Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs the clock winds down on Clinton's chances to claim the Democratic nomination, her arguments to superdelegates omit a few key facts. Last week her campaign sent out a letter to undecided superdelegates detailing why she is more electable than Barack Obama in the general. The letter cited her strong support among seniors, women and Latinos, and claimed that each of those groups have seen substantial surges in participation in the primary cycle.
Noticeably absent from the memo was any mention of young voters, the group, along with African-American voters, that Clinton has least managed to crack. While it's to be expected that Clinton wouldn't mention a glaring flaw in an argument about electability, the letters' statistics are misleading about the way that specific demographics could affect the race in November. For one, the political statistician "Poblano," whose predictions have been extremely accurate in the primaries so far, claims that Clinton grossly overstates the increase in participation by older voters in the primaries. Clinton's letter claims that:
"The increase in participation in the primaries has been driven by core groups favoring Hillary, led by women, Latinos and older voters...Overall, more than 22 million Democratic primary voters were over the age of 45 this year, as compared to less than 10 million who voted in the 2004 Democratic primaries."
Poblano takes apart this statement, showing that in fact, voters over 45 have decreased as a share of the electorate by 10 points compared to 2004, and that voters over 65 have decreased by over 20 percent. In a state-by-state analysis of twenty-three contests, he found that the over-45 and over-65 votes decreased in 21 states.
Compare this to the 18-29 year old vote, which increased in all twenty-three states, and increased as a share of the overall electorate by more than 50 percent. Clearly, there's been no comparable "senior surge."
The importance of the largely Obama-inspired youth surge for the future of the political landscape cannot be downplayed. It could spell Democratic success in state and local elections for candidates sharing the ballot with Obama in November and record youth turnout has increased the participation of young people in state government and the DNC. And in terms of electability, an earlier analysis by Poblano looked at the youth vote in light of Obama's "50 State Voter Registration Drive," which hopes to up participation across the country. Using a model based on polls and data, he found that if Obama can increase the youth vote by 25 percent from 2004, he would snag 16 additional electoral votes and increase his chance of beating McCain by 7 percent (according to Poblano's statistical models). Less than 50% of 18-29 year olds voted in 2004, but if the primaries are any indication, Obama could feasibly attain such results.
While any demographic is only one part of the picture, the youth vote's potential can't simply be ignored.
FrankG .. good to see you around old buddy. Hey, dunno if you got the link I put up to your old "Fireside Chat" which I put up at: http://home.avenuebroadband.com/~dvaughn58/GOP_theater.html
On that line of thought, on another thread I saw the term used "Lil' Rapture Rascals" I'm thinking Hagee as Spanky, Wright as Buckwheat, Parsley as Alfalfa (the "Herbage" demands it) .. Whaddya think? (And who plays "Froggie", Dubya maybe?)
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/02/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/2/2008
FRANKGRITS,
I would LOVE to see your face on Wednesday morning!
It's over, pal!
Obama will announce the support of 30 more superdelegates Tuesday evening, which gives him more than the 2118 needed for the nomination after the SD and MT results.
Hillary has been blaming blacks for her lack of appeal for quite some time, and this doesn't sit well with most party leaders.
The plain fact is Hillary is YESTERDAY's NEWS, a relic from the politics of the past that is not capable of ushering in a new progressive majority sought by Democrats. She is tied to the politics of yesterday where ONLY those with money or connections could influence public policy.
If Hillary wants to be part of this new progressive Democratic majority, I strongly suggest that she stop whining and get behind our nominee. We don't have any time to waste on her narcissism anymore and need to focus on beating John McCain in November.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/02/2008 @ 6:52pm
>>>The importance of the largely Obama-inspired youth surge for the future of the political landscape cannot be downplayed. It could spell Democratic success in state and local elections for candidates sharing the ballot with Obama in November and record youth turnout has increased the participation of young people in state government and the DNC.<<<
It is not only the youth surge, Obama will also get a surge from the disaffected voter who is participating in the political process for the first time in a while because they have been turned off by politics as usual by old-line politicians like Hillary Clinton.
And, yes, blacks who have been on the sidelines for years, believing that government does not work for them unless they are rich or well-connected, will be energized and motivated to turn out in record numbers for Barack Obama.
So it is a 3-prong surge - youth, disaffected, and blacks - that will propel Obama to victory in November!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/02/2008 @ 7:01pm
McCain banks on dementia surge - forgetful voters who return to the polls over and over.
Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2008 @ 8:02pm
'fraid I have to go with the Republicans here (HAPPY, MAASCH, FRANKGRITS) and remind Ms Currier that she was predicting the "youth vote" would win Pennsylvania for Obama.
It didn't.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 9:05pm
well,
this election is probably gonna break 60% turnout.
that hasn't happened since 1968.
"Curtis Gans, who has spent the past 40 years tracking the decline, says the United States now ranks 139th out of 167 of the world's democracies in voter turnout."
and i think obi-wan is going to pull out the most new voters, including more under 30's than usual.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2008 @ 9:46pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/2/2008 |
We'll see. If Obama wins...well, as the saying goes "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat an orphan" and if victory, no doubt Ms Currier will credit "the kids".
I'll hold off further judgement til I see the demographics after November.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 10:20pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/2/2008
Set aside all the factual inaccuracies and baseless predictions....
still need to answer the question, FRANK.
WHY will Hillary endorse Obama in her up-coming concession speech?
Does she care more about her political party than the good of the country?
Is she stupid and doesn't realize "how bad" Obama is, compared to McCain?
Or is it going to be a lie?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 10:48pm
Humility is arrogance. Winning is losing. Black is white is black. Look at what you just wrote Frank and take a step back. You are sacrificing your cherished long held (supposedly) principles for what? Just because your horse didn't win? Are you that dense or so far down the Hillary rabbit hole that you can't see the forest for the trees? If you are a Democrat then man up, admit Obama won, and support him. Or else be like that flaming old woman from New York and pout in your bitterness and vote for the old man. You have every right to vote for whemever you wish. But why are you voting against something?
Posted by yutsano at 06/02/2008 @ 11:14pm
Frankgrits,
What will you do if Senator Clinton specifically asks her supporters to vote for Senator Obama? Will you get over your personal dislike of Obama and vote for him (based on a Clinton/Obama policy comparison) or disobey Clinton and vote for McCain (who, policy-wise, is light years away from Clinton/Obama)? Other options would be to abstain or write in Clinton. Obviously, there's only one logical choice, but you've emphasized that you won't make it. I suppose if spite is your primary motivation, you'll fit right in with the Republican party.
Posted by Be Good at 06/02/2008 @ 11:29pm
The "youth" vote.....
Give me a break, they NEVER show-up when they're needed.
The Nov. election will be decided (as always) by the seniors.
Wanna guess who'll they'll vote for?
Obama is one of the FEW people who can actually lose to a republican after eight years of GWBush.
Un-freaking-believable!
