Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHillary Clinton has now been formally confirmed as the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The New York Times says so. The Sunday morning television talk show bookers who, by virtue of the invitations they issue, assemble the fawning salons of electoral politics in what remains an electronic age say so. The talking head pundits says so. And, while they will not say so, her opponents know they are falling behind is a race that it entering its final stage. For this reason, tonight's Democratic discourse in New Hampshire, the first in which the question of Clinton's anointed status has been a formally settled matter, was livelier than the tepid spring and summer joint press conferences that passed for debates.
But the competition still feels like it is being choreographed by Clinton, as opposed to being thrown into a healthy chaos by her challengers. That is rapidly turning the perception of her as the front-runner into reality. It is this reality that threatens to become increasingly definitional as the fall sprint to the end of a race that could well finish in early winter, has now begun. With her foes tripping over themselves at the starting line, Clinton continued racing down the track.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama, Clinton's closest competitor in most polls, was listless and ineffectual. There were reports that he had been feeling ill and weak prior to the debate. That certainly seemed to be the case.
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the next candidate in line, was far more aggressive. "I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," declared Edwards, who reminded the crowd that Clinton had recently said she would maintain the combat missions as president.
Edwards, who like Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq, pointedly suggested that he would be able to distinguish himself as a "bring-the-troops-home" candidate against a "stay-the-course" Republican in November, 2008, while Clinton would not be able to do so.
Unfortunately for the North Carolinian, candidates such as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, who actually want to bring all the troops home, pointed out that Edwards has refused to endorse complete withdrawal. Neither, of course, has Obama.
In fact, Clinton, Obama and Edwards were united in refusing to say they would get all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of a first presidential term.
So it was that, after the debate, Dodd could point out that the most "remarkable" thing about the clash of the candidates was that, "The so-called leading candidates were unwilling to say whether they would have our troops out of that country by 2013."
Dodd was exactly right about that. And, perhaps unintentionally, he highlighted the fact that neither of Clinton's most serious challengers put in a sufficient performance to close the gap with the New York senator, whose performance was capable and generally smooth, if oddly uncooperative with questioning from moderator Tim Russert.
When all was said and done, Clinton made it through another debate without tripping on her own, and without being tripped up by a challenger. By any reasonable measure, her lead is likely to remain secure for so long as neither Obama nor Edwards chooses to run as a genuine anti-war candidate.
The simple truth is that Obama and Edwards, the two contenders with the stature and the campaign apparatus to contend with Clinton in a serious way, have yet to fully recognize the crisis of their circumstance. If they are both running, and both running well, they are likely to divide the majority of votes in many of the early caucus and primary states -- with additional percentages streaming off to the campaigns of Richardson, who continues to poll on the edge of the upper tier of this contest, and Kucinich, whose purist candidacy maintains a determined base of backers. But Clinton is likely to win solid pluralities in many, if not all, of those states.
During recent visits to Iowa and Florida, what I heard again and again from grassroots Democrats was a combination of grudging respect for Clinton's close-to-flawless campaign and deep frustration with the emptiness of its promise. What Clinton offers is a big name, a smart and steady style on the stump, a skilled and flexible campaign machine and very little else. Only the most delusional Democrats expect her to end the war in Iraq, fight for fair trade and a new economic realism, or succeed in enacting a functional national health care plan. The appeal of Clinton is that she is a Democrat who appears to be competent enough and, yes, tough enough to take on the Republicans and win.
But what would a Hillary Clinton win mean? As the increasingly edgy Chris Dodd, speaking this week from the also-ran edge of the race, said in response to political-parlor-game speculation that President Bush would like Clinton to be the Democratic nominee: "I can understand why the president would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee."
Casual observers may still be able to convince themselves that Bush prefers Clinton because she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. But that's a comic assessment. The Bush camp may not know how to run a war in the Middle East, or an industrial policy in the Middle West, but they know politics. And they surely know that, after taking hits from the right for the better part of two decades, Hillary Clinton is not going to be tripped up by some revelation or miscalculation that reveals to the electorate a campaign-killing fatal flaw. Americans know this woman. They may like her. They may hate her. But Clinton is familiar, and after her cut-throat campaign team gets done defning a Republican nominee, the former First Lady's familiar face will prove far more attractive to independent voters and moderate Republicans than the "Hillary-can't win" crowd can begin to imagine. Indeed, if Clinton continues to put in debate performances like she did tonight, she will be hard -- though not impossible -- to beat in November, 2008.
So it is farce in the extreme to imagine that Bush is betting on Clinton because she's a loser. If the president prefers her, it is because, if a Democrat is to win the White House, Clinton offers the best prospect for continuity. No, Clinton will not maintain every specific of the Bush program or whatever fantastical definition of conservatism that Republicans are currently embracing; she's reliably liberal on a number of issues and reliably moderate on many more. But with her record of supporting military intervention, surrendering civil liberties, backing free trade pacts and seeking truces on the culture-war battlefield, Clinton is the "least-worst" Democrat in the view of Republican insiders and their corporate cronies. She offers the unspoken promise of maintenance of a status quo that George Bush and those around him value far more than most political observers care to recognize.
But what of Americans who seek a clean break from Bushism? What about Democrats and independents who dream of a change in 2008 that is every bit as big as the change that occurred in 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt displaced Herbert Hoover?
They won't get that change from Clinton. Unfortunately, Clinton may be all the change they get.
That bad calculus has something to do with the fact that Democrats have displayed a tendency in recent years to end up with nominees who are less representative of the values and the desires of the party base than of the bipartisan consensus on Wall Street or K Street.
