know if she is still alive or is she dead. If alive, where is she?
apissedant-
I really have no idea what you are talking about. I was only referring to the 'impeachment' back and forth that was going on.
Anyway... next subject ;)
Mike-
Also why isn't the media calling McCain an elitist since he owns 9 homes and wears $520 shoes!
And he had a painted campaign plane for a long time before Obama did!
And the press should be talking more about how McCain takes every weekend off too. And that he hasn't be to work at the Senate since APRIL!
Everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
Everyone should watch this and email to everyone you know.
Republicans and miltary men on John McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w&eurl=
.
mike in md,
agreed
Some people see no harm when they agree with the trolls. They don't understand that some trolls are smarter than others, and make statements that some will find agreement in in order to sucker others into an argument.
I can't get my comments accepted at Faux Smear Channel. Do you think I'm surprised? This is the article I quoted from-
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/john-mccain-say.html
I didn't put the website in my comment. The other night, McCain's website even popped up without anything on the page I was reading being able to link on. I'm emailing his campaign about that. There better not be any malware infiltrators.
peevish-Did you see my answer to where the photo is from? Just checkin'.
Leah, it drives me batty every time I hear people say that the media is biased toward Obama. Actually, with only one exception of Olbermann (and only after he got tired of defending Hillary and bashing Obama) the entire media is against Obama. They are succeeding in making this election a referendum on Obama, instead of a referendum on the current administration – as it should be.
I don’t blame the media as much as I blame the consumer – us. We refuse to turn off the TV.
After the gang-bang Stephanopoulos and his old-man anchor did on Obama in the so-called debate, the only network I can watch now besides CSPAN is MSNBC. And even there, they have Andrea Mitchell covering Obama. She was in the bag for Hillary and she still has not forgiven Obama for winning. Every report she gives on Obama, she finds a way to stick a knife in there. Every time. So, when she comes on, I turn the TV off and wait 5 minutes and try again. If she is still there, the TV goes off for the rest of the program and beyond.
Chuckling as I type this.
The reason? The MSM's stupidity and their adding two plus two and coming up with nine.
A July 25 article on ABC News' [so-called] Political Radar took:
1. Senator Obama's return to the US from his overseas tour the weekend of July 26-27; and
2. A fund-raiser in DC's Georgetown featuring Caroline Kennedy on July 28 to mean:
The Obama campaign would make an announcement that night to attendees, or the next day.
Still chuckling.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/veepbeat-caroli.html
Mike
Andrea Mitchell has been on Senator Obama's side for awhile now... since around the time he got back from overseas.
Again, everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
I am even more positive now that Senator Obama will pick Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for his VP.
There is less of a chance that Sebelius has had an extra-marital affair as opposed to Bayh, Biden, or Kaine.
I just saw somebody's comment in political buzz that jogged my memory. As an active duty officer when he committed adultery against his first wife, why didn't McCain get court-martialled?
suzi-
Probably because he was fooling around 'after' he came home from being a POW.
It would have made the military look bad to court-marshall a war hero.
Besides McCain's daddy was a big wig in the military.
soft,
Sorry, I meant to respond, but I was distracted by a stupid and pointless argument. Yes, it was a picture your husband took. There was something else in the message, but I forgot that now. sorry ;)
Leah,
Maybe I am just more sensitive than you are. I always hear her say something negative about Obama. Take for example when she came back from the Asia-Europe tour with Obama. I heard her say: “It was a nice trip for Obama. The only question is if he was not deferential enough to the French Prime minister.”
Obama is running to be leader of the free world. He cannot be differential to any person. What I actually hear in her voice is whether or not Obama was too uppity. That is what she actually meant. I understood it. And I hated it about her.
I have seen on Huffpost how they say she said something in defense of Obama. Well, if she speaks the truth about the man she is assigned to cover, there is nothing but good about him. Maybe she is less negative than other press. But even her coverage I find unacceptable.
Again, everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
Leah and soft,
No one really gets court marshaled for adultery unless it becomes very public and embarrassing for the military. Believe me, if they court marshaled everyone that committed adultery, they wouldn't have much for an armed forces. Most people that actually get court marshaled for this are committing adultery and fraternization at the same time, and fraternization they do not take lightly. Eisenhower was believed to have a mistress while in the military btw.
peevish-Okay. No biggie.
In the upheaval of the thread the last couple of days, did anybody mention the Straight Talk Express swung a little too far to the right in Miami? My husband said that poor Ford got bushwacked. ;)
So what are we going to try to do tomorrow night, boys and girls?
soft,
It was mentioned at some point, but I don't remember if it was this thread, the VP thread, or the dead thread, but it was mentioned in passing. Cute statement by your husband, he should write David Letterman, because that's funnier than most the crap Letterman says. ;)
Yep, it was mentioned when we were talking about the Obama bumper sticker photo that was taken the day before the accident.
I hope it is a trend and a lot of people start putting Obama stickers on McCain's bus every opportunity they get ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if McCain had put that Obama sticker on there himself just to get some publicity !!! LOL.
Well, what do you know? Here is someone else who does not think that Elizabeth walks on water . And she even talked about the bubba bimbo eruptions.
Again, everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
Oh, yeah, I loved the bumper sticker part! Sorry, I had a blonde moment. ;)
peevish-Watch out. My countdown to being in your (dam)neck of the woods is 4 days. My husband is going to pretend to pay his future brother-in-law to take his sister. Narf!
m in md-If we do, should we have to write 2008 times, DNFT?
Again, everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
Yea, yea the woman is ill. But that does not defend the fraud she and her husband tried to perpetrate on the Democratic Party and the nation. Actually, this is not a minority opinion. Listen to someone else say what I have been saying.
Ouch...those moments are adding up for McCain-
http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/view/talk-about-painful
The carbetbagger report on McCAin is over 60-
http://tinyurl.com/5aaosp
On this day in history-
In 1936, Jesse Owens won his fourth gold medal at the Berlin Olympics as the United States took first place in the 400-meter relay.
Lieberman ‘on McCain short-list’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4af34942-65a1-11dd-a352-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=729ab242-9cb1-11db-8ec6-0000779e2340.html
---
I hope McCain picks LIEberman
McCain will be 72
and
Lieberman is 66
I think the age issue will really stand out and the Republicans will LOSE by a landslide!
While I'm thinking about the Olympics-
“I ran and ran and ran every day, and I acquired this sense of determination, this sense of spirit that I would never, never give up, no matter what else happened.”
Wilma Rudolph (First American woman Runner to win three gold medals at a single Olympics. 1940-1994)
"DNFT"
Got it and I see your point.
We need a troll reference list.
I must see!!!
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-501&va=bush+mccain+hug&sz=all
.
leah-I'm thinking Lieberman as a backstabber myself.
leah-EWWW! Can I claw my eyes out now?
Oh yeah, I'd almost forgotten about that soft... why are you headed over to va beach again? You should have come a week earlier so you could have seen Michelle Obama speak. IT WAS AMAZING!