(But Obama was against the war! Obama wasn't even in the goddamn senate when the war started. This country has to many american idol viewers)
Posted by bleedingheart at 06/03/2008 @ 12:11am
Anyone else notice how Frank is not answering any questions posed to him? I'm starting to not take him seriously. And Bleeding, I didn't know you were psychic and knew down to the man who will vote this year. But thanks for the cynicism.
Posted by yutsano at 06/03/2008 @ 12:34am
Thank you for making up my mind about you. You're simply a bitter Republican shill. Do us a favor: keep your promise and go away.
Posted by yutsano at 06/03/2008 @ 12:39am
I'll hold off further judgement til I see the demographics after November.
Posted by Mask
you never know.
there could be something better on t.v. that night.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 01:34am
The youth vote will have the same impact on Nation elections as it always has had....minimal....strange things happen in the privacy of the voting booth...
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/2/2008 |
with your record on predictions it's safe to bet on the opposite.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 08:21am
I thought that surges don't work?
Posted by abell12ct at 06/03/2008 @ 08:27am
Actually, FRANK, I'm going to save this one....the one where you TELL THE TRUTH for a change...
"We will bide our time util November when we will avenge her."----Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 |
Did anybody else catch it? Yes, it's not about McCain being the "better candidate"...it's about REVENGE for Hillary!
After the numerous lies FG has been telling about his sudden "change of heart" and acceptance not only of McCain, but for the war, and a whole host of Republican issues....in the end...
it's about "avenging" Hillary!
Thanks FRANK, for finally telling the truth!
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 08:48am
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Extremism in any form is the bane of civilization - religious, ethnic, cultural, and political. It causes people to do things that are clearly not in their best interest (blow themselves up, vote Republican) time and time again. To claim to be for Hilary and then with the next breath to say that McCain is your second choice is so clearly contradictory that it begs the question - Why exactly are you for Hillary? Policies? Obama's are in every way, shape and form more similar to hers than McCain, so that can't be it.
Experience? One and half term Senator with eight years as a wife of a president and a career as a corporate lawyer as opposed to years of expderience as a local and state legislator and one term as a Senator? Can't really be experience.
Hmmm, not policies or experience - maybe principles? Can't be, because Hillary is the queen of cozying up with lobbyists, while Obama has not taken money from them - and when it comes to negative campaigning, Hillary's campaign had a certain Rovish quality about it, while Obama did his best to stay out of the muck.
That only leaves personal reasons. Racism or crushing disappointment that the candidate you picked isn't getting the nomination.
You have been such a consistent voice of reason on this blog that is painful to read your Republican-like spinning and rationalizing.
And, despite the fact that you have probably already stopped reading this and put me on ignore, I will state that I did not become a supporter of Obama until later in the race (Kucinich or Clinton were on my radar, and Richardson was my dark horse - no racist pun intended), but after researching, listening and watching, it became clear that Obama is the best candidate based on my beliefs and principles, but I would vote for Clinton over McCain because her views and policies are way more similar to Obama's.
One last thing (if you're even reading this) - Dubya had the most experienced people around him when he was elected, and look how that turned out!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/03/2008 @ 09:24am
Frank has been the most Stalinist poster here for some time.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 09:45am
Did anybody else catch it? Yes, it's not about McCain being the "better candidate"...it's about REVENGE for Hillary!
naw, franks posts have become a blur.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 09:50am
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/3/2008
I knew eventually he'd slip up.
There's no denying it now...he is merely voting for McCain out of SPITE, nothing more.
His protestations about "change of heart" about the war, are simply so he appears "reasonable" and as if he has "thought it all through carefully."
He IS a Hillary cultist, with all the psychopathology that a cultist has.
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 10:41am
God I hope you are right. As a seventy year old teacher, I have been praying for a generational shift for at least ten years.
Posted by julien38 at 06/03/2008 @ 11:44am
MAASCH -
It's been about two years coming, but it is the day of reckoning.
Wrong again.
Please predict a McCain win.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/03/2008 @ 11:52am
I am saddened to have witnessed firsthand the near-total degeneration of FG's faculties.
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 12:15pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
If it was just about "McCain's the better candidate"...you'd never have mentioned "avenging Hillary".
Nor would you have mentioned that FIRST before listing your reasons for "supporting" McCain.
You slipped up, FRANK, you admitted the real reason you're voting for McCain....and it's to "pay back" Obama and all his traitorous supporters who STOLE HER NOMINATION!
But on the bright side, thinking you're cultishly crazy, is better than folks thinking you were ALWAYS a Republican and a poser.
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by drhammer at 06/3/2008
It IS sad.
Here's a guy who was a vehement opponent of this stupid war...the posts are endless (anybody can Google or "Nation" archive them up)...and he's selling out everything he stood for in the past, to "avenge" a POLITICIAN for LOSING A RACE!?!?!?
And his "conversion" to neo-con/McCain'ism was over a period of months, perhaps lending some credence to his CLAIM that he's "seen the light" on how "McCain will win the war"....
it was a matter of the last few months, as Her Nibs' shot at the title dried up and his little "revenge move" took shape.
I seriously wonder what his son who fought in Iraq and who "old FRANK" claimed opposed it as much as he DID...thinks of his dad now SUPPORTING the continueing occupation...all over some slavish devotion to a woman who wouldn't give him the time of day without a $1000 contribution?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 12:21pm
Wouldn't it be something if Clinton refused to concede to Obama?
Oh, the humanity....
Posted by ACook at 06/03/2008 @ 12:32pm
What you lefties don't grasp is that Frank despite all of the HRC obsessions, actually loves this country more than he loves being a Democrat.
Obama as Frankg states has no serious qualifications to be president. The worst being that he has never had to lead/manage anyone or anything. He has no experience making the difficult decisions that come with management responsibilities. He would be a nightmare of a president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 12:33pm
Congrats, FRANK....
in your quest for vengence...
you're now allied with LVLIBERTY!
(BTW, if there is damaging evidence against Michelle....why didn't Hillary play it to "save the country"?)
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 1:03pm
Frank's receiving fond mentions from, of all people, lvliberty.
And he's not only listening to Limbaugh, but facilitating his disinformation.
What a bizarre conversion...
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 1:05pm
(The Manchurian voter.)
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 1:06pm
drhammer, before the "Vengence For Hillary" Tour began....they used to be less chummy-
"Bear, Frankgrits and the many other leftists who regurgitate what Michael Moore other radicals voice merely demonstrate they neither know history or current events.
The insurgents and other terrorists in Iraq have no comparison with our Revolutionary War soldiers. Maybe Bear and Frankgrits can provide some examples of how we randomly murdered innocent women and children as these animals do?
Dangerous idiots." ----Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/6/2007
Conservatives for the Constitution posted by John Nichols on 04/05/2007 @ 2:37pm
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 1:25pm
No, FRANK, tell us why Hillary (when she concedes) will endorse "the greatest fraud perpetrated upon the American people since 2000."?!??!?
Is she stupid or unpatriotic?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 1:29pm
"the prominent place that McCain has in the hearts of most Americans."
complete nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 1:30pm
Because she is a democrat and a politician you fool.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
So due to her PARTY AFFILIATION and her CAREER...
she's willing to endorse "the greatest fraud perpetrated upon the American people since 2000"?!!!??