In the case of John Kerry's surge toward the party's 2004 nomination, Democratic caucus goers in Iowa engaged in an act of political calculus rather than ideological or personal passion. Some of the same calculus may be in play with Clinton, who New Hampshire Democrats now tell pollsters is the Democratic candidate with the best chance of defeating the Republican nominee in 2008. Remarkably, Clinton's "winner" quotient has risen from 37 percent in June to 54 percent now. In contrast, Obama's has slipped to just 13 percent, while Edwards is down to 8 percent.
It is a testament to Clinton that, while she has attracted a genuine cadre of supporters, especially among young women and some communities of color, most of the senator's backers intend to vote for her despite the fact that they find her less appealing than as other contenders. In the latest poll of likely voters in the likely first-primary state of New Hampshire, Clinton is ranked "most likable by 16 percent of those surveyed. That compares with 39 percent for Obama and 27 percent for Edwards.
The question that emerges is the essential one of any race with a crowded field: What if the front-runner was facing off with in a one-of-one race with one of the more personally popular contenders?
The search for an answer might begin with the fact that, in fresh polling of New Hampshire voters by the University of New Hampshire for CNN and local television station WMUR, Clinton's at 43 percent. The rest of the field, added together, gets 46 percent. Eleven percent of voters are undecided.
Technically, this translates as a rough tie. But the primaries and caucuses that define the 2008 race will not pit Clinton against an amalgamated foe. They will pit the senator against the individual candidacies of her opponents. Don't expect anyone to stand down in order to unite the opposition. Indeed, at this point, if lesser contenders were to quit the race it might well be to endorse Clinton -- as did former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a briefly announced candidate, and retired General Wesley Clark, an eternally unannounced candidate. The impulse to go with a winner, especially a winner who might soon be selecting a vice-presidential running-mate and Cabinet members, is often stronger than ideology.
Thus, the only serious challenge to Clinton now is going to come from a candidate who, by virtue of his appealing performance and ideas, is able to emerge from the pack. That did not happen at the Dartmouth debate Wednesday night.
As a result, Clinton's front-runner status solidifies. And the pressure on others in the field -- especially those with the resources and the name recognition of Obama and Edwards --- to make a bold and distinguishing move only mounts. There will be a few more opportunities to alter the course of the contest. But not many; only a handful of full-fledged debates in which all the candidates are expected to participate remain on the schedule. And the candidates who fail to seize them will secure only their footnote status in the story of a 2008 race that may well be that of how George Bush was succeeded by his "least-worst" Democrat.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Illinois Senator Barack Obama ☼, Clinton's closest competitor in most polls, was listless and ineffectual. There were reports that he had been feeling ill and weak prior to the debate. That certainly seemed to be the case.
a bit harsh...but not his best performance, granted. he did look a little greenish and queezy...wonder if he had the gutfunk...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:12am
"the New York senator, whose performance was capable and generally smooth"
Oh, Lord, "smooth." Why don't you just call her Slicky Hilly and be done with it?
(Unless I'm the first, in which case, put a "TM" by that.)
Posted by RLawrence at 09/27/2007 @ 12:17am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/27/2007 @ 12:12am |
actually he seemed to recover nicely in the lightening round...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:20am
Today our President's press secretary was spinning why (1) the President needed a pronunciation cheat sheet to get through a UN speech, and (2) how the document that showed the cheating got removed from the official website.
Phonetic [blogs.usatoday.com]
And people are wondering why, after six years of this, someone who comes across as "capable" is a frontrunner in the race.
Posted by RLawrence at 09/27/2007 @ 12:26am
This is sort of like the sports pages, right down to the claim of injury (Obama hasn't been feeling well!). There's the dominant player -- Clinton standing in for Roger Federer -- and one or two who maybe have a real shot at taking down the king -- Rafael Nadal could be Edwards or Obama (he's even a lefty!) -- but, no, the King still reigns.
Posted by RLawrence at 09/27/2007 @ 12:37am
Posted by RLAWRENCE 09/27/2007 @ 12:26am | ignore this person
funny...sad but funny...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:37am
well, i think nichols is despairing a bit here...
funny...conservatives spin crap to the advantage of their best interest...
do libs spin their glass half empty?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:40am
and deep frustration with the emptiness of its promise.
*sigh*
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 12:48am
patriot [msnbc.msn.com]
interesting breaking news here too....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:51am
Actually, I don't want to joke about anyone's illness even if it's a flu bug. But I do find the "Darn, she's unstoppable" commentary strange. This feels very different from the Kerry v. Dean situation in 2004 or even Bill Clinton in 1992, when one felt that The Establishment was anointing a frontrunner against the wishes of the people. Clinton seems to be going out and winning these debates fair and square, while the press only grudgingly and with perplexity acknowledges it.
Posted by RLawrence at 09/27/2007 @ 12:54am
maybenot [msnbc.msn.com]
on the other hand...here's what some schmuks are saying...
nichols...get bck on your antidepressents!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 12:56am
sobad? [msnbc.msn.com]
still more to contradict mr. nichols gloom...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:00am
well, i think nichols is despairing a bit here...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/27/2007 @ 12:40am
actually, i've noticed it on the last few posts.
lots of typos, a little bad grammar, and a whole bunch about Pillory.
she's ee'nuff to make anybody crazy.
no wonder bill.....................