Regarding the Olympics...
Over 300,000 couples tie knot on Olympics start date
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080810/od_afp/oly2008lifestylechinaweddingoffbeat_080810044708
.
peevish-My sister-in-law wasn't very accomodating in her wedding plans, eh?
soft,
RIDICULOUS!
I would have told her she moves it up a week or I'm not coming! The selfishness of family members, eh?
peevish-It's not like her fiancee actually had to be there to stand before the minister! Oh, and why'd it have to be on a gorgeus beach? Who wants the sun and the sand and seashells for a top?!?! Don't get me going again!?!?!
ugh... disgusting! Mount Trashmore is perfectly nice darn it.
lol, well I gotta hit the sack
my wife said so
peevish-Is it usually windy on Mt. Trashmore? That's just a few blocks from my sis-in-law and people were flying kites on it last Thanksgiving. We were rolling down it on something like a skateboard.
Letterman may not be too funny-
http://lateshow.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/index/php/20080728.phtml
The comb-over gets to my husband too, my friends.
I understand. It must suck to be so wrong in your judgment about candidates. But ask yourself, if you knew then that pretty boy had the skeleton in his closet called Rielle Hunter and was lying about it, would you have supported his candidacy?
That is my question. I am not asking about the affair per se. I am asking if you think that a candidate who conceals material fact (and shamelessly lied about it with the full support of his wife) that would affect his candidacy is deserving of your support. Now answer this question: why were you so unable to see the schmuck for what he is?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I am tired of people always saying: we were deceived; we thought Iraq had WMD; etc. I say: smarten up already.
soft,
I don't know, drive by it, but never actually stopped at it. Plus I guess the definition of windy is rather subjective anyways... I can tell you it isn't windy in my bedroom or in my office at school. That's about it.
oh, and it is windy in my car, because I don't have a/c in it.
I wonder if Mc"Needs a"Cain will hear about this report:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901693.html?hpid=sec-world
Imagine - In the current negotiations with the Iraqi government, the US is discussing a troop withdrawal from Iraqi cities sometime next year, perhaps as early as next June.
Will that help or hurt Mc"Needs a"Cain?
Mike
Mike in Maryland and everyone else
I'm going to say this one more thing and then I will stop about it.
I know [believe it or not Leah I am not a stupid woman like you imply which is not the first time that you have done this]
I know that Bill faced the House of rep. and they voted to impeach him. But by law [politics] it's not the house of rep. that make the real decision it's the sen. they choose not to do it.
It's not the fact that Bill was brought up on IMPEACHMENT that bothers me it's because he should have never been brought up on it. It was the republicians that had it in for him because he beat the republicican for the job of POTUS.
There is a few people and they know who they are make it sound like he was scum of the earth and did something not so much morally wrong so much but that he committed crime like Bush has done.
The people on here just neetles the hell out of me because they can't say what they want to say and then go on. They have got to keep it up until somebody gets pissed.
They bring up shit that has NO barring on this election so to me the only reason they do is to piss me off. Not only is that uncalled for it's reprehensible.
No I don't think Bill Clinton was a GOD he just was a great POTUS. Doesn't matter if you agree with that statment or not I'm not the only one there are millions of other people that believe that. So in that belief for someone to try and keep dragging his name thru the mud like some people on here it's uncalled for and tasteless and proves to me that they can be uncouth.
I know what both Bill and Hillary has done wrong everybody does. but what they don't take into consideration is what Obama has done in the past or present but talk about him like he has done no wrong and he's a God.
I've asked politely to stop with the insults of the Clintons but they keep it up so or they any better than some of the trolls on here since they only keep it up for one reason to piss people off that is troll like is it not.
Enough is enough sorry for the long post but I hope the bashing of the Clintons stop. Jean
"The people on here just neetles the hell out of me because they can't say what they want to say and then go on. "
Aunt Jean, I make remarks from time to time because the Clintons resurface and do something annoying or potentially harmful to Obama's chances.
Like Hillary's video about "catharsis," which strangely no other candidate's supporters need, leading to the prospect of a mess at the convention. Or the prospect of Bill, who hasn't been able to be gracious yet, speaking at the convention.
When the convention should be united behind Obama, the nominee, not reminding voters of the Clinton disgraceful last term and how bad it was for the nation being paralyzed with all Bill's crap or Hillary sowing divisions among Democrats in hope Obama will lose so she can run in 2012.
If they would shut up, probably no one would keep bashing them down. It is sort of like whack a mole (actually, I would never harm an animal, but you know what I mean.)
Karen Anne
but what you don't seem to understand that isn't my take on what Hillary is doing.
All I get out of it is the bashing of the Clintons. I don't see in any way that she has done or said anything that would harm Obama. Only people Like you, Leah and maybe 1 or 2 others feel or at least say that.
So my take on this is this: I don't give a shit my darling God [Obama] you won. You do no wrong and the damn Clintons the sorry piece of shits need to get on their knee and kiss my feet because I am good enough to help her pay her bills off she should be kissing my ass for that also.
This was a very close race the nation was split between Obama and Hillary. I'm not saying that Obama needs to be a yes man to Hillary but she deserves respect [he gives her that]. But his supporters don't or at least a few don't.
No they had rather bring up shit that happened years ago and grind into the ground [just to prove a point]until it makes me mad. I think Obama will need Hillary's backers and to keep bashing them is pushing them away.
I'm not the type of person to let someones bigotry keep me from doing the right thing but I even have my limits. I do know that there are plenty of people out there that will let anger make them have rash decisions. Bashing the Clintons makes a lot of people very angry.
It is totally uncalled for. I'm not saying that you have to sit there and say good things about them just don't bad mouth them.
I hope I'm getting my point across. A lot of times I don't. Jean
Karen Anne 1 more thing. It wouldn't make sense for Hillary to want Obama to lose.
It would make more sense for him to get in there and do a great job. Both of their ideas are like each other. So wouldn't it be easier for her to be a shoo in if he did even a half way decent job?
The main reason look at what we have had for years now!!!Jean
aunt jean,
Please show good judgment and let this stupid issue go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
As Leah described, impeachment is just the first phase. It occurs in the House of Representatives. They effectively act as a Grand Jury.
Being impeached is equivalent to being indicted. It was partisan BS, and we all know it.
"Four Republicans opposed all four articles, while five Democrats voted for at least one of them. Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. (In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency before the House impeachment vote.)"
The fact is, in the past 28 years we've had 4 Presidents. Reagan, Bush, and Bush all SUCKED. They hurt our economy, created a national debt that my great grand children will still be paying off, and spend entirely too much time waving their fist in the air. So Clinton got a blow job, I don't care. He was still the best President we've had in 40 years, because anyone arguing for Nixon, Ford, or Carter won't get many supporters either.
In any case. STOP TAKING THE BAIT. LET IT GO. Yes, Bill did a good job in office, yes he had many moral issues and was most definitely impeached. All of the above is true.