Is that the "judgement" and "leadership" and "concern for the future of this country" that you initially supported HER for?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 1:38pm
complete nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/3/2008
So states the man who considers America's sons and daughters serving in the military to be criminals.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 1:48pm
frankgrits
I was referring to you.
let me speak of McCain's service. he was not "in country". he lived in relative luxury on an aircraft carrier, with servants ironing his uniform, serving his meals, (no C rations), etc.
can you imagine how the son of an admiral is treated on the aircraft carrier?
his job was to bomb human beings on the ground. human beings whose copses he did not have to look at.
when he was captured, he was saved from being killed by a Vietcong.
when he was reportedly tortured in captivity, he cracked and signed a confession of war crimes.
unlike a phony such as you, I do not take the measure of a man solely by the fact that he served in the military, there have been many criminals wearing a uniform.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 1:52pm
Now, would anyone like to debate my electoral predictions?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Why should we? You always ignore my questions. You are ignoring Masks question and I think it is a legitimate one. Face you it you don't think McCain is better you are voting against something. Not for someone. When you listed your reasons for voting for McCain you listed the problems you had with how Hillary was treated first you didn't list McCains qualifications until last. You ordered your wording the way you meant it to be.
"The worst being that he has never had to lead/manage anyone or anything. He has no experience making the difficult decisions that come with management responsibilities. He would be a nightmare of a president."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
Does this mean you will always vote for an incumbent President over a new candidate? I mean according to all your qualification logic an incumbent President has more Presidential experience.
Here's a trip up for you Republicans that are saying Obama has no experience. Obama has 20 years as a community organizers. He has experience in the state legislator and 4 years as a Senator.
Reagan when he ran for office had experience as an actor. He served in non-Combat in the military and non-leadership. He then was a governor for only 6 years. So Reagan, your paragon of Republicanism had WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY LESSSS experience than Obama does. yet you voted for him.... hypocrites me thinks.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:12pm
So states the man who considers America's sons and daughters serving in the military to be criminals.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
No. So states the man who looks at a person based on more than just military service. You know the fellow who shot Kennedy served in the military too. Was he a hero? How about those soldiers who have raped and killed women and children in foreign countries are they heroes? Your qualification of hero sure does leave room for a lot of evil people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:17pm
But please get yourself educated before you try to tangle with me.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
"You Obama cultists are the most arrogant group of motherfuckers I've ever come across. "
Anyone see the irony? What a moron....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:22pm
So states the man who considers America's sons and daughters serving in the military to be criminals.
Posted by lvliberty1
this is a lie.
SOME are criminals. this is undeniable. it is a fact.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 2:23pm
The rambling lunatic with multiple profanities in every post is telling other people to "take their meds?!" Frankgrits' posts are obviously the product of a nervous breakdown of some sort- this guy is making lunatic rightists like LIBSUK seem slightly less insane. If you erased the byline, no one could even tell the difference between your posts- "a piece of shit and a traitorous coward" "slander true american heroes" "you are shit" Wow, eloquent. You will fit right in voting for another war criminal in the making since you obviously believe the definition of "traitor" involves disagreeing with your myopic worldview.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 2:24pm
sorry, i left out "motherfuckers" Are you saving the N- bomb for the general election frankie?
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 2:26pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Face it Frank you are a farce. You have no credibility. Everything you say to everyone here is nothing but a joke to be laughed at. You are the biggest hypocrite on this website. You are worse than Rio and Libzsuck because at least they are consistent.
"But please get yourself educated before you try to tangle with me.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
"You Obama cultists are the most arrogant group of motherfuckers I've ever come across. ""
Any person who can say both of those things and not see their hypocrisy needs to step back and take a look at themselves. You are a joke and I laugh at you and everything you "stand for."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:29pm
Here's a trip up for you Republicans that are saying Obama has no experience. Obama has 20 years as a community organizers. He has experience in the state legislator and 4 years as a Senator.
Reagan when he ran for office had experience as an actor. He served in non-Combat in the military and non-leadership. He then was a governor for only 6 years. So Reagan, your paragon of Republicanism had WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY LESSSS experience than Obama does. yet you voted for him.... hypocrites me thinks.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008
Excuse me. How does being a community organizer translate into actually being in management and the responsibilities of decision making. It doesn't.
He has Zero experience in Management and Administrative responsibility.
As to Reagan, he was the head of the Screen Actors guild-that means the head of union with a lot of responsibility and decision making authority. Governing the 3rd largest state which on it's own is the 5th largest entity in terms of GDP in the world.
You can't possibly be as ignorant as these comments suggest. I've seen better out of you. If you want to argue that leadership experience isn't that important to you, I can respect that argument even if I don't agree with it. But the approach you came with cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:31pm
sorry, i left out "motherfuckers" Are you saving the N- bomb for the general election frankie?
Posted by entropy at 06/3/2008
I don't know he did say this on the other thread.
Besides, Obama is black.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
I think he is getting closer and closer to the N-bomb. He probably says it privately at home.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:31pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
No, sorry, FRANK...don't cut it.
Can't have it both ways...either
(A) Obama is "the biggest fraud played on this country since 2000" (BTW, how do rate that, LVLIB?) and too "dangerous" be President....
or
(B) Hillary is ignoring that "fact" and succumbing to partisan politics to endorse him (as she will) and willing to let the country go to hell under an Obama Presidency.
Now if YOU were right and Hillary was a true leader and more concerned with the country than her political fortunes....then she stay in the race to the Convention and run as an Independent, opposing Obama or ADMITTEDLY saying she was running to give it to McCain to "save the country".
So something doesn't add up...
Either you're wrong about Obama's future as President....or you're wrong about Hillary's integrity.
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008
ccc, you might also quote the "educated tangler" in his best Socratic moment on the other threat where his lucid, well-thought out, and deeply studied response to you was....
"Go f**k yourself"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:38pm
As to Reagan, he was the head of the Screen Actors guild-that means the head of union with a lot of responsibility and decision making authority.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
LOL....can anybody imagine ANY other scenario by which LVLIBERTY would use "being head of a union" as a resume' ENHANCER!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:40pm
lvliberty1
I believe we were talking about foreign policy experience, of which Reagan had none.
military experience?
After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve[19] on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa.[20] He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry.[21] Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. Due to his nearsightedness, he was classified for limited service only, which excluded him from serving overseas.[22] His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office.[23] Upon the approval of the Army Air Force (AAF), he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California.[23] On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California.[23] He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943.[20] In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit, Culver City on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[20] He was recommended for promotion to Major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[24] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945.[24] By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.[20]
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 2:42pm
"Go f**k yourself"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/3/2008 |
Haha I forgot about that. Yeah I am sure Winston Churchill in one of his greatest speeches said "and to you who disagree with the great oratories I give you....Go f!@k yourselves."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/3/2008
No my argument was unrelated to that. I said that Obama has no management or leadership experience whatsoever.