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 01:03am
actually msnbc is a lot more generous to the non-hillarys...
edwards gained, obama maintained, hillary not as sterling as nichols painted...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:06am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/27/2007 @ 01:03am | ignore this person
yeah...unscientific, but look at the msnbc links i posted...not nearly as doom and gloom as nichols said...
back on the antidepressents nichols...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:08am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/27/2007 @ 12:51am
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
i wonder how long before judge ann has a car accident.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 01:09am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/27/2007 @ 01:06am
nichols is either a closet admirer of your girl or myopically depressed by her awesome gigantitude...
how'd you like "give 'em hell gravell's" vicious lash-out and rabid biting of hill? lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:11am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/27/2007 @ 01:09am
none of that now...besides, goes on up the courts now. will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:12am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/27/2007 @ 01:00am
check out the different photos of candidates on the msnbc "rate the candidates" page.
who's got flattering pics and who doesn't?
a quiz
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 01:16am
"Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the next candidate in line,..."
But then what about the next non-announced in line:
Associated Press Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs 9/11/2007 w/o Al Gore
Hillary Clinton ____43%
Barack Obama ___23%
John Edwards ____13%
Joe Biden ________4%
Bill Richardson ____4%
Unsure __________9%
None of these ____ 4%
Associated Press Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs 9/11/2007
Hillary Clinton ___ 34%
Barack Obama ___20%
Al Gore _________16%
John Edwards ____10%
Bill Richardson ____4%
Joe Biden ________3%
Chris Dodd _______1%
Unsure __________8%
None of these ____4%
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 01:21am
none are great...edwards is best...
obama looks like he's got the gutfunk...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:22am
time for lala land.
nite...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 01:26am
msnbc pics
biden, constipated
pillory, i'd say the best photo--only smiler
dodd, angry drunk
edwards, rich boy smirk
gravel, looks like he's remembering the glory days, check out his hands
kucinich, optimum ear angle
obama, gas pains
richardson, as always
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 01:32am
I missed that debate. I heard Kucinich and Gravel weren't there. That's incredibly undemocratic!
Posted by Dale-Z at 09/27/2007 @ 01:51am
Just as a reminder as to what happened to front-runners when people go to vote in the primaries:
CBS News Poll, December 14-16, 2003
Dean - ______23%
Clark - ______10%
Lieberman - __10%
Gephardt - ____6%
Sharpton - ____5%
Kerry - _______4%
Edwards - ____ 2%
Opinion Dynamics. The week before Iowa the caucuses:
Dean - ______20%
Clark - ______13%
Lieberman - ___8%
Gephardt - ____7%
Kerry - _______7%
after Kerry wins Iowa and before the New Hampshire primaries, these are what the national numbers were:
Kerry - ______29%
Dean - ______ 17%
Edwards - ____13%
Clark -_______11%
Lieberman - ___5%
after Iowa and New Hampshire:
Kerry - _______53%
Dean - ________ 8%
Edwards - _____ 7%
Sharpton - _____4%
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 01:59am
"Just stopped by for a quick look see before turning in. I'll be sleeping well tonight.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/27/2007 @ 01:06am |"
Frank, you are one of the few here who manges to sleep well during the day too, especiallty when you are awake... Hillary has you licking her balls so regularily that you miss all the Hillary comments during the threads and then show up with fan fair as to how she is going to solve all the problems of America, that I am begining to think you view her as a second coming of sorts..almost religiously..messianic vision for you..
Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2007 @ 04:29am
I noticed the article mention Edwards...since this guy has no chance of nomination, in fact none of them here do,( I mentioned in my first post on the Nation ever that Hillary is the nominee and candidate all here will vote for)...I digresss... and since Edwards will not be another VP pick based on his performance from last time around...couldn't even carry his own state, kind of a GORE-AN disease,....makes me ask what the hell it is he doing? No one takes him seriously, even according to BUSHPOLLS...shouldn't he volunteer the money he is wasting to charity for the poor people he was out trying to find on his last poverty tour? ( and I do not mean the guys who mow the lawns on his or ALGORES estates).
Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2007 @ 04:40am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/27/2007 @ 04:40am
(Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Hmm, let's see if there is some way to make this predicatbaly doctrinaire MAASCH outburst into something vaguely interesting).
As it is taken as given that MAASCH habours no substance about political topics, and merely apes stale and ancient Reaganite slogans that have begun to bore even him, let's procede to a topic that is intimate to MAASCH's hard-won knowledges.
Given all of the international airports that MAASCH been in, en route to that libertarian paradise of the PRC, does he have a report on the international airport bathroom scene? Were the men's rooms a ... foot-tapping good time? Did MAASCH encounter any Reulsive Party dignitaries via their "wide stances" on the shitter or at the hand blower?
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/27/2007 @ 07:49am
I didn't watch this debate, as I seldom watch television. But I have some questions from those of you who did:
Who organized this debate? Who decided which questions to ask the candidates?
It seems to me that Senator Clinton cannot possibly do better than her competitors in a debate unless these questions are pitched more from their right than from Clinton's left.
Perhaps some smart lefty activists -- and not only Democrats, but some Greens and Libertarians too -- need to infiltrate the committees of the Democratic Party who organize these debates. I know this may sound like a distasteful exercise, but until our electoral system is reformed, it may be the best thing we can do to slow the dangerous rightward tilt of our country's ship of state.
