One Last Clinton Scenario

posted by John Nichols on 08/20/2008 @ 12:00pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (225)

Subscribe Now

This column has been pondering and predicting an Obama-Biden ticket for some time now. That's still the best bet, and now that the announcement is finally imminent, everyone is talking about it.

So, what the heck, let's run the Hillary Clinton scenario one more time:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton like one another. Obama had Clinton's cell number on speed dial, and vice versa. They maintained stable, even good, personal relations during the primary campaign. When things got ugly, Obama stepped up several times to defend Clinton, and the senator from New York got what might have been the loudest and most sincere round of the campaign when she seemed to suggest at the close of a contentious primary-season debate that she would be willing to join an Obama-led "dream ticket."

But we always knew that the "what to do with Bill Clinton" challenge would steer Obama away from an easy or casual selection of Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Again and again through the primary season, it was Bill who said things that seemed to inflame the competition and move both camps to their respective corners. And, of course, there is the fundamental question of where to put an ex-president in an administration that supposed to be all about change.

So the line became: Obama would only pick Clinton if he comes to the conclusion that he needs her badly enough to accept not only his former rival but the complexities that her husband brings to the equation and, of course, their considerable baggage.

Well, the latest polls seem to suggest that Obama finds himself in a circumstance that lends itself to the Clinton consideration.

Despite the fact that the miserable state of the U.S. economy shaped by eight years of oilman budgeting should be handing the election to Obama, he's either tied or behind in a number of key state and national surveys. The new Reuters/Zogby poll has Republican John McCain leading Obama 46-41. Gallup and LA Times surveys have it much closer, with Obama slightly up. But these are not encouraging number for the Democrats.

Russian tanks in Georgia, regime change in Pakistan and the general uncertainty about whether to worry more about a new Cold War or the mismanagement of the old war on terror seems to have caused a good many Americans to edge toward McCain. That may not be reasonable, or smart or fair. But, to employ the phrase of the season, "It is what it is."

Barack Obama might just need Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, whether appropriately or not, seen by a great many Americans as someone who knows her way around the international stage. In fact, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who are not fans of Clinton have told me that she has far better international connections than McCain or Obama.

She also has some pretty good connections in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Then there is the whole "dream ticket" thing.

If Obama takes the stage in front of the Old State Capital in Springfield, Illinois, Saturday with Evan Bayh at his side, it will be news -- but not very exciting news. If he does so with Joe Biden, it will be bigger new -- but it's not like Biden brings the "wow" factor.

If Obama takes the stage with Clinton at his side, it will be the dominant news story of the weekend, the convention and perhaps of the fall campaign.

Indeed, it could create that wave of excitement that Obama needs to have not just a triumphal convention but a triumphal campaign.

So that's the Hillary Clinton scenario, with all of its challenges, complexities and unpleasantnesses.

One does not have to like Clinton, or even believe that Clinton will ultimately join a "dream ticket," to suspect that as the Obama camp reviews the latest polls, they might be spinning the scenario one last time.

Obama and his aides may reject the option -- because of Bill, because the former First Lady does not say "change," or because of concerns that a ticket made up of an African-American man and a woman might be too much change for the electorate.

But let's presume, out of respect for the savvy of the Obama team, that they are considering it.

Comments (225)

Clinton carries so much baggage with the general public, it's a wash if Obama picks her. Half the country can't stand her and will not vote for her, so she's a wash. Obama sure needs a life preserver, but she's more like a cinder block.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:12pm
A NEW INSTA-POLL: What is Obama least anxious to talk about? - His relationship with Bill Ayers - His position on abortion - His childhood in Indonesia - His relationship with Jeremiah Wright - Progress in Iraq - All of the Above

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/20/2008 @ 12:14pm

I still feel perfectly fine Happ actually. I have said through the whole election that the polls are worthless. So I'm still not in the least worried.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:31pm
McCain needs to cool down a bit and drop back in the polls.......---Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/20/2008 @ 12:14pm

Oh, so now that McCain is up...that's a good thing.

and when McCain drops in the polls...that'll be a good thing too, huh, HAPP?

Pretty much you got every number on the table covered with a bet, don't ya?

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:31pm
What does a national poll have to do with a POTUS election?

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:34pm
McCain supporters don't seem to exist.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:35pm
On Hillary as Veep, it would raise some FUN prospects-

1. (Of course) Would be FRANKGRITS. SIMULTANEOUSLY supporting Veep nominee Hillary attacking McCain....AND defending McCain from attacks by Hillary (all in an effort to free up 2012 for her and then tell us "Oh, and not only was she a First Lady AND Senator, she was a brilliand Vice-Presidential nominee last time!")