He has never had payroll, hire/fire responsibility; never had to meet a budget. Never had to exercise any executive or senior management experience. Never had to make executive level decisions. That makes him totally unqualified in my view.
No one will ever get my vote who doesn't have that kind of experience.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:47pm
As to Reagan, he was the head of the Screen Actors guild-that means the head of union with a lot of responsibility and decision making authority.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
LV, I deal with the screen actors guild and their membership. There is not that much to say about them. You may tote this as a great experience but I have to deal with them and there isn't that much involved.
Face it, as long you uphold Reagan as your paragon of a Presidency, as the greatest Republican President to have walked the earth, you can't argue experience. He had WAY LESS than Obama.
"Excuse me. How does being a community organizer translate into actually being in management and the responsibilities of decision making. It doesn't."
So there is no leadership and decision making in community organizing? Do you just walk out on the street and scream things? How about holding a Senate seat for 4 years? Which is only 2 years short of Reagan's experience as governor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
LOL....can anybody imagine ANY other scenario by which LVLIBERTY would use "being head of a union" as a resume' ENHANCER!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/3/2008
While I totally oppose unions, it doesn't mean that Reagan's experience as the head of a union is not a valid executive experience.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:50pm
Keep laughing but if you don't lighten up on Hillary's supporters and offer some kind of apology for youe arrocance, you're going down hard.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
If Hillary had won the nomination, would FRANK offer ANY apologies to the Obama supporters?
or just "Okay, it's over. Better get onboard the Hillary train to take out that old warmonger McCain and his Repub cohorts"?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:52pm
Keep laughing but if you don't lighten up on Hillary's supporters and offer some kind of apology for youe arrocance, you're going down hard.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/200
Oh I don't ridicule Hillary supporters Frank. I ridicule YOU because you not rational. I am friends with Hillary supporters just not zealots of the Rio Bravo, Libzsuck manner that you are.
"But please get yourself educated before you try to tangle with me.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Anyone who makes a statement like that Frank, has no right to call anyone else arrogant.
You are blind to your massive degree of hypocrisy but me being 40 years your minor can see it, THAT is why I laugh at you. You and Happy like to tote the fact that I am younger than you as some qualifier but I see through you and him equally and that is why I laugh.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:53pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
A keeper, LVLIB, for the next DEMOCRAT who uses any union leadership as a resume item...and your response to THAT!
heheh
BTW, do you agree with FRANK that Obama is "the greatest fraud perpetrated upon the American people since 2000"?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 2:54pm
lvliberty1
I guess McSame won't get your vote, huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 2:54pm
That gets him the votes of about 95% of the blacks but probably loses him about ten times that many. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Ahhh, back to the tried and failed, Obama will lose because white people will never vote for a black man argument. I guess all of America is just one big racist cesspool. Hey LV did you know Frank thinks your racist. Same with you Jom and Happy ad every other white person on here. According to Frank you are alll racist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 2:55pm
"go fuck yourself" Now he's stealing Dick "lead facial" Cheney's lines too? Truly he has gone over to the dark side. BTW, I have nothing against hillary's supporters, or even hillary as a person. You on the other hand are ranting about "cultists" and calling people "motherfuckers" and "piles of shit", but I guess I find this unappealing in a somewhat intelligent forum because i fogot to "man up." You are projecting your animosity onto others.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:03pm
OK, but you didn't mention Reagan's governorship of California. Does that count as leadership? Does Obama compare? Nah.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/200
Actually I did mention his governorship. Which you seem to have ignored the fact that the post was attributed to me originally. He had 6 years as a governor, Obama has 4 as a Senator I think they are comparable.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:05pm
You must be gettin nervous. You're making an awful lot of typos.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Nah just doing a lot at once. I type from work. Besides I always make a lot of typos. Read any of my posts from threads before. I don't spell check my stuff.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:06pm
Face it, as long you uphold Reagan as your paragon of a Presidency, as the greatest Republican President to have walked the earth, you can't argue experience. He had WAY LESS than Obama.
"Excuse me. How does being a community organizer translate into actually being in management and the responsibilities of decision making. It doesn't."
So there is no leadership and decision making in community organizing? Do you just walk out on the street and scream things? How about holding a Senate seat for 4 years? Which is only 2 years short of Reagan's experience as governor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008
I know you don't live in a cave so your obstinance on this is quite amazing.
If Obama had management experience, he would be touting that experience. He would speak to the decision making experience he is drawing upon for this candidacy. But he isn't because there is none.
As to a Senator v a Governor. Have you listened during this campaign? Senators usually don't get the nomination because a Senator lacks executive leadership experience. Governors are usually the favorites and elected president because Americans want to know that these people have the demonstrated ability to make executive decisions and not just join with a crowd as Senators and Congressmen do.
There is simply no comparison between executive experience as a CEO or Governor and that of a Senator or Congressmen; or a "Community Organizer" for that matter.
I tell you what; provide the proof that Obama was responsible for any significant payroll; had to hire or fire more than a couple of people. Had a budget responsibility in excess of several million dollars per year.
You won't find it. The truth is that Obama was an employee of the Developing Communities Project. According to the Nation, he earned 13,000 per year plus was given a "beat-up" Honda Civic. He had no employees, no management responsibilities.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg
The organizer experience as somehow qualifying him to be president is farcical.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:07pm
"BTW, yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again called for Israel's destruction. "
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Please provide a link to this event. Claims that Ahmadinejad said in front of the UN that Israel needed to be "wiped off the map" have been debunked.
From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)
"According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Clearly, your favorite Iranian madman was referring to the current Israeli regime, not the entire country. (Re: the difference between the Bush administration and the actual citizens of the United States.)
You have become one of the right-wing talk-radio spin regurgitators for which you used to show such disdain.
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 3:08pm
Oh Mask I also can't forget when he called me a little girl to try to argue me. Yes this man is a paragon of intelligence and reasoning.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:09pm
lvliberty1
I guess McSame won't get your vote, huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/3/2008
No, I've said that 9/11 changed everything. While McCain is certainly not a true conservative, he brings the right attitude and leadership needed to continue the war on terror that Obama will not bring.
For that reason, I've said that I will vote for McCain and not 3rd party this year.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:11pm
I am far from thin skinned, and hardly think that random profanity and impotent rage rise to the level of a "barb." Also, it will be an interesting campaign season if nefarious republican operatives threaten to do far worse to me than "send me to the dentist." If you are still capable of lucid, rational thought go back and reread some of your comments. They sound like the rantings of a quasi- literate hillbilly well into his second fifth of jack.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:15pm
The organizer experience as somehow qualifying him to be president is farcical.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
My point is LV. Nothing prepares you for the Presidency. There is no kind of experience that makes you prepared or qualified for it. There have been experience that have been great and there are some with oodles of experience that are awful. Lincoln being one of the greats. He is considered to be one of our greatest Presidents by many.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:18pm
Anybody remember "old FRANK"?