Ap gladly!
How are you today? How is your wife? How is the weather there?
OBAMA Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama!!!!
Is that better LOL. Have a nice one! Jean
aunt jean,
LOL,
My wife is good, I am good, and the weather is great. How about everything on your end?
Ap
thought you would get a kick out of the Obama's.
It's nice and sunny and hot as heck. I'going in alittle while to visit family and to check on them. The good thing about it is I have 2 sistersand a niece within a mile from me. Isn't life beautiful!!!. Jean
well it sounds like you'll be having fun today. ;)
Ap
so what are you up to today? I don't need your height and weight either. LOL AJ
Ap I'm out of here enjoy your day. Also I'll talk to you later. AJ
p.s. stay sweet
aunt jean,
I'm going to study for the GRE for my grad school applications. Have a great day. ;)
This is part of Bernie Mac's routine that wasn't mentioned. Of course it was the negative stuff that was spun-
"Having a black first lady is different," Mac told the audience at a Chicago fundraiser for Barack Obama last month.
'You didn't pick up the kids?'
"'I just came from Korea, talking about nuclear weapons.'
"'You were on Air Force One and you couldn't stop to pick up the kids?'"
It's going to be great to have a family in the WH again.
Earth to McCain. You'll need to shift your timetable time horizon victory surge position at least one more time-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080810/ts_nm/iraq_dc
"We've" placed a democratic government in Irag. Now "we" need to respectfully agree to their requested expectations.
Re: "It wouldn't make sense for Hillary to want Obama to lose...It would make more sense for him to get in there and do a great job. ...So wouldn't it be easier for her to be a shoo in if he did even a half way decent job?"
In 2012, she'll be 65. If she won two terms, she wind up 73. At the end of an Obama second term, she'd be 69. If she won two terms then, she wind up 77.
With all due respect to McCain running at 71, and I'm no spring chicken myself, age has to be a factor in her considerations, regardless of how much plastic surgery she has.
Karen Anne-
You have brought up a great issue.
We should not stop keeping an eye on the Clintons.
There are MANY groups out there that are doing everything they can do in order to get Obama to lose so that HRC can run in 2012.
Hillary has also purchased a website for her run in 2012.
I am furious today after reading the article regarding the 'inside memos' of the Hillary camp about how they wanted to paint Obama as foreign and unAmerican.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12420.html
We must never forget that is this the political world and they will all do ANYTHING to win!
The Edwards' issue will affect the Democratic Convention. There are already articles out there that are saying that by what has happened it will be bringing up the 'memories' of Bill Clinton's affairs and people are going to be thinking about that when they see Bill speak at the Dem Convention.
I guess we can all hope that Bill catches the flu and has to stay home!
I am still hoping that the media will start talking more about McCain's affairs and the fact that McCain left his sick wife to marry Cindy - and they applied for a marriage license before his divorce was final!
Obama/Sebelius '08
It's good to see that McCain isn't as popular with the Vets and he would like everyone to believe!
----
McCain’s attacks on rival fall flat with vets group
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/aug/10/mccains-attacks-rival-fall-flat-vets-group/
.
From the DNCC...
2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION HEADLINE SPEAKERS
* Monday August 25th’s headline prime-time speaker will be Michelle Obama.
* Senator Hillary Clinton, who is a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today, will be the headline prime-time speaker on Tuesday August 26th.
* The headline prime-time speaker on Wednesday August 27th will be Barack Obama’s Vice Presidential nominee.
* On Thursday, August 28th, the DNCC will throw open the doors of the Convention and move to INVESCO Field at Mile High so that more Americans can take part in the fourth night of the Convention as Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination.
.
"I am furious today after reading the article regarding the 'inside memos' of the Hillary camp about how they wanted to paint Obama as foreign and unAmerican."
Grrr.. The negative campaign memos have surfaced. I don't have a problem with negative campaigning when the issues are the focus. McCain has the right to talk about Obama's opposition to the surge and Obama has a right to talk about McCain's support on a war that should never have been waged.
However, it is completely inappropriate for a candidate or their paid supporters to talk about the opposition's personal life. When unpaid supporters make those attacks, the candidate needs to denounce or reject them.
Therefore, I am also angered by those "inside memos".
What does "unAmerican" mean anyway? Unpatriotic or is this an ethnicity indicator. No matter what they meant, it is just wrong
1. All of our candidates are patriotic or they wouldn't run for public office!!
2. People can't help what they were named, who their parents were, and how their parents acted.
As much as I hate negative campaigning, it is necessary because it works. Obama can stay on the high ground but he will need to get dirty to win this thing. Howard Dean can testify to this.
WOW! Just finished watching the opening ceremony. WOW!!!!!!
What an amazing show!!!!!
This is really humorous. First, Georgia gets a big erection and goes after its small separatist minority. Russia sees its ethnic group being beaten up and it goes after Georgia. Georgia immediately announces a unilateral cease-fire. Russia says: no dice.
Meanwhile, Georgia is US backed. But US is tied up in Iraq. Do you see what happens when you lack geopolitical vision? I am surprised Russia waited this long to flex its muscle.
There has been quite alot of talk on this thread about the attitude and actions of Obama supporters.
Well now it is time to shed light upon the attitude and actions of the Clinton supporters...
August 10, 2008
Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign10-2008aug10,0,443871.story
Excerpt:
Tensions between Obama and Clinton forces were evident at the Convention Center here, where the meeting took place. Clinton's supporters sat together in the audience, wearing campaign buttons and T-shirts bearing her name. One person hissed when Obama's name was mentioned.
----
It is time for everyone to start acting like adults and start working together to get Obama elected!
Democrats Stay Brave in Face of Potential Clinton Challenge at Convention
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/10/democrats-stay-brave-in-face-of-potential-clinton-challenge-at-convention/
---
beryl said...
2. People can't help what they were named, who their parents were, and how their parents acted.
McCain's parents probably said, John, you had so much potential.
It'll be interesting to see what McCain does about the memos because he hasn't successfully contrasted issues so far with his own ideas.
Hahahaha....
FiveThirtyEight.com has an article regarding the negative ad that McCain is running during the Olympics titled:
The Grinch Who Stole The Olympics
That is a great headline for McGrinch!
leah-McCain's desperation is hilarius. lol
Uh-oh. That 'time horizon, not time line' advocated by Shrub and echoed by McSame just got deep-sixed by the Iraqi government.
In a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081000505.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR), it's reported that "Iraq's foreign minister insisted Sunday that any security deal with the United States must contain a "very clear timeline" for the departure of U.S. troops."
How will McSame be able to wiggle out of his 'why not a hundred years'?
Mike
I have an admission. I've been a bad boy.
I've been having some fun over at Pollster.com, debunking some of the posts by neo-cons who seem to have swarmed the site recently, trying to convince everyone there that Senator Obama's campaign is now toast.