The recently much-vilified "MoveOn.org" is one of the few organizations of the left that are actually capable of shifting the frame of debate leftward. Surely, this explains why so many politicians so viciously attack it. They, of course, want to set the terms of debate themselves, so that they look "principled" and "responsible" rather than like the stupid, self-serving, corporate boot-licking scoundrels that they really are.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/27/2007 @ 08:25am
The recently much-vilified "MoveOn.org" is one of the few organizations of the left that are actually capable of shifting the frame of debate leftward. ----Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/27/2007 @ 08:25am
Uh, JAKOB....what (and who) was MoveOn founded for orginally?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 08:59am
BTW, Mr Nichols said something bad about Obama and seems resigned to fact that Hillary will win the nomination....
according to HAPPY, that makes him a "HRC supporter"!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 09:00am
from qwiki:
MoveOn.org was created by computer entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the married cofounders of Berkeley Systems. They started by passing around a petition asking Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on", as opposed to impeaching him. To the couple's surprise, the petition, passed around by word of mouth, was extremely successful -- ultimately, they had half a million signatures.[citation needed] Buoyed by their success, the couple went on to start similar campaigns, calling for more arms inspections rather than an invasion of Iraq (see Popular opposition to war on Iraq); the reinstatement of lower limits on arsenic and mercury pollution, and campaign finance reform.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 09:55am
Barack Obama is a coward. Just a week ago, he was giving George Bush the Liar an Ultimatum: don't drag America into a war with Iran based on Lies. Yesterday Barack Obama hid like a cowardly little wimp - refused to stand up for America - refused to do the right thing for his country. You expect that kind of thing from Hillary Clinton. You expect that kind of thing from Harry Reid.
Once again, half the Democrats in the Senate have given George Bush his war based on lies. Democrats are doing their best to prove Naderites correct.
I condemn Barack Obama, for being a traitor. He knows, he is smart enough to understand about Iran, about the consequences, about trusting a known liar. America is in very very serious trouble, without leadership, without patriotism, and lets not forget how vulnerable and easy to manipulate the real criminals are: the American people.
We must live in peace with Iran. Its the idiots who thought they were right about Iraq who want it otherwise. It is game over - checkmate - our heroes have all run away and left us to die at the unworthy hands of George Bush.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 09:59am
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm .cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
The nay vote on Lieberman's Bomb Iran bill was the right thing to do and the courageous and patriotic thing to do. Hurray to these heroes, including 2 Republicans - DAMNATION AND DISGRACE TO THE REST.
NAYs ---22 Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:02am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/27/2007 @ 09:55am
Yeap....so what are the chances that MO is going to "shift the frame of the debate"....to somewhere that a CLINTON doesn't want it to go???
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 10:03am
This vote was the most significant vote of any Senators lifetime. It was quite literally a vote to end America's superpower status permanently.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by CONSHAME 09/27/2007 @ 09:59am
Editing out the "frothing at the mouth" part, CS is right on that one.
Obama is making it his SOP to avoid serious votes.
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 10:05am
JAK -
I am not sure who organized the debate or selected the questions, but there were plenty of questions "pitched" from the left, especially on the war. Clinton and Obama avoided direct answers on many of them. I was particularly surprised by Obama and thought his responses seemed rehearsed and, frankly, quite empty. While I will always be a Kucinich fan, I think Edwards did better than Obama and Clinton. As for the rest, I was hoping for more out of Richardson, but thought at times he came across as a bit of a stooge (even though we know the president will make mistakes, its best in a campaign NOT to tell the people that you will, especially considering the walking accident we have now). Biden was his usual pompous self -- what else is new. While Gravel may have some worthy policy positions, he came off a bit gloomy -- sounding like a cranky old man.
BTW - Does anyone at The Nation proofread or edit these posts before they go up?
Posted by Hman23 at 09/27/2007 @ 10:13am
Editing out the "frothing at the mouth" part, CS is right on that one.
Obama is making it his SOP to avoid serious votes.
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 10:05am
actually, the frothing is the most lucid part
mccain didn't vote, either.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 10:30am
Obama did not cast a vote, in this case not voting was a vote for Bushs war in Iran.
The news isn't telling it like it is. This WAS a vote to endorse military attacks on Iran. Americans need to wake up. Alot of Americans look at this and they say, "Oh, but maybe they were saying something else". Quit it with your damn naiive optimism, Americans. "Oh, it couldnt say that. Maybe the Senate just voted to say something else". American people, you are severely mentally ill, American people, you are racists and don't know it, you are Genocidal and don't realize it. I read the bill, it certainly DOES call for attacks on Iran.
Act like adults, Americans. Search your souls, Americans. This is a tragedy. This is sad, this is a disaster, this is an outrage, this is terrible, this is America's death warrant.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:30am
Obama's failure to make it back to Washington to even vote is a huge disappointment. Curious to see how his supporters on this blog defend him on THAT one.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/27/2007 @ 10:35am
Shaft ass,
Another brilliant on topic contribution to the group, unfortunately. You have once again risen to the expectaion of all here...lacking any ability to discuss the thread, you shit yourself with your famous verbal epilepsy..seek help if you are able, otherwise, hang on, Hillary is coming.
The only experience involving international airport shit houses that I have had the necessity to visit was inspired by laughter in Arabic as your name camr up..AGAIN!! ...where upon the the only common thread was your phone number and description of talents posted on the the shit house walls...As it is taken as given, of course..
Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2007 @ 10:37am
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - September 20, 2007)
Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 10:40am
There was a debate tonight? Did America watch? wGs there give and take? or another night of stating ones posotions regardless of the question ste up,er, asked?
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by john maasch at 09/27/2007 @ 10:41am
In other words, it is the sense of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer (etc.), that George Bush deserves another blank check to harm America.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:43am
Patriotism: going along with wars based on blatant, obvious lies.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:47am
"Service": giving and carrying out orders that harm America's interests.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:50am
Courage: watching bombing operations against tiny little defenseless countries on TV.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:51am
Democracy: wearing whatever you want to wear to a lynch mob.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:52am
What a farce, what a disgrace. Do we as a nation believe George Bush, when he says that he has "intelligence"?? Consider the source.
Conservatives, consider this: you HAVE been wrong about wars in the past.
Posted by conshame at 09/27/2007 @ 10:53am
CS, nobody wants to read your spam anymore than RESE's.