So that'd be funnier than hell.

2. Would be the Repubs/cons who put all their anti-Hillary stuff in the Recycle Bin on Desktop after June 6th, trying to pull it from the archives.

How soon after Obama picked her, would PONTI post a "You know not ALL the answers for the Vince Foster shooting add up" post?....Weeks?....heheh

3. Would be McCain SCRAMBLING to pick Palin or Susan Collins or SOMEBODY of the female persuasion. The man is such a "leader" after all....heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:37pm
The lefties need another Slick Willie, and what they came up with was a black George McGovern. What they fail to realize is, the country ain't buying what the left is selling, and what it takes to win the Demoratic Party nomination is NOT what it takes to win the Presidency. Lying about Obama's past and having the MSM cover for you only works so long as people aren't paying attention, and as we get closer to the election, people start to read the facts, even if the MSM, ala Edwards, refuses to report them. No wonder the lefties are so hot for 'fairness'!

And they think they're going to remedy the situation by nominating Hillary, who has all the ethics of Bill Clinton but none of the charm? Sheesh.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:37pm
McCain supporters don't seem to exist.----Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:35pm

Not really. The Hard Right don't trust him ("agents of intolerance", McCain-Feingold, McCain-KENNEDY!!!!) and probably rightfully so on some issues.

Even HAPP's mentor Limbaugh said a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican Party".

They just oppose Obama.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:39pm
ponti-If the country wasn't buying what the left was selling then Bush would be popular,as would the war,and Obama would be polling at about 10%.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:39pm
Mask-It is odd that they picked the one that few support and the one that would be a first term lame duck.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:41pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:37pm

Clinton?...McGovern?

Hmmm...let's see. McGovern was a combat pilot who won numerous medals and Clinton cheated on his wife.

Who does that sound like? Obama or McCain???

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:41pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/20/2008 @ 12:32pm

Methinks the shredders and incinerators at the Univ of Chicago have been operating on the late shift lately.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:41pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:39pm

"They just oppose Obama."

More generally, we oppose stupidity.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:25pm

Hmm I wonder about McCain and his wife? Or how about McCain's waning "maverickness"? Or him being blamed for the fires on the USS Forestall and the deaths of American soldiers by the veterans who served on that ship? Oh or how about doing propaganda ads for the enemy? Or how about how he insulted Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly and Falwell and is not all chummy with them?

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/index.htm

And this guy hates the Communists and illegal immigrants as much as you do.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm
ponti-I haven't seen any evidence that you oppose stupidity.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm
More generally, we oppose stupidity. Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm

Weird considering they keep folks like you around.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:44pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:39pm

"ponti-If the country wasn't buying what the left was selling then Bush would be popular,as would the war,and Obama would be polling at about 10%."

So now, Obama is not in the tank BECAUSE he's a leftist? Funny, and here I thought he was modifying his positions (and starting to lose support from the moonbat wing) because he needed to go to the center. At least, Nichols thinks so.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm

Beat me to it. I love these people who think they are more intelligent because they are Republican. Group of morons of you ask me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 12:46pm
Ponti-Obama isn't in the tank.You made that up.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:47pm
Ccc-I do know some intelligent republicans.They oppose Bush and aren't into McCain,either.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:48pm
More generally, we oppose stupidity.---- Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 12:43pm

You voted for Bush twice, didn't you?

heheh (Atleast I learned my lesson after the FIRST time and I started thinking more "strategerily" about what was going to "put food on my family")

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:57pm
Hillary endorsed McCain so she would be a bad choice for Obama.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 12:57pm

Hey MASK, I heard your Mayor of NYC Bloomberg is now proposing to produce electricity by putting windmills on buildings and bridges. Do you think we could convince you Dems to wear 'personal windmills' on top of your heads? Just a thought!

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:04pm
It's Kathleen!

Stay tuned...

Posted by Metteyya at 08/20/2008 @ 1:06pm
Kathleen Kennedy?

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:08pm
"Bloomberg Offers Windmill Power Plan

By MICHAEL BARBARO Published: August 19, 2008

In a plan that would drastically remake New York City's skyline and shores, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is seeking to put wind turbines on the city's bridges and skyscrapers and in its waters as part of a wide-ranging push to develop renewable energy. "

Who says you Dems don't have an energy plan? Bwaahahahahahahaha

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:10pm
Ponti-Bloomberg is an independent and not a democrat.What were you saying about opposing stupidity?