I know I shouldn't pick and choose parts of their arguments to debunk, but it's a lot simpler to do that than to debunk an entire post by some of the neo-con idiots. Besides, if I effectively disembowel part of their argument, it casts doubt on the entirety of their argument. And they're starting to notice that, and don't like it.
VBG
Mike
Tiring of the "Obama is a Messiah" comments, I found a comment in a free Christian newspaper that reflected my thoughts. Here is an excerpt:
"...Obama is not my savior. He is a mere mortal man. Additionally, my faith, trust, and hope is in Christ Jesus, In God have I put my trust...
"Do I still like Senator Obama - definitely, does he get my vote in November -- absolutely. I do not know what will happen over the next four years or what the future holds, but I do know who holds future and that is where my Hope is -- in Christ Jesus. I now know for sure, that Senator Obama not only needs our support, but he is in greater need of our prayers."
Yes, I am enthusiastic about Barack Obama as POTUS but I am a realist. He will be taking on a MESS that Bush left for someone to clean up. It will take TIME, patience, and compromise to clean it up.
Obama will make mistakes as all humans do. I don't expect everything to be straightened out even after 4 years of his presidency. I think we'll be going in the right direction if remember the slogan "Yes, we can", stay in the boat, row, and PRAY.
From a Colorado support group:
---------------
I just wanted to let everyone know about some new flyers / handouts
that spell out McCain's confusion on Iraq over the years (and
specifically, all of his self-contradictory statements about the
timeline):
http://gutcheck08.blogspot.com/
Also at that site are flyers that compare what McCain and Obama said
on Iraq in 2002. Check back often, because there will be more flyers
posted (including ones about Obama's accomplishments in the senate and
more). The goal will be to present the facts (so there will be no
personal attacks on McCain, but plenty of policy-related ones).
Hopefully you'll find these flyers useful when going door to door for Obama.
-Barath
Rich folks always find a loop-hole or a way around the rules or the law...
-----
Clinton to forfeit $13 mil loan, unless…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12429.html
.
I haven't read this article yet but the headline is intriguing!
---
Catching the Wrong John: Why Are the Media Talking about Edwards' Infidelity If They Aren't Going to Talk about McCain's?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/catching-the-wrong-john-w_b_118064.html
.
"Clinton insiders have grumbled that Obama hasn’t done much towards fulfilling a promise to help her raise cash from his donors, who have chipped in an estimated $500,000 to date. Perhaps as a result, Clinton made a final $1 million loan to her campaign after she’d already dropped out of the race, partly to pay back colleges and universities from which the campaign rented facilities."
Grrr (again)!! As a woman who faithfully watches Suze Orman, has a FICO score over 800, ZERO credit card debt, savings which could last me well over 1 year, and a decent 401K, I resent the implication that women can't manage their money without assistance.
It really irks me that Obama was even expected to assist in retiring those debts. HRC is smart and highly capable of managing her OWN finances. Requiring Obama to help retire her debts is downright insulting. I'd like to slap some of those "Clinton insiders".
Handle your own business, women! Stay out of debt in the first place.
The average Obama supporter only gave $100 so why aren't those 18 million loyal supporters retiring that debt. They each can donate less than $1 to pay off the vendors,
Mike in Maryland-
I just spent 20 minutes looking for this link for you:
Popular Vote v. Electoral College
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-nickolas/popular-vote-v-electoral_b_117525.html
---
It could come in handy when talking about 'polls' etc. to others - especially when others toss out the 'why isn't Obama doing better' argument.
Good article about McCain's infidelity, Leah, and expected. The Obama camp is rightfully staying away from this topic and sticking to the issues. They should only veer off to handle any attacks from McCain.
That doesn't stop supporters on either side. LOL!
McCain was equally wrong in the way he handled his first wife and it goes right to his character. He not only cheated on her, he later abandoned her completely in her time of need.
There will be more discussions around this topic now that Edwards' behavior has become a political talking point.
Beryl said: "Yes, we can", stay in the boat, row, and PRAY.
---
I really like that!
If I remember correctly, someone on here is an accountant or something like this to do with banking and accounting. This person, please respond, because I'm doubting some statistics that I keep hearing. I'm running the numbers, and I'm finding absolutely no way that they're real, so I want to run them by someone.
Amen, Beryl.
Everyone PLEASE remember:
DNFT
Do
Not
Feed
Trolls
DNFT
Mike
Beryl-
I agree!
If everyone of the alleged 18 million Clinton supporters were to give her $1 her debt would be paid off.
There are several things that Hillary has done that sheds a bad light on 'women'
1) She did not manage her campaign (her staff, surrogates, and the daily message) as well as her male opponents
2) She did not manage her funds in a proper manner
3) Via her surrogates she 'called foul' with the sexism card. It was wrong for her to make a big deal over ONE person yelling out 'iron my shirt'. That one man did not represent ALL American males
4) To turn her campaign into a campaign for women towards the end was offensive, since that was not the agenda of her campaign from the start. I think she used the plight of women and the catch phrase 'breaking the glass ceiling' only as a campaign sound bite to drum up support when she was trailing behind
I could go on, but my finger are getting tired ;)
Don't worry Mike in Md, people have been pretty good at ignoring that troll, it is the other one that is continually attracting attention.
Leah,
I think it might just be the middle finger that is getting tired. ;)
I would like to point out that Bill and Hillary had a negative net worth when they left the White House. Also, the Whitewater deal resulted in a loss of around 50,000 dollars for the Clintons, and a 70 million dollar taxpayer witch hunt found no wrong doing by either of them.
I do not see a reason to perpetuate Republican smear campaigns and beat a dead horse.
THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA. He is an honest man, a good family man, an intelligent man, and a hardworking man that is running this campaign on his merits and his accomplishments, not on how "terrible" the other candidates are.
Why can't we focus on this man and the issues, instead of continually smearing those we don't like? Isn't who Barack Obama reason enough to elect him President?
peevish clif-Did you say you were on facebook? Did you get to see more pictures from your other half?
I'm on Myspace, but not facebook. Why we continually switch to the new "in" social networking site still amazes me. I've been on social networking sites since 2001, and myspace is the 4th one I've seen fall from grace, and facebook is the 5th one I've seen become the new "it" site. Ugh, what was wrong with the old one!?!?
Sorry. Anyways, I see her almost every single day on webcam, and I got to see pictures of her belly and from the ultrasound on Saturday. :)
apis,
I agree that we should focus on our candidate. However, the news story about the insiders complaining about Obama not doing enough to retire another candidate's debt is worth discussion.
That debt is a distraction. I do not want Obama focusing on anything but McBush and I encourage every HRC supporter to get busy and retire that debt. Those who are better off financially should make up for those who are struggling.
Leah
I believe that you are wrong on this: Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system.
It was never talked about they put it off so I wouldn't call that a failure.I guess you didn't read the whole article. It will have it's day after the convention is over that is all.Jean
Beryl
Let's see Obama told Hillary that he would help her retire her debt.