Put it all into ONE post or not at all!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 10:58am
I guess the check is in the mail then, John? Or has the exclusive interview been granted yet?
How can you be such a stooge for Hillary? She was plain awful last night. I thought her most telling moment was when she couldn't even answer a silly hypothetical about a Cubs-Yankees world series. Give me a break! How can anyone invest their hopes and dreams for the next four years in this teflon coated automaton?
-Tom
Posted by buhjesus at 09/27/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by CONSHAME 09/27/2007 @ 10:43am |
well, cant say i support sen joe lieberman, (i) israel, nor his bill, but not sure your blanket condemnation is valid nor constructive.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:09am
Put it all into ONE post or not at all!
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 10:58am
dunno,
sometimes multi- (short) post is a more effective option than one super-long-easy-to-scroll-past post.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 11:15am
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/27/2007 @ 08:25am
nichols was a bit overly morose on this. numbers coming back so far show people's perceptions don't echoe exacly nichols' analysis.
i'm an obama supporter and soewhat emotionally invested, therefore, so i dont exactly trust my own judgement in assessing outcome...so at first nichol's commentary sort of took me aback.
it was not barry o's best performance, an the quip about hi being sick makes sense. regardless the unscientific msnbc poll gave him suprisingly high reactions despite his less than stellar perforance.
perhaps he actually felt like shit. who knows. i'll ask him...lol.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:20am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/27/2007 @ 11:15am
CS is a nut, who screams and flails around....then even contradicts herself...for instance-
"Conservatives, consider this: you HAVE been wrong about wars in the past."---- Posted by CONSHAME 09/27/2007 @ 10:53am
"conservatives"?!??!....But CS, you said-
BLOG | Posted 07/31/2007 @ 07:21am Comments for "Vitter's Close Call" by David Corn
Mask, what do you want? Alright. Nobody is a "Conservative". Conservative is an abstract concept. For a real Conservative to exist, that person would have to agree 100 with a set of principles that can not be fully and specifically defined. The same for a Liberal. ----Posted by CONSHAME 08/01/2007 @ 6:17p
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 10:58am
flametongue...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:22am
libs sometimes tend toward self flagellating and self destructive pessimism/cynicism...
i think nichols, generally solid, succumbed to this a bit here. again, check out the results on the earlier links.
idealogues of either stripe tend toward self destructive purism...
self destructive, inflexible, purism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:34am
ok - where did it put my last post?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:34am
libs sometimes tend toward self flagellating and self destructive pessimism/cynicism...
i think nichols, generally solid, succumbed to this a bit here. again, check out the results on the earlier links.
idealogues of either stripe tend toward self destructive purism...
self destructive, inflexible, purism...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/27/2007 @ 11:34am | ignore this person
i'm flattered that almighty god shows his favor for me by placing my posts at the top of the thread (above my other post) but it still blows the flow of the thought stream...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 11:38am
to anybody who's seen this: sorry
but it seems many missed the debate, so here's my transcript as posted on now dead obama thread:
transcript of LIGHTNING ROUND -- (how stupid)
hrc--bill's values at home. 21st century. values
biden--move0n positive sometimes
DK--greenspan wants gas taxes and you?, oil iraq february patriot health care or tall! ha! ha!
anybody gas tax--gravell's got balls
dodd?--kids xmas ban china toys? smirk shut down lead toothpaste wrong-headed time!
BO--tepid jena. no iraq. jesse says sorry. justice for all
richardson--gay scouts sure! constitution yes. guanto no. torture no. trilogy won't take out troops
obama--combat out. rapid. social security. tell it straight
drunk camera.
edwards--no nukes
BO--store threats magic bullet
DK--nukes are $$$$, alternate. no friggin war
MG--windmills yeah! carbon sucks!
HRC--blah blah blah where's the cleavage (just kidding)
russert--should we torture?
BO--no way is he left handed
biden--generals say torture sucks
clinton--blah blah blah hypothetical blah blah she's past 30 seconds. fuck bill.
did you get involved in foreign policy?--blah blah advisor's blah blah
dodd--keep still no way. international leadership point finger
richardson point finger respect human rights. eavesdrop. stop
edwards--america's been jacked around. gitmo gone. aaaaaaaannnnnd, no more spying.
biden--ajafoijgjefaefjfdsj
dk--9/11 fear. strength and peace. time! point thumb.
russert hsu $$
clinton smirk
russert clinton donors published
hrc -- blah, blah, blah ask them
anybody--make public
bo-i think, me and russ. new bill. bundler? bungler?
russert $$ hair edwards.
edwards---fuck you, i'm proud. i've stood up. another lefty?
ruusert--$$
edwards (pissed)--judge me
Russert--
FZ--g'night honey. te amo
bo--deficit,
hrc--golden blah
mg--love
dk--st francis rules
edwards--mumble
richardson--speed up
dodd--samaritan
biden--bankrupt pharisees
BASEBALL
what the ..................?
DK mom
hrc--yankees (how'd i guess) blah blah
russert, shut up mk
biden blah
thank you. repubs from dearborn (hey, i can bring some tomatoes)
russert GGGOOOoooooooooooooodddd nite!
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/26/2007 @ 11:02p
again popologies if you done already seen it.
and yes it was drivel
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 11:43am
NICHOLS: Only the most delusional Democrats expect her to end the war in Iraq,.....The appeal of Clinton is that she is a Democrat who appears to be competent enough and, yes, tough enough to take on the Republicans and win.
There you have it, MASK, even NICHOLS think you are delusional!
Disappointingly, I can't fathom why Obama won't take the stand of total withdrawal from Iraq (like Richardson, DK, etc.) to set himself clearly apart among the top 3?? How he will do will also tell us just how many people really, really want to do just that!