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 12:48pm

I know many an intelligent Republican, ponti doesn't fall into that category. He falls into the typical anti-liberal foaming at the mouth idiot type. He's the type who listens to Ann Coulter and thinks shes a genius.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:08pm

No... Kathleen - the one who is going to get moderate Republican women to vote for Barack - Sebelius!

You are going to be drowning in news about her in the next week!

Posted by Metteyya at 08/20/2008 @ 1:16pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:10pm

Uhh. Last I checked Bloomberg was and independent who was not long ago a Republican. He has never been a Democrat.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:17pm
Ccc-We don't get the better republicans on here.As you said,it's just the anti liberal types.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:04pm

And that relates to your objection to stupidity and voting for Bush twice...how?

BTW, speaking of "not that intelligent"....let's go back to this theory of yours that the pro-lifers will graciously concede to McCain picking a pro-choicer as Veep with nary a peep of discontent.

or....your attacks on Clinton and Edwards for adultery...and ..."absent-mindedness"?...

over how John and Cindy McCain "met"???

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:17pm

Scratch that. He was a Democrat BEFORE he ran for mayor. Then he ran twice as a Republican Mayor of New York. Then he became Independent. Jesus you couldn't bother to wikipedia your comment before you before you presented us with the beautiful irony.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:17pm

You imagine if Bloomberg was a far-right winger and proposed "drilling in Central Park"....PONTI would LOVE him!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:18pm

First off, Bush has done a good, if not great job as President. Like Truman, his perception by the public is colored by the extreme hatred of his enemies.

Also, McCain is not going to nominate a 'pro-choicer'. He'll nominate someone like Bush or Cheney, who are personally opposed to abortion but resigned to the fact that no consensus exists to outlaw it. Just as Lincoln's anti-slavery personal views were reconciled with the recognition that public policy could not be feasibly implemented in accordance with it (absent a war).

Second, Clinton's adultery was never the issue - it was his perjury. Similarly, with Edwards, again, it's not the adultery that matters, it's the lies and coverup used to conceal it that tell the tale (e.g., Nixon and Watergate). Again, your erroneous take on my views results from taking your own straw men as fact.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:27pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:18pm

I like Jom in the general sense. Sometimes he gets outta hand with his whole liberal hatred thing but he is a good guy and smart.

I like Darin before he got all upity. He seems to be in a bad mood as of late.

Happy I like sometimes. It depends on Happy's mood. Sometimes he is a joy to talk to sometimes he is ponti-like.

LVL I'm hot and cold with.

ACook was nice to talk to.

Thrawn is intelligent too.

We don't have a bad class of them here we just have the more stalwart ones. Then there's people like Ponti and Rio Bravo who just make my head hurt.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:29pm
Second, Clinton's adultery was never the issue - it was his perjury. Similarly, with Edwards, again, it's not the adultery that matters, it's the lies and coverup used to conceal it that tell the tale (e.g., Nixon and Watergate). Again, your erroneous take on my views results from taking your own straw men as fact. Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:27pm

Isn't it Edward's buisness whether he wants to tell the public about an affair? I'm sure the day McCain had sex with his current wife behind his former wife's back he went out to the press and screamed I'm cheating on my wife!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:32pm
Sebelius!

I'm all for her. Good clean American.

Clinton is the spawn of corruption...

It's time to set our priorities straight.

Posted by ttr at 08/20/2008 @ 1:38pm
Ponti-Bush,Hoover and Carter are some of the worst presidents this country has ever had and no amount of spin will change that fact.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:43pm

He's not spinning. He actually has managed to make himself believe that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:32pm

Well, I think it's the public's business if Edwards has been making such a big point out of telling everyone what a wonderful marriage he has, and how supportive he has been of his wife. Also, if Clinton's adultery was no big deal, why didn't he just admit it, rather than perjuring himself, and lying to the country on national tv? Similarly, it's unlike that Nixon ever would have been impeached if he had not tried to cover up the Watergate break in. These are all issues where the lies and methods used to cover up a small incident became important public issues.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:43pm

By what objective measure has Bush done a bad job? Carter and Hoover have lots of bad stats. Bush? none at all. Your unreasoning hatred does not make him a bad President, sorry.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:47pm
Ccc-First ponti says that he opposes stupidity and then he follows that up by claiming that Bloomberg is a democrat and Bush is a great president..Nothing like immediately contradicting yourself.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:27pm

1. Give me an approximate time-frame for the "public redemption" of George W. Bush, PONTI? I'd say, Truman was quite popular again by the end of Ike's term, surely by his death in the mid-60s. So....what are we looking at for when "People finally realize how great a President, Dubya was"?...10-20-25-50 years? Ball-park it for me. I can wait to repost your answer in the future...heheh

2. Of COURSE, McCain isn't going to pick a pro-choicer. It'd be political suicide and THAT was my point. He has to "pay off" his LVLIB base by nominating a "Brownback" or a safer "Bobby Jindal" who thinks "life begins when you have sex" and "we should mandate the Lord's Prayer at all school lunches!"