Are you saying that his word isn't worth anything? I don't see that.
Please get off Hillary, is this Hillary bashing day or what.
I'm beginning to think that there are a few people on here that really don't want Obama to win and if they really do they have a strange way of supporting him. Give it a break please!!!!!! Jean
We need caucuses in the GE. This private voting eliminates accountability. Everyone who voted for Bush and is now supporting a 3rd term with McCain is to blame for the state of things:
1. A war based on a LIE including WH forged documents. The deaths of over a million innocents.
2. Gas prices through the roof.
3. Predatory lending resulting in foreclosures and the decline home values.
4. Record-breaking off-shoring of jobs.
5. HUGE National debt.
6. US citizens are hated around the globe.
7. A nation "stuck on stupid". Bush made it through college because of affirmative action for the rich. Now the RNC is promoting McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class.
Clinton left the country in relatively decent shape. The National debt was retired and those Twin Towers were still standing.
In no time at all things went downhill. There was sufficient intelligence to prevent the 3000 deaths on 9/11/01 but the Bush administration didn't act on it. The war is the primary reason for most of the troubles outlined above.
Those who voted for Bush were wrong and should listen to those of us who did not. The caucus system would facilitate discussion and help voters make intelligent choices.
Well today, we saw the pre-spin from that master of manipulation, Karl Rove.
Apparently, whomever Senator Obama picks as VP will be for political reasons -- regardless of how qualified that person might be for the job.
Meanwhile, Senator McCain's pick will represent McCain's willingness to sacrifice his political hopes to do what is best for the country.
What a load of rubbish. All VP picks are political decisions. Fortunately, what is good for wining an election is normally what is good for the country. Although, in the case of Dick Cheney, I have my doubts.
I guess Karl Rove once again subscribes to the position that while you can't fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool enough of them enough of the time.
Too bad CBS doesn't have the guts to put background music on their Sunday Morning Spin shows -- I am thinking "Razzle Dazzle" from Chicago would do well as Rove's theme song.
Beryl
I understand what you are saying but the truth is you are making it more of a distraction then it should be. Jean
Our local NBC station just had a story about McSame possibly trying to 'deflate the age argument' by promising only one term. Some reports are that it will be announced at the neo-con Convention.
This could backfire on him. Up to now the MSM has been very, very quiet about his age. If the McLame campaign brings it up as an election ploy, then the MSM WILL be forced to discuss it, and a lot of people will be reminded of his age. The public will be even more reminded when Senator Obama and Mc"Needs a"Cain are on stage together at the three debates.
Mike
Beryl
I totally diagree with you when it comes to caucues. They are unfair and totally wrong. All I can hope for is that the DNC desides to do away with them.
If you really want to know someone all you have to do is go to their web site, listen to debates or adds. So that is no reason to have caucuses. Jean
Aunt Jean said...
Leah
I believe that you are wrong on this: Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system.
--------------------
Aunt Jean-
I was NOT wrong.
That was the HEADLINE of the article. I did not write it the author of the article did.
apissedant-
Anything is that is the news is FAIR GAME to talk about.
Right now the hot topics in the news are:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
John Edwards
John McCain
they are all fair game.
When you are in the public eye the public has the right to state their opinion about you.
A well informed person reads ALL the news. This is not China ;)
Aunt Jean-
Whenever someone wants to discuss something about Hillary or Bill unless it is sugary-sweet you consider it to be 'bashing'.
I am sick of you trying to censor what is said on this thread.
This thread is here to discuss politics and like it or not Bill and Hillary are part of the current political discourse.
As long as Hillary and Bill are in the headlines I will continue to exercise my right to discuss issues relevant to them.
You may skip my posts and not read them, but your constant criticism of my comments is getting old and annoying.
99.9% of my comments are not even directed to you. So, once again I say please ignore my comments and leave me alone ;)
Aunt Jean,
With regard to the decision today on the caucus system -
From the Kansas City Star:
[T]he Democratic National Committee's platform committee Saturday ruled that such an idea doesn't belong in the party platform.
The article goes on to say, the committee ruled the amendment out of order and referred it to the party's Rules Committee, where its fate is at best uncertain.
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/741026.html
One of the major problems is that the US Supreme Court has stated that the conduct of primary elections is up to the state, and that if the state doesn't provide a primary, the political party can conduct a caucus or other form of selection process.
I could see this backfiring on those proposing it. Let's say Texas (or some other state) decides that 'the budget is too tight (some) year to fund a primary'. How do the Democratic Party voters of Texas (or other state) have any say in the selection of the candidate if a party caucus is not allowed?
Hillary supporters are royally peeved that Senator Obama out-organized Hillary's campaign in caucus after caucus after caucus. Instead of blaming Hillary's campaign staff for not doing their job for the candidate, they blame the system.
As to the platform committee's ruling, it was correct - the platform is about what the party will do in governing the country. The argument about caucuses is PURELY an internal party issue, and thus is not a party platform issue.
Mike
P.S., please note: I did not make any statement about Hillary personally in the above. I referenced her supporters and her campaign staff ONLY. If you think I did comment about Hillary, so be it. It will only show how far into the gutter your mind traveled while reading this message.
Is it just me or does the middle photo here on the top headline of Abramoff look like Robert DeNiro?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/
It looks almost like a photo that could be from the Godfather film ;)
.
lEAH
you are WRONG about the article like I said here is alittle of it if you would like for me to copy and paste the whole thing I will:;
The party's platform committee sets aside the caucus amendment, saying the rules committee will deal with it. The new draft party platform is a mixed bag.
When did I ever say that they weren't fair game or that we shouldn't read the news? There is a huge difference between reading the news to stay informed, and continually drudging up gossip rag garbage. Whitewater? Really? That's the new "it" topic? That's what that article you posted spent paragraphs lamenting over.
I was under the false impression that everyone here was interested in getting Barack Obama elected. I don't see how dragging Bill and Hillary Clinton through the mud an average of once a day does anything to help Obama's campaign.
At least if it were John McCain, I'd almost understand. Then it would just be about campaigning to the lowest common denominator. Not a very classy style, but it has worked for the Republicans. But Hillary and Bill? Obama already beat them. They have already endorsed Obama. Why would we waste so much time discussing them? How does that help Obama? What does that say about those people who just refuse to win graciously and instead keep smearing the other candidate?
Mike in Maryland
Hillary supporters are royally peeved that Senator Obama out-organized Hillary's campaign in caucus after caucus after caucus. Instead of blaming Hillary's campaign staff for not doing their job for the candidate, they blame the system
Now explain to me how Hillary can when the pop. vote in Tex. but didn't win the caucuse. It's because of how unfair it is to young mothers and old people it doesn't have anything to do with out organizing Hillary Tex. proved that to be false!!! Jean
Aunt Jean-
Like I said the headline of the article is : Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system
I posted the headline and the url. If you have a problem with the title of the 'headline' then you should write to the author of the article.