"WILL, ya know, now that you mentioned it, quagmire just about covers everything republican."----Posted by frankgrits at 08/19/2006
"In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is no 'war' in Iraq. There is an occupation. Our troops spend 90% of their time waiting to be sniped at or blown up while walkin convoy. Not much actual fighting going on because nobdy can identify the enemy.
Chuck Hagel is right. This is exactly like Viet Nam. Think the Bushies will be swift-boating Hagel soon. Afterall, he is a Viet Nam vet. He must have recieved a least one medal he didn't earn or shot himself in the foot maybe. Time will tell."----Posted by frankgrits at 08/1/2006
"A question for you. What do you think the middle east would look like today, if we hadn't invaded the soverign country of Iraq. And also, why wasn't Saddam as the leader of a soverign country not allowed to defend himself from his enemies, which are the same one's fighting in Iraq today?
This is also not a war because our own leaders have never satisfactorally defined it in anything less than vague terms. It's the war on terror or the war against Islamo-fascists or the war against the bad guys.
Well I'd hate to clue ya but the people in that region see US as the bad guys and no less terrorists than our view of Al Qaeda.
We as a country are in the process of getting a very expensive lesson. We were supposed to have learned it from our loss in Nam. The senior Bush must be very disappointed in junior."----Posted by frankgrits at 08/2/2006
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 3:19pm
They sound like the rantings of a quasi- literate hillbilly well into his second fifth of jack.
Posted by entropy at 06/3/2008
This is common of Mr. Grits. He seems to be incapable of mounting an intelligent argument without insulting a person. Usually the sign of someone who has lost.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:21pm
"Posted by drhammer at 06/3/2008
Do your homework Doc. You're wrong."
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
I have, Frank, and I provided you with a link. Your assertion that I am wrong is worthless unless you're willing to back it up with something resembling fact.
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by drhammer at 06/3/2008
How about the parts Juan Cole doesn't share? Let's try from the Iranian News Sources
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map.
"O dear Imam (Khomeini)! You said the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map. I should say that your illuminating remark and cause is going to come true today. The Zionist Regime has lost its existence philosophy... the Zionist regime faces a complete deadend and under God's grace your wish will soon be materialized and the corrupt element will be wiped off the map," said President Ahmadinejad.
Addressing a ceremony on the 19th departure anniversary of the late Imam Khomeini, President Ahmadinejad said the Palestinian nation has distinguished its path and is proceeding rightly in the way.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0806033059102006.htm
What matters then is what Khomeini believed and taught
""Imam Khomeini was indeed a very great statesman and a visionary because he successfully led the revolution in the name Islam". In this respect, noted the scholar, Imam Khomeini (RA) coined the term `neither East nor West, Islam is the best'
He taught us the lesson of resistance and patience and to be afraid only of God Almighty. Through this belief, he shattered the myth of invincibility of America and Israel.
"Today too in order to overcome the basic problems of mankind and the Islamic world we should become certain of the Imam's famous statement that "whoever is with God is dignified and whoever is far from God is humiliated." Paying tribute to the departed soul, Shia Scholar said that Imam Khomeini was also aware of the danger posed by the illegal Zionist entity called Israel to the Islamic world.
He called the Zionist entity "a cancerous tumor that should be uprooted from the Middle East." He said if the world's billion-plus Muslims were to unite and pour a bucket of water each, Israel would drown.
He ruled out any compromise with the Zionists and said only Islam will make the oppressed Palestinian people triumph over Israel.
Only self-sacrifice will help defeat the Zionist entity which seeks to expand and colonize the rich lands and the abundant resources of the Islamic states, recalled Jawwad.
Imam Khomeini elaborating on the root of the US and Zionist enmity with Muslims said, "My brothers and sisters in faith should know that America and Israel are the avowed enemies of Islam, for, they consider Islam as an obstacle in their path." It was for this reason the late Imam declared the last Friday of the auspicious month of Ramazan as International Qods Day in order to promote Islamic solidarity for the liberation of Palestine, said Jawwad."
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0806037506165607.htm
Seems pretty accurate to me that these folks are still calling for the destruction of the US and Israel.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:23pm
MASK
Your propensity for brandishing archived posts is usually weird, and occasionally annoying.
(But not always...)
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 3:29pm
Lincoln being one of the greats. He is considered to be one of our greatest Presidents by many.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008
1. Lincoln is truly the exception to the rule. Are you suggesting that Obama is another Lincoln?
2. Lincoln did not have to face global terrorism or the impacts of a global economy. He had a country to run that was about a third the size of today's US.
He didn't have to battle multi-culteralism; religious diversity, "gender" issues; unions; a large central government with a huge budget; Judicial activism; social issues like homosexuality; and on, and on.
Yes he is one of our greatest presidents because of how he dealt with the attempted breakup of the nation. But the nation and world he confronted has no comparison with today. Obama likewise has no demonstrated experience that shows us he is ready to deal with both the challenges of now and the future.
All Obama has shown so far is that he is an articulate and charismatic speaker. There is nothing of substance to base a reasoned decision to vote for him.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:32pm
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Monday that the ZIONIST REGIME of Israel faces a deadend and will under God's grace be wiped off the map."
"You said the ZIONIST REGIMEthat is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map."
You are proving drhammers point. He is being specific in who he is talking about in saying Zionist Regime. He means the government not all the people. I would like to hear from him his stance on the destruction of Israel as a whole without Americans translating.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:35pm
yeah lv, because battling important, pressing issues such as homosexuality is just so much more difficult than preventing the dissolution of the union.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/3/2008
Try reading further instead of looking only at the segment that appears to confirm your point.
Ahmadinejad was speaking at an event to honor Khomeini.
His words were as he noted in affirmation of what Khomeini taught them.
I then put Khomeini's words in their context (as posted by the Iranians) which clearly state that means not just the leadership, but the nation of Israel and also the US.
I have noted on several occasions that the Islamic clerics have declared that it is illegal in their faith for Israel to exist as a nation and especially in that land.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
Anyone who thinks that "multi culturalism" "gender issues" and homosexuality are things to be "battled" really just isn't worth talking to.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
2. Lincoln did not have to face global terrorism or the impacts of a global economy. He had a country to run that was about a third the size of today's US.
Are you saying the war on terror is more difficult than a civil war in your own country?
"1. Lincoln is truly the exception to the rule. Are you suggesting that Obama is another Lincoln?"
No I do not suggest Obama is the next Lincoln but I think experience is no the sole purveyor of a good President because I don't think there is such a thing as experience to prepare you for running the most powerful nation in the world.
"There is nothing of substance to base a reasoned decision to vote for him."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
Maybe there isn't, I won't know until he is in office. However I still contend there is nothing to prepare you for the Presidency. I think the greatest leaders are those who can inspire others to do for themselves and Obama has proven himself capable of at least that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
As it states clearly in the Wiki article, it has been noted that the Iranian news agency actually mistranslated the text of the speeches. According to what I've read from linguistics experts, there is no such idiom as "wiped off the map" in their language.