He can't "go maverick" or the Hard Right will stay home on November 4th and say "Let the Commie Muslim black guy win...we'll get a REAL conservative in 2012 and wipe those Dems out!" and Obama will win.

3. No....the jokes and snide remarks you make are NOT about "perjury" or "lies and cover-ups". That's a lie and you know it. It's about the SEX, specifically SEX with another woman not Clinton or Edwards' wife.

But when it comes to McCain, it's "no big deal"..."30 years ago"..."they moved on, why can't we?"

Reason?....because he has an (R) behind his name on the Chyron on the TV. That's why.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:50pm
Ponti-I don't have any unreasoned hatred.In fact,I don't hate Bush.I have factual reasons like the economy,inability to win an easy to win war in Iraq,Bush's weak response to 9/11,etc.The list is quite long.History will judge him to be one of the worst and history will be correct.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 1:51pm
Carter and Hoover have lots of bad stats. Bush? none at all.----Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:47pm

So I guess the 70% of Americans who don't like the job he's done are missing all the "good stats", huh?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:29pm

"Then there's people like Ponti and Rio Bravo who just make my head hurt."

Now I know I'm doing my job here, thanks.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:56pm
http://tinyurl.com/5ymeb7

Why does McCain hate US troops?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 1:56pm
I'm not going to get into Bush's record with Ponti since all he'ss do is dismiss every point as "left-wing propaganda". Never argue with an idiot and all...

But to get back on-topic, the fact no one is considering (and Randi Rhoads has mentioned several times) is that there is a roll call for the nomination of President AND one for VP. Clinton could put her name into nomination no matter who Obama chose, use the Clinton weight to get herself nominated, and there is zip anyone could do about it. And since a poll of the delegates suggests that 26% want her as VP, this could end up being the most likely scenario. The real question is does she want second chair or does she pull a coup?

Posted by yutsano at 08/20/2008 @ 1:57pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 1:53pm

"So I guess the 70% of Americans who don't like the job he's done are missing all the "good stats", huh?"

70 percent of the American people think 'Freedom of Choice' is in the Bill of Rights, MASK. Similarly, the drumbeat of massive anti-Bush propaganda in the overwhelmingly Pro-Democratic MSM bombard the public with anti-Bush, pro-Obama bullshit every day. By all objective measures, the economy is doing fine right now, the country is safe, and the war in Iraq is won. Anyone who's paying attention, has experienced the constant anti-Reagan bias in the press, and the systematic bias of the last 35 years knows full well that the American people are simply reflecting in the polls what they are being told to believe every day by the MSM. And you people believe your won propaganda to the point that your perceptsion become your reality.

That's fine, but the Republicans will win again this fall, leaving you folks scratching your asses and wondering what the hell happened.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:01pm
Ponti-the economy is not doing well,obviously, and we are at war which means that we are not safe,and it's customary to wait for a war to end before declaring victory something you might want to consider.Of course,your statement that the war in Iraq is won shows amazing ignorance since the war still rages on and your claim that Bush's lack of popularity is because of an MSM plot is a bit paranoid.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/20/2008 @ 2:08pm
That's fine, but the Republicans will win again this fall, leaving you folks scratching your asses and wondering what the hell happened.----Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:01pm

Okay, let's take them in reverse order.

First....you're predicting "Republicans will win again this fall". Are you talking about JUST McCain or are you going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb and actually predicting the Repubs will take back either the House or Senate or both?

Second, so 70% of America are stupid robots to Dem propaganda NOW...but when they re-elected Bush just 4 years ago by 3 million votes and he was at 55% approval still....they weren't? THAT your theory? (And amazingly that Dem propaganda will fade this fall (see above #1)?)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 2:11pm
Anyone who's paying attention, has experienced the constant anti-Reagan bias in the press, and the systematic bias of the last 35 years knows full well that the American people are simply reflecting in the polls what they are being told to believe every day by the MSM.----Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:01pm

BTW, on this? If true....why is Reagan one of the most popular ex-Presidents in those polls?!?!??!!? (or did you forget THAT part?)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 2:13pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:01pm

The name betrays everything about him.

pontificate verb |pänˈtifiˌkāt| 2 express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic

Don't bother with him. He is a brainwashed mouth piece who doesn't have a view that is their own. He is just repeating the talking points he hears everyday from right leaning pundits. He wouldn't know what objective fact was if it slapped him across the face. He views everything through the guise of what is good for the Right. If it were up to him there would only be one view in this country.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 2:16pm

Well, and he's just not very bright. He doesn't ever seem to have thought much on his Limbaugh talking points.