I've attended two caucuses in the past, and I fully support and enjoy this type of voting. Yes, the turnout is lower, so only those who actually care end up voting. So what? It also saves the government a small mint, and I'm always for cutting wasteful spending too.
Here are the headlines at wahingtonpost.com:
Georgia Retreats, Pleads For Truce With Russia
Phelps Wins Second Gold Medal
Major Backups at Bay Bridge
Activists Pursue the Felon Vote
In Iraq, Money as a Weapon
Soul Singer Isaac Hayes Dies
I don't see Hillary or Bill anywhere there. Don't act like you're reading all the news, staying informed, and discussing the news of the day. You're actively seeking out new Bill and Hillary news, staying informed on them, and speaking of only the Bill and Hillary news of the day. Don't act like you're being benevolent and studious by staying informed and keeping others informed when all you're really doing is acting as a tabloid journalist.
A good half of those headlines posted have serious political ramifications, and yet you have discussed 0 of them.
I also don't think asking those who are actively posting in support of a candidate to post positives instead of negatives is Communist or "China like."
Here is Obama's thoughts on the matter:
It's difficult to remain positive during a presidential campaign. Senator Obama has asked his supporters to join him in a new kind of campaign. A new Web site, www.WhatWouldObamaDo.info and wrist band were designed to help.
Apparently Obama is a Communist, because he wants his supporters to stay positive and on message too. Good job Leah.
apissedant-
Hillary has not conceded the race.
Hillary has not released her delegates.
Hillary has purchased a website for a run in 2012.
I have not been bashing HRC, I have been posting information that is relevant to this election.
Just because someone mentions HRC doesn't mean that they are bashing them.
Leah just as long as you bash Bill and Hillary Clinton I will keep on your A##. I tired of you always putting them down. I've asked you politely to stop now I'm telling you to LAY OFF!!!!If you don't like this message real simple SHUT UP ABOUT THE CLINTONS!!!Jean
AP,
The difference is that some of Hillary's supporters think that Hillary was dissed by the very fact that she didn't win. They don't or can't realize that Senator Obama will be the nominee because he garnered more delegates than Hillary. Some of them are still of the opinion that since she 'won' more votes, she should be the nominee, an opinion that was reinforced by the campaign staff and hangers-on (Terry McAulliffe for one) during the end stages of the primary.
I think it is childish behavior on the part of some of Hillary's supporters. We all laugh at the Ron Paul supporters who are organizing a separate and competing convention in the Twin Cities during the Repig Convention. I'm still a bit amazed that some of Hillary's supporters didn't try the same thing in Denver. I'm sure some wanted to do it, but couldn't get enough support to get the effort off the ground.
Or maybe some think a miracle (for Hillary's campaign but NO ONE ELSE) will occur before the Convention. If that is their thought, THEY ARE SICK.
Mike
aunt jean,
So your idea is that every person that didn't vote in the Texas caucus was elderly or a young mother? I'm sure there were tons of working men and young fathers too. Why don't the elderly have time to caucus? It seems the elderly would have more time than workers.
apissedant-
I confess I have not been to Washington Post today.
But I have been to
RealClearPolitics
CNN
MSNBC
HuffingtonPost
DemConWatch
The Page
Politico.com
FoxNews
If you go to the politics sections of anyone of those you will see Hillary, Bill or Hillary and Bill in the top stories.
apis,
We shouldn't tiptoe around topics which relate to the Clintons because they are still major DNC figures. Ignoring them is akin to marginalizing them, IMO.
Leah highlighted today's Huffington Post articles.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/
1. Clinton insiders upset that Obama isn't doing more to retire her debt.
2. Clinton campaign memos leaked -- recommended making Obama look unAmerican.
Both of these topics are worth discussing, IMO since it affects the current campaign.
I don't see the point in discussing Whitewater or Clinton's impeachment except to frame it in comparison to the Bush war-crimes and misappropriation of funds.
You're full of it Leah. Explain how that article you posted was not bashing the Clintons. It talks about their "dirty whitewater" ordeal. It implies that they made illegal deals while in Arkansas and in D.C. It implies that they will be doing a backdoor underhand tactic to get their 13 million dollars back. Exactly which part of this is not bashing the Clintons?
When you spend every single day posting a negative item about the Clintons, than yes, you are bashing the Clintons.
You sound like Mr. Undecided Bill O'Reilly.
Aunt Jean-
As far as I am concerned you are a troll and I will continue to post what I wish to post and I will continue to ignore from this moment forward :)
You vulgarity only make you look bad - not me.
Mike in Maryland
even though I don't agree with you I know that you weren't talking about Hillary personally. Jean
beryl,
Who said ignore?
I said don't focus on. I just posted several headlines, all of which were not mentioned at all. Only the Clintons. And why should we still talk about WHITEWATER?!??!?
WHITEWATER!?!!??!
You're acting like that is news!??!
Give me a break. Don't be ridiculous.
apissedant -
I posted several URLs to articles today - and I don't know which one you are talking about.
Apis,
Show me one post where I talked about Whitewater. I agree that we should let that go.
You can't because didn't talk about it. I only talked about those 2 articles. I don't think we should ignore current articles about the Clintons.
I don't remember posting or reading anything about Whitewater today - what the hell are ya'll talking about?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12429.html
That was posted earlier. It brings up all the old Clinton garbage, and not to compare, instead to bash the Clintons. I read the links that are posted, just so you know.
Here is a quote:
"The financial sacrifice nonetheless stands out against the Clintons’ reputation for seizing sometimes eyebrow-raising opportunities to enrich themselves and enhance their lifestyles.
The couple came under intense scrutiny during Bill Clinton’s presidency for the astonishing profits made by the then-first lady in a string of late-1970s commodities trades and the couples’ investment in an Arkansas land deal that resulted in the convictions of their business partners."
The article continues on with a bunch of garbage and irrelevant crap.
I don't like the Clintons, and I've said as much multiple times on here. I don't like a lot of people, but I don't spend the entire day lambasting them on this website. It is childish and an utter waste of time.
Maybe you two should actually read the garbage you post.
apissedant-
Get a grip!
I posted that about her CURRENT debt and loan.
What the heck is going on here if we have to look at every article with a fine tooth comb before posting a URL?
You must be awfully touchy about Whitewater... I didn't even see that in there!!!
Ap
sorry you are right about young fathers also. I was referring to those class because my mother was unable to go to the caucus and my niece couldn't not with 4 children 3,4,5 and 9. No the father does not keep them.They are a handfull too. Plus the 3 younger ones go to bed at 8.30. It was 9 when I got out of mine and the one that she would have gone to was twice a big as mine. Jean
I posted about it quite some time ago. I mentioned that unlike what the article implies, the Clintons actually left office in debt, in a far worse financial situation than they had been in when they took office. Yet that article makes them out to be opportunistic thieves that robbed the American people blind and made a fortune with illegal deals.