Since he won't take that position, which ONLY he is fully entitled to, I guess he just couldn't get enough early support from the likes of The Nation to seriously challenge HRC! HRC's red carpet to the Nominatin has been clear to all.....NICHOLS crying for days just sound idiotic! Well, maybe he has been designated by KVH as the CRYER...for appearance sake of course...to placate TN's base...
Watch The Nation turn into NATIONGRITS before your very screens!
Posted by Happy at 09/27/2007 @ 12:14pm
The longer Al Gore waits to enter the better. Well until October that is... He'll appear to be and be more outside, not that attached to the party-- bringing in a new fresh set of answers and directions that'll put our nation back on track and back on principle.
Gallup Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of protecting the country from international terrorism and military threats: the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?" Options rotated
Date_______Repub Party __Dem Party __Unsure
9/14-16/07_____42 _________47 ________11
9/5-8/02_______50 _________31 ________19
"Looking ahead for the next few years, which political party do you think will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous: the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?" Options rotated
Date_______Repub Party __Dem Party __Unsure
9/14-16/07_____34 _________54 ________12
9/5-8/02_______42 _________42 ________16
"In your view, do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed?"
Date_____Do an Adequate Job __Third Party Is Needed __Unsure
9/14-16/07_______39 ________________57 _____________4
10/10-12/03______56 ________________40 _____________4
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 12:16pm
"Only the most delusional Democrats expect her to end the war in Iraq . . ."
Sorry Mr. Nichols, but this is from Sen. Clinton's website:
"America is ready for a leader who will end the war in Iraq and a president who will respect our Armed Forces by properly planning for the missions we ask our troops to undertake. If the Bush administration won't, as president and commander in chief, Hillary will end this war."
Is this an outright lie?? Delusional? Every Democratic candidate has committed to ending the war.
I know Edwards scored some points, but he is splitting hairs regarding a commitment to withdraw EVERY troop from Iraq -- as if THAT is the ONLY barometer for "ending the war". The more I think about it, if anyone is to be disbelieved on this, it is Edwards. After all, we still have troops in S. Korea, yet nobody still thinks the Korean War continues.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/27/2007 @ 12:38pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/27/2007 @ 12:14pm
HAPP, re-read what I said....
"For me, anybody (even Ron Paul) who tries to end this stupid war in Iraq is good enough, even the weakest on ending it (Hillary)"....----Posted by MASK 09/26/2007 @ 10:31pm
Now again, why am I a "HRC supporter"...if I've said I'll vote for ANY Democrat or Ron Paul who gets the nomination?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 12:43pm
BTW, would SOMEBODY (not on the Z-idiot Ignore) please do me a favor....
and ask ZERO what he thinks of Lyndon LaRouche....so we can finally peg the ardent anti-feminist and anti-global warming "purer progressive than you" liar for what he really is?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 12:47pm
After all, we still have troops in S. Korea, yet nobody still thinks the Korean War continues.
Posted by HMAN23 09/27/2007 @ 12:38pm
no, but most (i'll check) koreans want you to stay there.
doubt most iraqis want the same.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 1:07pm
READ THE WHIMSICAL INSIGHTS OF JOHN MAASCH, ARDENT SUPPORTER OF LARRY CRAIG BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT & GLOBAL MEN'S ROOM AMBASSADOR.
What is it about Repulsive Party "married with children" "men" that they have such fondness about their recollections of ... the international airport men's rooms they've known? JOHN MAASCH can barely contain himself as he waxes eloquent:
The only experience involving international airport shit houses that I have had the necessity to visit was inspired by laughter in Arabic..AGAIN!! .. phone number and description of talents posted on the the shit house walls...As it is taken as given, of course..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 09/27/2007 @ 10:37am
To translate the joke that MAASCH clearly did not get (perhaps he was too busy tapping his foot harder and harder while sliding into a ridiculously wide stance):
GUY 1: Ahmadinejad just said there are no gay people in Iran.
(Laughter erupts)
GUY 2: What a hoot! Next thing you know, Ahmadinejad will be running for the US Senate from the Repulsive Party since there are no gay US Senators in the Repulsive Party!
(Cacophony of Chortles)
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/27/2007 @ 1:22pm
At the Repulsive Party Convention in 2008, we can expect a scene like something out of the Stanley Kubrick classic, SPARTICUS.
But instead of deligates and people's deputies getting up and defiantly announcing, "I am Spartacus!" they will be intoning with equal defiant zeal ... "I AM LARRY CRAIG!!!".
Some might say the process has already begun...
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/27/2007 @ 1:25pm
Good point Frosty.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/27/2007 @ 1:31pm
Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 09/27/2007 @ 1:25pm
Uh, SHAFT, you do realize with that "Spartacus" reference...
you just compared the GOP to....the GOOD guys in that movie?!??!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/27/2007 @ 1:15pm
LVLIB, what if they said they were "Christians"...but supported massive nuclear bombardment instead of peace treaties?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 1:33pm
Or another way of thinking about it is ... the Repulsives have been associated with the labour movement AND with gay rights in the same joke! Hence, double the hilarity (!!!) ...
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/27/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 1:33pm
...Moreover, the contrast between being courageous STAND UP types who say "I am Spartucus" in the face of armed-to-the-teeth belligerants ... and the REAL Repulsives who collar the poor and people of colour to fight their battles (in real war) and SLOUCH AROUND men's rooms in their wide stances, then try to weasle out of it when caught red-handed as they foot tap (in the kulturkampf) ... well, the unmistakable contrast between STAND UP and SLOUCH AROUND is grimly, hysterically funny ...