Additionally, the equation of Zionists with the entire Israeli citizenry is a right-wing construct, usually employed by the Zionists (but also by neoconservatives) in an effort to label their critics as "anti-semitic". If I thought that Ahmadinejad and the mullahs were truly advocating the destruction of all of Israel, and not just the end of the regime, I too would be concerned.
But I'm not buying it.
Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2008 @ 3:43pm
yeah lv, because battling important, pressing issues such as homosexuality is just so much more difficult than preventing the dissolution of the union.
Posted by entropy at 06/3/2008
Rather than make an intelligent response, you choose to isolate a single word from my list of issues that wasn't even near the top of the list. Fond of Red Herring arguments I see.
Try focusing on the real substance that I mentioned. If you want to make the comparison as CCC did to Lincoln, show then where Obama has the demonstrated experience to deal with the substantive issues on global terror, global trade issues, budget issues.
Obama has no management experience whatsoever. Neither you, nor any other liberal has or can provide any evidence to the contrary. Thus my argument stands. Your decision to support him is merely one based upon emotions rather than any demonstrated evidence of qualification.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:48pm
But I'm not buying it.
Posted by drhammer at 06/3/2008
But I have not posted from some outside biased source, but from the Iranian news themselves. And clearly, as they always have, they are directly stating in accordance with Khomeini's teaching that Israel itself must be destroyed.
To attempt as Islamic apologists like Juan Cole do, that somehow "Zionist" leaders are to be seperated from Israel itself is beyond intellectual dishonesty. It is Anti-Jewish propaganda.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:54pm
Lv, if it is not substantive, then why mention it at all? CCC never claimed that obama would be another lincoln, only that he was also an "unexperienced" candidate who turned out to be a pretty damn good president. Nice strawman though.
My decision to support obama has nothing to do with emotion, I will vote for him because his stance on actual issues is the most palatable. I never claimed that he had any vast executive experience. BTW, using the word "liberal" as some half assed, catch all perjorative for anyone to the left of barry goldwater is just soooo passe.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:55pm
pejorative- my spelling is terrible today.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 3:59pm
I then put Khomeini's words in their context (as posted by the Iranians) which clearly state that means not just the leadership, but the nation of Israel and also the US.
I have noted on several occasions that the Islamic clerics have declared that it is illegal in their faith for Israel to exist as a nation and especially in that land.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008
I saw that part. Problem is you can respect someone's achievements and portions of what they teach without accepting the person as a whole. There are plenty of people out there who have done and said great things while at the same time doing things and saying things I disagree with. You haven't bother to question if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (God that's a hard name to spell) has taken ALL the teachings of the man he respects or only some. You have given into propaganda from those who are pushing for war to paint him as a terror on the world. The man who who offered an olive branch to President Bush and was rejected and then wrote on the hypocrisy of America telling the world they have to disarm while holding their own nukes over their head.
"Ahmadinejad has been a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, and has insisted that it is for peaceful purposes. He has repeatedly emphasized that building a nuclear bomb is not the policy of his government. He has said that such a policy is "illegal and against our religion."
Hmm. He says nukes are against his religion.
"He also added at a January 2006 conference in Tehran that a nation with "culture, logic and civilization" would not need nuclear weapons, and that countries that seek nuclear weapons are those which want to solve all problems by the use of force."
Sounds like a mass-murder to me.
"On April 13, 2006, Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying that the peaceful Iranian nuclear technology would not pose a threat to any party because "we want peace and stability and we will not cause injustice to anyone and at the same time we will not submit to injustice."
"In 2005, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons."
"Despite Ahmadinejad's vocal support for the program, the office of the Iranian president is not responsible for nuclear policy. It is instead set by the Supreme National Security Council. The council includes two representatives appointed by the Supreme Leader, military officials and members of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. It reports directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2005"
That is why I am not afraid of Iran because being that they are religious zealots a proclamation like that holds a lot of power. We call them religious fanatics but then when their religious leaders make a proclamation such as that one we ignore it.
All of those quotes are why I want to hear it from Ahmadinejad's side. I think the propaganda machine has been feeding us a lot of bull.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:59pm
"While the U.S has linked its support for a Palestinian state to acceptance of Israel's "right to exist," Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has retorted that Israel be moved to Europe instead"
Another quote that is interesting. If you look at it through the lens of someone only thinking he is trying to destroy Jews then this quote says kill them all. But if you look at it without bias he is not saying he wants to wipe out Israeli people or that he wants all jews dead, he has a problem with the land of Israel having been given away which I think is a lot of the problem that people of the region have. They feel like the land of Israel was given away by people with no rights to it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 4:02pm
Posted by drhammer at 06/3/2008
I brandish no weapon that cannot be turned on me (FROSTY has done so on occasion).
But FRANK's hypocrisy runs deep...not just not supporting Obama, but to actually vote for McCAIN in a childish fit of pique for "vengence" for Hillary...that's too much.
Especially since it embraces a solid "pro-war" stance (obvious given LL's discovery of he and FG's common goals)...from a guy who just SIX MONTHS AGO was saying Hillary will get elected and bring the troops home ASAP.
NOW he's a "stay until 'victory'" neo-con?!?!??
You know, he USED to say "Don't listen to Rush, he'll brainwash you"...but listened all the time to "see what Limbaugh is upto".
Now I wonder if he wasn't right about that "brainwashing"!
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:02pm
And that HE & HIS INNER CIRCLE do NOT have the common sense to disown Rev. Wright & THAT church at the first opportunity! Dumb F*&ks...---Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/3/2008
Exactly....
McCain figured out VERY early on to flip-flop on the 2002 tax cuts, talking to Hamas, and on his stance on immigration!
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:06pm
Dumb F*&ks....young (probably CCC young & impressionable to a real fault).
Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/3/2008
This is why I pishposh the bullshit respect your elders argument. I don't give respect unless it is given in return and too many older people think they are better than me because I am younger. That fact that Happy will call anyone that is young and disagrees with him a dumb f!@k is proof of that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 4:07pm
"Dumb F*&ks....young"
Really rational and reasoned argument Happy. Really shows the intelligence gained from your age and experience. Weren't you the hypocrite who once berated me for calling someone moronic saying that stooping to such wording was immature. I guess calling people Dumd F!@k is much more mature.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 4:10pm
lvliberty1
I was referring to McSame's lack of executive experience, which for you is a sine qua non.
Bush's executive experience should have given us a clue. everything he touched turned to shit.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 4:23pm
lvliberty1
Khomeini sounds just like you. just substitute another regime, like Chavez for instance , for Israel
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 4:27pm
Frank, given your appalling track record on predicting the nominating contest, I'd think you'd crow small on the general election. Regarding that prediction--
Obama consistently shows leads in Washington (11 EV), Maine (4 EV), Connecticut (7 EV), Colorado (9 EV), Minnesota (10 EV) and Pennsylvania (21 EV). Putting Rhode Island (3 EV) and Vermont (4 EV) in the Republican column is simply historically illiterate.