70 million dollars of investigation, and they were exonerated from any wrongdoing. They left office IN DEBT, not wealthy due to theft and illegal deals. The article is filth.
Like you said, you posted several links, and how many were about the Clintons? How many were about registering felons to vote, the conflict in Georgia, the Iraq war, or any of the other political issues headlining today? That's what I thought.
No, I don't care about whitewater, which is the entire point. I also don't care much about the Clintons. I didn't vote for them, I no longer have the ability to vote for them, and I'm completely happy about that. I'm ready to talk about, and vote for a candidate I like. I don't vote AGAINST a candidate, I vote FOR a candidate. Due to this, I believe it is important to express why my candidate deserved my vote, and not describe why the other 299,999,999 people in America did not deserve my vote.
Of course, my belief, which aligns with Obama's belief, is apparently Communist. Genius argument by the way Leah, your reasoning skills are amazing.
apissedant -
You post about what you want to post about and I will post about what I find interesting. I don't tell you what to type so what makes you think that I have to comment about Iraq, Georgia, voting registration, etc. if I don't want to.
There were alot of articles in the media about the Clintons it just worked out that way. Tomorrow the press might focus on McCain who knows!
and Leah, as far as swearing, I remember you having a few of those yourself the other day. I always thought of hypocrisy as a Republican trait, but apparently we Democrats are branching out.
Aunt Jean,
Since you brought up the Texas Two-Step process (which I don't agree with either) as an example of a caucus, how do you explain the following as anything but being out-organized:
Alaska:
Obama - 10 delegates
Clinton - 3
Colorado:
Obama - 36 delegates
Clinton - 19
Idaho:
Obama - 15 delegates
Clinton - 3
Maine:
Obama - 15 delegates
Clinton - 9
Further, not all caucuses are run in the same manner. In Iowa and some other states, the party members gather and discuss, then publicly gather into groups for the various candidates. In Hawaii and some other states, they vote by ballot during a specific time period.
If you want to reform the primary system, then you better be cognizant of what you are discussing.
And besides, the discussion of the caucus system does NOT belong in the party platform, which discusses how the party will govern. The caucus discussion is an internal party organization matter and thus should be discussed, if discussed at all, by the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Mike
Leah,
Since when don't you tell me what to post? Do you not remember all of your complaints about my postings? Either John McCain isn't the only one with Alzheimers, or you just lie when it suits you.
This is my take on what is happening here:
It is important to remember who the opponent is in this election. It is Bush and McCain. Not Hillary and Bill. Any negative comments about the Clintons or any other Democrat should be framed in the context of the election.
Aunt Jean - you are NOT the enemy. It is OK that we don't see eye to eye on many things. I agree with many things the Clintons have done and disagree with others. Please don't take it personally when I give my opinion on a topic relating to them. I will not always praise them when/if they do something detrimental to electing our nominee.
Know this: if Obama wins, I will not always praise him either. He is a mortal who will make mistakes. I will not criticize him today because doing so will provide ammunition to those who do not want him to win.
Leah,
I also didn't tell you to post about any of those topics. I simply pointed out that THOSE ARE THE HEADLINES, and you were claiming to be talking about the day's news, and reading and talking about all the days news. I guess if the only paper you read is www.ihatehillary.com, then you would be correct, otherwise, you were full of it. That was my point.
apissedant-
That article was not ALL about Whitewater.
It was mainly about this:
Excerpt:
However, Clinton could get some post-deadline wiggle room to repay herself — and possibly with less of a public backlash — if Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) prevails in a little-noticed challenge to a rule requiring candidates to pay back loans of more than $250,000 within 20 days of the election.
For the Clinton campaign, the 20-day loan-repayment clock will start ticking when her vanquisher Barack Obama officially ends the Democratic primary by accepting the party’s presidential nomination Aug. 28 at Invesco Field in Denver.
--------------------
That is what the HEADLINE was about!
Doesn't anyone around here know that the heck a HEADLINE is!
beryl,
You do not come in here and post anti-Hillary items in here every single day. There are others that do. You don't spend all of your time focusing on how much you hate the Clintons, there are others that do. This is why my original comments were not directed at you-- that is until you responded to my comments.
Leah and AP
Please take it to the street! We are not interested in who hit who first!
Mike
Some people don't stop reading at the headline, and actually read the entire article. At this point, they may realize that the author has an axe to grind, and is purposely misrepresenting the facts of the case, and drudging up irrelevant items from the past. At this point, this same person may disregard the rest of the crap the person says, because they have been proven unreliable.
Even still, that is A headline, and you made out like you were just talking about, "the news of the day," as if the dozens of other headlines across the country did not exist at all.
Well everyone can count on me posting everything that I can find on HRC from now on that is relevant to this election - if that is how I am going to be treated after trying to be helpful!
Unbelievable!
I do not HATE the Clintons.
I do not hate anyone.
I am worried though that they are going to screw things up for Obama, because Hillary wants to run in 2012.
Beryl
I totally agree with you. Jean
Mike,
Don't worry, I'm headed to bed anyways. However, all I'm doing is exactly what you posted you were doing earlier: Dissecting an argument, disproving portions of it, to discredit the entirety of it. The article posted seriously misrepresented the facts, and therefore the author is a hack that should not be listened to. This specific article was garbage.
To Leah specifically, I find the act of posting three successive anti-Clinton articles on a daily basis is not only trivial and pointless, but completely goes against Obama's message of hope and change. I don't believe in working against my candidate.
I also posted URLS today regarding:
McCain getting a tepid welcome from the veterens
Dem Convention Speakers
McCain's Olympics Commercial
Edwards/McCain infidelity
Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote
SOMEONE owes me an apology!
Ap have a good night. Jean
apissedant said...
Mike,
Don't worry, I'm headed to bed anyways. However, all I'm doing is exactly what you posted you were doing earlier: Dissecting an argument, disproving portions of it, to discredit the entirety of it.
AP,
Wrong. What I was doing was taking statements DIRECTLY from what was posted and rebutting those statements.
When someone made a comment about there were major differences between 'creationism' and 'intelligent design', I challenged them to define the differences, besides one specifically stating who was the 'disigner' and one implying the designer.
I also challenged them to show scientific proof of their 'theories'. I challenged on their lack of knowledge of the definition of 'theory' as used in the scientific sense.
Everything I challenged them on, made fun of, or rebutted, was based on what they wrote DIRECTLY in their post, not anything completely outside that post, even if they had a link in their post.
On the other hand, you attacked Leah on a small part of the content of a link she provided. Did YOU know Leah read all the article? Did YOU think she was posting a link in order to slip in some 'nefarious' discussion points?
No and No.
To equate what YOU did to Leah with what I was doing to the neo-con knuckle-draggers is PREPOSTEROUS.