Posted by John_Shaft at 09/27/2007 @ 1:51pm
SHAFT, well in about 16 months, you probably won't have to worry about them too much for a while.
Meanwhile (not directed at you JS), somebody call RESE....
Nazi Illuminati flying saucers zipping around Saudi Arabia! [liveleak.com]
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
nice one!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/27/2007 @ 2:10pm
Now again, why am I a "HRC supporter"...if I've said I'll vote for ANY Democrat or Ron Paul who gets the nomination?!?!?!
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 12:43pm
OK, I re-Read and I ain't budging!
Now, you re-Read my point! What is it about your "vote for ANY Democrat" does NOT equal "HRC supporter"? Your smoke screen of Ron Paul? He's got less of a chance than your Richardson....
Despite all of your blogging, at the end of the campaign, YOUR VOTE, far more than anything you could possibly keyboard..."rhetorics" I believe.....is what counts!
Curiously, even as it becomes increasingly apparent that HRC won't be a whole lot different than Bush on the Iraq War, her LEAD HAS WIDENED....
That tells me:
1) The loud anti-War types are a truly insignificant part of the Dem party;
2) Centrist-sounding folks (like you) that pay a lot of lip service to the war issue, are blowing smoke....you value HRC for things other than the Iraq War...be it health care, SC nominations, status quo,....
BTW, MASK, nothing wrong with being a HRC supporter....I for one, think highly of FRANK's devotion to HRC.....somewhat suspiciously since he could easily be a paid shill! FRANK, if you are paid, tell your employer you are doing a great job on HER behalf!
Posted by Happy at 09/27/2007 @ 2:20pm
HAPPY...
"What is it about your "vote for ANY Democrat" does NOT equal "HRC supporter"?" ----Posted by HAPPY 09/27/2007 @ 2:20pm
Is it IMPOSSIBLE for somebody other than Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2008? Totally outside the realm of the possible or probable?
Okay then...if another person becomes that nominee, and I just said (many times in fact) that I would vote for them (unless Paul becomes GOP nominee)....how does that make me an "HRC supporter"?!!?!?
AND given your willful blindness at the NUMEROUS posts I've poked fun at ol' FRANK with stories of Hillary's machinations, are you really the best judge of who I do or don't support?
Or is it that it's just driving you nutty that the GOP has lost so many pragmatic libertarians like me (AND given rise to the Ron Paul candidacy)...and the fact that things are so desperate on your partisan side that YOU are willing to vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, ANTI-GUN guy like Giuliani just to have a shot at 2008?
What charge against me can you throw that I shouldn't vote for Hillary or ANY Democratic candidate, rather than the "stay the course" Republican nominees?
"She'll waste billions on a boondoggle of a health care plan"?....fine, and maybe.....but that STILL will mean if it DOESN'T kill 3700+ Americans, it will STILL do better than Iraq!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 2:44pm
MASK: Is it IMPOSSIBLE for somebody other than Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee for President in 2008? Totally outside the realm of the possible or probable?
At this rate, pretty much....even when `skeptics', especially you here, are contributing to her Inevitable-ness'. I had also assumed TN as one such `skeptic', but after absolutely zilch from TN on the Hsu story, NOT anymore! There exists a Vast HRC-Wing conspiracy that probably dates to when Hillary `stood by her man'!!
MASK: ...if another person becomes that nominee, and I....would vote for them (unless Paul becomes GOP nominee)....how does that make me an "HRC supporter"?!!?!?
I totally abide by the simple principle that whoever you vote FOR, IS WHO YOU SUPPORT! There is next-to-ZERO-chance of most intelligent/principled people deriding a candidate day after day and when in the voting booth, VOTE FOR that individual. Are there people that do that, sure, falls in two types: Hypocrites or Paid Triangulators (aka Decoys or Lesser-of-Evil Preachers).....something akin to the CEO of Whole Foods who derides Wild Oats while coveting the company--legitimate probably...but a bit on the slimy side!
MASK: ...is it that it's just driving you nutty that the GOP has lost so many pragmatic libertarians like me (AND given rise to the Ron Paul candidacy)...and the fact that things are so desperate....
You have espoused some libertarian views but they alone, do NOT a Libertarian make! Your willingness to vote "ANY Dem"--knowing all the viables will continue the Iraq War--negates your claim.
As for "desperate"? As a repub, I welcome HRC as the Dem candidate and I `fear' an Obama candidacy. BTW, the more you think we are "desperate", the more HAPPY I am.....I absolutely want you Dems to think HRC will be unbeatable!
Posted by Happy at 09/27/2007 @ 3:16pm
What does that have to do with their phoniness of whether they actually know any verses in the Bible? ---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/27/2007 @ 2:45pm
LVLIB, obviously YOU aren't going to get a joke about a self-proclaimed follower of "The Prince of Peace/turn the other cheek/love thy neighbor as thyself"....who supports wholesale nuclear bombardment instead of peace treaties and armistices but can cite endless sundry Bible verses...
lecturing others on how THEY are "phoneys" because they can't cite verses.
Or that you forget Galatians 6:3 "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself."
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 3:32pm
I totally abide by the simple principle that whoever you vote FOR, IS WHO YOU SUPPORT! ----Posted by HAPPY 09/27/2007 @ 3:16pm
Is it IMPOSSIBLE for anybody else besides Hillary to become the Democratic nominee?
If so, by your "simple principle", I guess I am an HRC supporter...
BTW, is it common to all Giuliani supporters such as yourself?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 3:35pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/27/2007 @ 4:03pm
No, my point was that those who often are the BEST at quoting the Bible...are the worst at living upto its precepts. You know every line and verse...yet think Jesus would be "okay" with millions of people being needlessly incinerated.