That cuts it down to 278-259 for McCain. Further, your predictions on many of the other states are questionable at best. Obama has shown leads in some, but not all, polls in New Mexico (5 EV), Wisconsin (10 EV), Indiana (11 EV), Ohio (20 EV), New Hampshire (4 EV) and Virginia (13 EV).
You're also assuming that a sizable majority of Clinton voters are going to be as childish and racist as you. The point is that if Obama can get a sizable chunk of those voters plus the new voters that he's bringing in (which he can), then he is in a very good position. This is enhanced by the fact that his fund raising abilities are significantly stronger than McCain's.
Incidentally, the fact that you'd actually use the word "gooks" in addition to referring to Obama as a "boy" pretty much substantiates the claim that your position is based, in part, on racial animus.
Posted by brunowe at 06/03/2008 @ 4:31pm
Excellent point, EMILEROLF...
what if some mullah in Iran called for the assassination of a foreign leader of the opposite political persuasion...what would LL's reaction to that be?
Now....what if it was Pat Robertson calling on the assassination of Hugo Chavez???
I think we can't talk to Regent University without preconditions!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
FRANK, I've posted those when you are here as well....so don't try to make yourself a victim because (for the 539th time, you said you were "leaving"...and we keep the conversation going without you....knowing you'd be right back!)
As for your old posts and how "there's only one FRANK" and this new desire for "victory"....how about this one?--
"What is the reason for our being in Iraq again? I say we pull out starting right now. Any comments, wingnuts?"---Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/04/2006 @ 4:19pm
BLOG | Posted 08/04/2006 @ 5:32pm DeLay, Coulter, Kristol Defend Lieberman by John Nichols
What does "right now" mean? "After McCain gets elected"?...maybe I missed that part, given it was a YEAR before McCain announced he was running?
Plus, nobody here buys your rationalizations anymore....you TOLD the truth once...and it's this-
"We will bide our time util November when we will avenge her."----Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 |
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 4:38pm
wow, i missed the "gooks" comment. Real classy.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 4:39pm
<i>I'm telling you. This thing stinks to high heaven. The DNC rules committee actually violated their own charter, not the bylaws, the actual charter, in their decision regarding Michigan. That's like the democratic Congress ruling that it's illegal to carry guns. Hillary has an obligation to democracy to challange that decision to the credintials committee.</i>
Please, neither you nor her gave a damn about democracy until it was in her interests to pretend to do so.
Incidentally, Art. 9, Sec. 8 states that the DNC may adopt statements of policy regarding the timing of Presidential nominating processes. Article 2, Sec. 2 states that state party rules or laws shall be observed "unless in conflict with this Charter and other provisions adopted pursuant to authority of the Charter."
Posted by brunowe at 06/03/2008 @ 4:40pm
<i>Obama as Frankg states has no serious qualifications to be president. The worst being that he has never had to lead/manage anyone or anything. He has no experience making the difficult decisions that come with management responsibilities. He would be a nightmare of a president.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person</i>
As opposed to Bush the Lesser who went from one business failure to another being bailed out by his daddy's rich friends?
Posted by brunowe at 06/03/2008 @ 4:47pm
last time i looked hill was the expert on shot drinking in socially awkward situations, but whatever floats your boat i guess. So frank, you propose that the POTUS should only negotiate with friendly world leaders? That will accomplish a lot. Don't make the silly mistake of conflating negotiation with appeasement.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 4:49pm
grits is a phony. I don't believe he ever had a son in Iraq.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 4:53pm
Frankie, do you have any idea how ridiculous sounding your pompous, megalomaniacal rants are? "Avenge the stupidity of the aforementioned people"?! Please tell me your posts are a joke.
Emile- if this guy is actually serious, then his son probably was over there, then got kicked out for shooting korans and calling the natives "towel heads" or some other racist pap. Like father, like son.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 5:02pm
Do you think the Holocaust was a myth? Because that's what your friend Amadinejad has said several times now. Do you think the Holocaust was a myth? Because that's what your friend Amadinejad has said several times now. Damn, you Obama people are really dangerous with your stupidity.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
You are not very intelligent Frank we all see through your act. You think that because I don't want to go to war with a person that means I must agree with everything he says. Just because I don't think this guy is building a nuclear program doesn't mean I think the way he thinks. Or maybe you are not quite intelligent enough to see that. Or may you have in fact careened past sanity and in to a whole new realm. The tactic you are using is one that Republicans use when they attack Democrats foreign policy choices. Kind of like how Bush said if you are not with us then you are against us. You take a minor statement about how you think the person is not harmful and that we don't need to go to war with him and you attempt to inflate it into agreeing with every policy the person advocates.
You set a pretty low bar for the most important job in the world. You're really scaring me now.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
No actualy Frank if you could read and interpret you would realize that I am setting the bar so high that no one can possibly attest to having the experience to do the job. But apparently you can't read.
I'm tired of your worthless games Frank you have been proven to be a fraud. You don't stand for anything but your own bruised and battered ego. You come on here with your arrogant remarks about educating us and then attempt to accuse us of arrogance. You accuse me of immaturity because of my age then you tell people to "f!@k off." You are a joke.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:06pm
To me Frank you are nothing but a momentary respite from serious conversation. A comical farce that appears occasionally to wave your arms around and scream and then disappears when you realize no one here will play your games or fall for your falsities. I have no respect for you therefore your opinion of me and my opinions is worth less than nothing. You provide nothing of substance to the conversation all you provide is inane rants and childish insults.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:09pm
Who the hell is mary? That marybretbrad guy? Has he even posted on this thread? You are losing it lil fella. Simply because others have used a racial slur that makes it acceptable? And as much as I am opposed to Mccain's positions, I seriously doubt that he would go on a public forum and rant about "the gooks" You are a racist swine- have fun wallowing in the filth with your porcine bedfellows.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 5:10pm
I very rarely call anyone on this board a dumb fuck....there is a difference between calling folks I converse with and nameless campaing staffers! You might appreciate the nuance someday!
Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/3/2008
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. But it looked to me like you were calling ALL young people dumb fucks not just campaign staff. And please stop with the arrogance Happy it gets tiring.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:11pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Frank by sources on the ground do you mean articles on google news? Because I saw that article yesterday.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:14pm
CCC- didn't you get the memo? HAPPY IS better than everyone else because he can (gasp!) make money on the stock market, and has mastered the daunting field of statistics. Now you know better.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 5:15pm
CCC- didn't you get the memo? HAPPY IS better than everyone else because he can (gasp!) make money on the stock market, and has mastered the daunting field of statistics. Now you know better.