Leah almost certainly did what I do many times - read a small portion of a page on the web, and post a link to it for others to read it also. Many times I'll have only read 10% or 25% of the article when I post a link. Sometimes I go back and read the rest of the article, sometimes not. And that is something I would wager that you also do at times.
Mike
Mike in Maryland-
After reading a post of yours earlier today about your adventures at Pollster I posted a comment to you and a URL that you might find interesting up above at:
August 10, 2008 11:01 PM
btw: Thank you.
Leah,
You're welcome, but the next time you and AP start arguing over something like today -
PLEASE stop.
As to the link, I didn't see that specific article, but fivethirtyeight.com and several other sites have discussed the five point poll margin and it's effect on the EV.
In any event, I don't look at the national polls that much, but rather at the trend in them. The polls that I concentrate on are the individual state polls, as that is where the EV is determined, and where the Presidential election is won or lost.
I look at it this way - if 10% more of the voters in Indiana trend towards the Democratic candidate, but 8% more of the voters in Georgia trend more towards the Republican candidate (a shift about equal in terms of numbers of voters), the national poll wouldn't reflect it - the number of voters moving from one candidate to the other would basically be offsetting each other, and canceling each other out, in the national poll.
However, if that were to happen, and you look at the state polls, you would see Georgia getting redder, and the Hoosier state entering toss-up territory or even trending to blue.
And this is why I am so frustrated with the MSM almost sole concentration on the national polls, and not even discussing the individual state polls.
I also look into the internals of polls (especially state polls), such as the number of people polled; likely voters or registered voters; how 'likely voters' are determined.
I also look at the percents of the different demographics
- how do they determine the 'correct' number of Democrats, Republicans, Independents?
- how good do the number of voters in other demographics look - do they say 50% of the voters will be more than 60, when in the past that number was 38%? or do they say that 8% of the voters will be 18-29s, when in the past 12% of the voters were in that age group, and this is a different election where that age group is greatly energized?
It is that nitty gritty detail that the MSM doesn't even try to cover, but can shine a light on how good or bad the poll is at capturing the current status of the race.
Mike
Mike,
The article isn't scientific, so you can't "scientifically refute" it. Why would you post a link you yourself haven't read? Can't put much confidence in something you haven't read. A simple wikipedia article can show that the article was in fact misrepresenting the facts, and the Clintons did not make a mint on shady deals while in the White House, and actually lost money on Whitewater. Therefore, the article is garbage.
Apparently you've decided articles you agree with the main point on are beyond refute, even if they disagree with facts. Using the word "scientific" doesn't make "proof" any more relevant.
As to Leah specifically, we here's a direct quote:
"apissedant-
Anything is that is the news is FAIR GAME to talk about.
Right now the hot topics in the news are:
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
John Edwards
John McCain
they are all fair game.
When you are in the public eye the public has the right to state their opinion about you.
A well informed person reads ALL the news. This is not China ;)"
Of course these are not the only items in the news, in fact the headlines at MOST respectable organizations do not have any of these names in them. The Washington Post again does not contain one of them. Her statement most definitely implies something that is not true. It also compares me to a Communist for asking why we can't focus on the merits of Obama instead of the lack of merits for the Clintons, which is what Obama himself has decided to do, and has asked his supporters to do. I posted a specific reference to this as well.
Well this statement refutes a portion of what she said directly, so it is again, the same as what you did. Just because she is not a Republican does not make her exempt from telling the truth.
As to the idea of posting articles I have not read, you would be incorrect. If I find an article to be worth posting, then I also find that article to be worth reading.
How about this one?
"Hillary has purchased a website for a run in 2012."
This statement is 100% false. It is also not news of the day. Here is the truth:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/07/hillary_clinton_buys_2012_website/
This headline lies as well. It clearly states within the article that a group that was previously associated with Hillary Clinton bought a 2012 website, not Hillary Clinton. It also states that this occurred on June 8th, so it is not the news of the day, it is the news of two months ago. Major publications published the news last month.
Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/hillary_clintons_concession_sp.html
This means the day after, a group of her faithful supporters decided to buy a website just in case she ran again in 2012.
Even still, the polls at that time were showing Obama up by 3%. If he does lose, is it not 100% certain that Hillary will run in 2012? The cost of that website is nothing now, but could cost tens of thousands of dollars in 3 years.
So, in the end, Leah either lied or was wrong.
Leah,
Wait, your idea is that you post links filled with lies, and then lie yourself, AND call me a Communist, and then expect me to apologize? Dream on. Hillary didn't buy a website, the article did state incorrect items, you have told me what to and what not to say, there were most definitely other headlines than those you posted, and deciding I'm a Communist for desiring a positive campaign is beyond ridiculous. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that apology.
McCain's mysterious donations from Jordan natives:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/mccain-jordan-d.html
How would the Repugnicans and right-wing crazies react if this donation had gone to Obama? They'd use this to smear him as a Middle East extremist sympathizer.
The shoe is on the other foot and what does that say about McLame? We know he is in the pockets of Big Oil. He is not about using less oil (proper inflation of tires) but to drill, sell, and use more of it.
SSDD
get it all out of your systems, we are all going to have work to do to get OBAMA elected, very shortly.
I want OBAMA as president, because he frames my vision for the future better than anyone else.
margarita anyone? :-)
SSDD=Same Sheeeeit, Different Day.
Jean, as far as the "exclusive" notification, You know that everyone in the media is on that "text" list so I don't think that those of us who have signed up will be finding out any faster than anyone else. I think it would be hilarious to see if they can overload the cell phone companies.
jean,
It isn't to seem exclusive, it is to reward those that helped him. He says to forward it to your friends if you get it, which I did. I'm all for it. :)
jean,
By the way, I'm glad you're feeling better.
Dave,
How's life?
Dave,
If we don't happen to be in front of a tv or a radio, then we'll find out faster than we would have. I hate hearing big news second hand, so I like it. It should also give you an idea to turn on the tv so you can see a speech. I hate missing those too.
Jean,
I don't think it comes across as elitist at all. The text messaging thing really appeals to the youth. I've been reading a lot of positive reactions from them on the internet.
It was a good idea, IMO. More of that kind of thing could pay off for Obama.
jean,
I only watch the soccer games.
The US nearly beat the Netherlands, the Netherlands got lucky... so I made fun of my wife. :)
Darned 93rd minute goal. :(
But a tie was way better than what was expected.
OBAMA,OBAMA,OBAMA,OBAMA,OBAMA,OBAMA
OBAMA 2008
Jean, so very true. The Dems do have that ability.
I'm wondering how Wolfson could come to that conclusion. Most of Edwards' supporters went with Obama. Not only that, had Edwards not covered it up, would that not have returned all of Bill's issues come flying back into the spotlight and cause more of a backlash against Hillary? It would have made people take another look and say do we really want that back in the Whitehouse?
I'm NOT bashing Hillary, so please AJ and other Hillary supporters, DON'T jump on me.
I just think that it would have had the reverse effect and that Obama would have won by a much larger margin.
Post a Comment