I can't quote "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Russell, but I doubt you'd doubt my agnosticism. And, I can quote the Bible, does that mean I'm a better Christian than those Dems?
Yet you seem to think that if somebody can't cite a line from Ephesians or one of the Psalms, they're "probably not a REAL Christian". Okay...wonder if we took a poll of fundamentalist (not just general) Christians if they could quote a verse or two any better?
Remember this is a country where less than 1/2 the kids can find Iraq on a map....you think your parishoners would do better than those Dems?
Frankly, if I were those Dems and met you...I'd just quote ONE verse to you...
Matthew 7:1-2!
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 4:39pm
...by your "simple principle", I guess I am an HRC supporter...
BTW, is it common to all Giuliani supporters such as yourself?
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 3:35pm
Thank you for admitting what was obvious (to me)! You may want to dial back taking shots at Her Highness as she gets closer to grabbing the Nominee crown!
Like you (as a Dem loyalist), I (a GOP loyalist) will vote whoever the GOP Nominee is. I said a while back, I am OK w/ALL Repubs running....that of course includes Ron Paul, our only shared candidate!
FRANK & KVH, I hope I'd made your day!
Posted by Happy at 09/27/2007 @ 4:40pm
SHAFT, well in about 16 months, you probably won't have to worry about them too much for a while.
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 2:00pm
actually, that's 480 days, 20 hours, 15 minutes and 13.2 seconds [newprez.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 4:44pm
Like you (as a Dem loyalist), I (a GOP loyalist) will vote whoever the GOP Nominee is. I said a while back, I am OK w/ALL Repubs running....that of course includes Ron Paul, our only shared candidate! ----Posted by HAPPY 09/27/2007 @ 4:40pm
How can Ron Paul be our "shared candidate", HAPPY...when you keep saying I'm a Hillary supporter?
BTW, so why no admission from you that you are a "Giuliani supporter" given the polls show his commanding lead over Romney et al?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 4:58pm
Like you (as a Dem loyalist), I (a GOP loyalist) will vote whoever the GOP Nominee is. I said a while back, I am OK w/ALL Repubs running....that of course includes Ron Paul, our only shared candidate! ----Posted by HAPPY 09/27/2007 @ 4:40pm
How can Ron Paul be our "shared candidate", HAPPY...when you keep saying I'm a Hillary supporter?
BTW, so why no admission from you that you are a "Giuliani supporter" given the polls show his commanding lead over Romney et al?
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/27/2007 @ 4:44pm
Roll the dice and even say a Repub wins....it can't come soon enough!
or maybe a REAL miracle will occur....and HSUBFOOLS will be proven right by Halloween!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/27/2007 @ 5:00pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8zjxjibCQM
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 5:22pm
Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/27/2007 @ 5:38pm
ever eat an artichoke?
how 'bout pick raspberries?
:=}
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 5:49pm
and "nopales". ask the mexicans. yum.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2007 @ 5:50pm
How can Ron Paul be our "shared candidate", HAPPY...when you keep saying I'm a Hillary supporter?
BTW, so why no admission from you that you are a "Giuliani supporter" given the polls show his commanding lead over Romney et al?
Posted by MASK 09/27/2007 @ 4:59pm
You CAN BE both a HRC and Ron Paul supporter....just as I can be bot a Ron Paul and Rudy supporter! I would think that would be a simple concept, no?
My goal, now achieved, was simply getting you to STOP beating around the BUSH and come out of the closet and admit that you are IN FACT, a HRC supporter....NOT some reluctant, arm-being-twisted, gun-on-your-head, helpless Dem zombie!
Since I already said I'll vote Repub, that makes me a supporter of Rudy on down! Do I need to spell it out for you...ok...just apply everything I shot your way......and sub Dem with "GOP"!
Posted by Happy at 09/27/2007 @ 6:01pm
So even if the primaries change the front runners... An oldy but a goody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gwdNIxecwY
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 6:10pm
Yep, coulda had a V8...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO-SxPnzspQ
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 6:25pm
er, still can.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 6:25pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg-t-H9c380
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 6:34pm
http://tinyurl.com/yo2jh2
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2007 @ 7:08pm
Overall the debate last night was disgusting to all of us who want out of Iraq. Clinton came across as Repulican-lite again. Her vote to support the Kyl-Leiberman resolution was particulary disturbing. All three of the leaders should be taken behind the woodshed for their stupid 2013 comments. What kind of leadership is that? We got in and out of WWII in less time than that. Eisenhower promised to end the war in Korea and did it within a year of his election. Can you imagine Robert Kennedy making a comment like that? And what is going on with House and Senate Democrats jumping on the condemn Moveon.org bandwagon. Talk about pandering to the neocons. The Democrats are again coming across as the lesser of two evils rather than a party we can feel proud to be members of.
Posted by Bobzmcishl at 09/27/2007 @ 7:27pm
"...and after her cut-throat campaign team gets done defning a Republican nominee, the former First Lady's familiar face will prove far more attractive to independent voters and moderate Republicans than the "Hillary-can't win" crowd can begin to imagine." I'm part of this crowd, and I can tell you anecdotally that she will turn out the dittoheads en masse. Where they may make fun of Obama's name or Edwards' haircuts, they generally shrug their shoulders. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, drives them into a frenzy. I'm afraid enough of the Democratic base will not turn out and vote for her (I can't imagine doing so yet), and she will turn out the rightwing base at the same time. This is not fully studied, but it's there, it's palpable in this state.
Posted by RollaMO at 09/28/2007 @ 09:34am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/27/2007 @ 6:05pm
and lowers blood sugar, too!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2007 @ 11:56am