Posted by entropy at 06/3/2008
I think Happy is generally a good guy I think he just has his moments of arrogance and at those times feels like he has some right to be an ass to people.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:23pm
I think I found one of Franks tactics. Frank likes to feign legitimacy by using terms like "sources on the ground" when he has no real information than what we could get from a google search. He just said he has sources on the ground in Iraq but I found that news out yesterday which has been posted for the last few days. It's feigned legitimacy in order to try to build an air of superiority. Genius.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 5:26pm
What's wrong, are you disappointed that things are turning around over there?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 |
No I would be glad. I have a cousin and a couple of friends who are serving. I would rather not see them die. Of course that makes no difference to an ass like you. Your sons being over there is important but everyone else's relatives can go suck an egg right?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 6:16pm
What's wrong, are you disappointed that things are turning around over there?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Oh on top of that by the way. Many are not for sure that this is it actually turning around. There is a lot of debate over whether this is just insurgents pulling back to regrouping before launching a new attack somewhere. Which is why I remain skeptical.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 6:44pm
it is clear that what Iraq needs is a POLITICAL solution.
that is as far away as it ever was.
we can applaud that the civil war has slowed, and American casualties in specific. without that political solution the resumption of that war is inevitable.
whether the extra 30,000 troops of the "surge" are responsible for the slow down in violence is by no means clear. paying off the sunni surely had something to do with it, so has the balkanization of the cities.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 7:01pm
Glad that you have finally admitted that you are nothing more than a despicable racist. Assinine attitudes like yours are one of myriad reasons why our troops are reviled by the iraqi people. But by all means, keep attempting to dehumanize your enemy with vile racist slurs, as it fits your newfound political persuasion perfectly. I can't wait until the last of you reprehensible racists depart the corporeal realm. You are an anachronism full of muddled thoughts and displaced rage. As if your disgusting overt racism isn't foul enough, it would appear that you are also a misogynist, as evidenced by your 3rd grade attempt to denigrate me by addressing me with a female name. I may be many years your junior (you and the happster should get together at Denny's for the earlybird special and piss in each others ear about us impudent young turks) but it is quite apparent that you need to do some serious growing up.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 7:06pm
That is also the reason why a hasty pullout is inadvisable. We didn't lose 4000 plus troops for nothing you know. We can't let thm die in vain. I may have thopught differently a couple of years ago but the worm has truly turned.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Like I said. I remain skeptical of whether this is just a regroup or if things have ACTUALLY begun to change. That will only be determined with time. No one is calling for a hasty withdrawal. They are asking for a slow, organized withdrawal and then help given to them to help rebuilding their country. Which is exactly what Obama advocates, because I know the next thing you will say is going to be "Obama wants to pull out hastily", I want a slow, intelligent and deliberate pull out with safeties in place. I want a REAL exit plan. Not the Bush exit plan, the non-existent one.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/03/2008 @ 7:11pm
"we didn't lose 400 troops for nothing you know" Certainly not- we have destabalized an entire region, murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, displaced 2-4 million more, increased global antipathy towards the US, wasted 2 trillion dollars, diverted attention from Afghanistan, destroyed the cradle of civilization, bolstered Iranian influence and prestige, created whole new terrorist groups, and caused the balkinization of a country which was little more than an imperial construct to begin with. Yup, that is hardly nothing.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 7:12pm
<i>No one will ever get my vote who doesn't have that kind of experience.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person </i>
So LL would've voted against Lincoln. On the other hand, he would've voted for James Buchanan, one of this country's worst President's.
<i>They were gooks. Sorry if your sensibilities were offended there Mary.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person </i>
Yeah, don't you know that being a racist is an integral part of being a man.
<i>He he were in front of me he's be visiting his dentist now. He got off easy.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person </i>
Yea, he's very brave about making threats that he knows he won't have to carry out.
<i>If you have a cousin and a couple of friends over there and you are in contact with them, you must know that things on the ground are much improved because of the surge. Right? So what the hell are we arguing about?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person </i>
You mean the surge has improve the Kirkuk issue, the hydrocarbons law issue, the provincial elections issue? Sorry, hasn't done any of these things.
<i>I guess you don't know any Vietnam vets. Nor do you know anythink about war. </i>
Except that YOU used the word here Frank, and you didn't serve in Vietnam so you are hardly entitled. FYI, everyone, FG owned up to being in his 40s. Since he cant' be any older than 49, he can hardly have served there.
Posted by brunowe at 06/03/2008 @ 7:17pm
the troops in Iraq did not die in vain. they died for a criminal enterprise. they like us were lied to and are still being lied to.
when you're not defending your country, when you are attacking another country and its people, being a soldier is a dirty job, with no honor.
if this were not so, we would be honoring the the Wehrmacht, which invaded France, Poland and Russia.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 7:28pm
Precisely emile- the military worship has gotten completely out of hand. Wearing the uniform of a soldier no more makes you an honorable man than wearing a three piece suit. It is the actions of the person donning the garment which defines their character. There are many very honorable soldiers, and many disgraceful sociopaths who simply enlist to kill the "gooks" or the "ragheads" or whatever vitriolic moniker is assigned to the day's official enemy. Professional soldiery is actually anathema to democratic society- history has shown us that large standing armies become a seperate society, and eventually impose their will upon civillian governance. So spare us all the "he wears a uniform so we should all kiss his arse" shtick.
Posted by entropy at 06/03/2008 @ 7:45pm
entropy
very well put.
I suggest you duck, as I imagine some rhetorical incoming is on its way.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2008 @ 8:02pm
"I have it from sources on the ground in Baghdad that things are shaping up."-----Posted by frankgrits at 06/3/2008
Isn't it AMAZING that his "sources" appear....
just about the time it becomes clear HILLARY isn't going to be the nominee?!??!!?
BTW, FRANK, what does Rush say about "how things are going in Iraq"?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 8:11pm
Never claimed to have served in Vietnam asshole. I don't discuss my private life on the net. You must have remembered me saying that dozens of times but I find it odd that you haven't mentioned it. Your slip is showing.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/4/2008
Yeah but his response wasn't to whether you served in Vietnam or not. His response was to the fact that you berated someone for having not served in Vietnam saying that they didn't understand what the people there felt.
"I guess you don't know any Vietnam vets. Nor do you know anythink(sic) about war"
Which the second portion can be interpreted as meaning you didn't serve in Nam. Now considering you insist on throwing your sons service in peoples faces I am going to guess you have never served in the military either. Now I admit it's a guess but it is an educated one and unless you refute it then it will float because silence in this instance is equivalent to consenting to the point. HIS point was that you were too young to have served in Vietnam which you claimed he didn't do and meant he had no credibility which then means if you are arguing that he has no credibility because he didn't serve in Nam then you don't either because you are too young to have served.
His point still floats just the same whether you discuss your personal life or not because if you have in fact said you were 40 then his point still has water to tread on. I don't know how old you are and it doesn't make a difference to me because whether you were old enough or not I can tell by the way you speak that you are someone who has known people who have been to war but have never been yourself. You can see it in the way you speak of things. You speak with a WANT of appearing to have experience without ACTUALLY having experience and you think KNOWING people who have been gives you some more credibility however I have great grandparents who served in WWII doesn't mean I am going to claim to know anything more about it than anyone else.
Keep spinning Frank. Keep trying to change the point and the argument. It only serves the purpose of making you look worse.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:34am
Cccomfo1
Frank can look worse?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 12:47pm
Cccomfo1
Frank can look worse?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/4/2008
I know, amazing right?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 1:56pm