Attack Clinton and Edwards for being sleazy adulterers...but forget how the McCains "got together".

or think that HIS friends on the Right would let McCain get away with picking a pro-choicer (which he NEVER would...it'd be suicidal).

or (if he is saying what he's saying) that somehow "the Media pushed down Bush's poll numbers and that's why the public doesn't like him anymore, just like the Media did with Reagan!!!!"...

yet he again "forgets?" that Reagan is still among the most popular ex-Presidents....which he'd gladly TOUT on another thread...but it hurts his "propaganda effects polls" argument here.

Or how about the time he posted something showing how "Reagan DID oppose use of chemical warfare in the Iran/Iraq war"....but that condemnation referred to SADDAM HUSSEIN as the "legitimate government of Iraq".....LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 2:13pm

Don't worry. Ponti doesn't give a damn about facts. Hell he believes Bloomberg is a Democrat. He doesn't care about facts he just cares about spewing his obviously wrong and baseless dogmatic BS.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/20/2008 @ 2:27pm
Should I bother to mention that Reagan was ALSO an adulterer? Or is that picking on the Republican's sacred cow too much?

Posted by yutsano at 08/20/2008 @ 2:28pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 2:13pm

My point, MASK, is that most people don't pay much attention to politics. Their default views tend to gravitate towards whatever they are hearing in the news. Just as Obama's ratings go up when there's lots of coverage of him, and goes down when there's not.

But historically, polls always start to drift towards the Republicans as election day gets nearer. This is because people pay more attention to issues and draw more of their own conclusions when the time gets closer to vote. And yes, with McCain ALREADY ahead, it certainly looks like he's going to win, usually the Democratic Presidential nominee is VERY far ahead at this stage of the election cycle. And considering how unqualified and inexperience Obama is, how bad his past is, and what a bad candidate he is in general, I think it's highly unlikely even the MSM can get him elected. And he'll join McGovern, Mondale, Gore, Dukakis, and Kerry in well-earned obscurity.

Finally, people like Reagan in spite of the media, not because of it. And people know that the MSM is lying to them, that's why polls hold journalists in lower regard than Congress, and the MSM is fading away. It's also why liberals are so hot to control the internet and radio through government intervention.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:29pm
You realize that national polls are so much bullshit and what really matters is state-to-state polls, which shows Obama comfortably ahead? Popular vote is bupkess, it's Electoral College, which is why I pretty much ignore the polls until around my birthday. Which happens to be a week before the election. Which is a political eternity. And I'm hoping the media starts getting off their asses and showing the gaffe-a-day campaign that is Grandpa McCain. But since you don't have an independent thought in your head Ponti, I have no idea why I'm bothering.

Posted by yutsano at 08/20/2008 @ 2:37pm
The presidency? It's going to be McCain in a landslide.

Pretty boy, Obama's, an empty suit. He's gutless. He's a condescending windbag. He has no foeign policy experience. He's not served in the armed forces. His primary accomplishments have been 1) self-promotion, 2)arousing the twenty-somethings, who think it'd be cool to have a Colored guy as president, & 3) he's put "I did not have sex with that woman" Willie put out to pasture.

An additional millstone hanging on his neck is the developing new "National Enquirer" story about John Edwards, his mistress & their love child.

On the other hand, my opinion of Edwards has soared upwards since I read he "begged" Hunter not to abort their baby. But then, I'm Catholic & pro-Life & not a typical "The Nation" baby killing Left/radical.

Posted by Banshee5 at 08/20/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 2:29pm

Okay, so

1. You've now backed down from your stance that "Dem propaganda is the reason Bush's poll numbers are so low...just like they attacked Reagan"...because you had to admit that Reagan is popular, which negates your earlier theory.

So...I guess we give it a mere 5-7 years and Dubya should be as popular as Reagan, no??? Or would you like to alter your theory even further?

2. Just to be clear, you're predicting a McCain victory....NOT that Republicans will win back control of Congress, right? You still have some grip on reality?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:13pm
Pontificus is right about Bush. History will forgive him for his domestic failures such as his retreat on Social Security reform and will instead, 50 years from now, hail what was the ultimate shift in US strategy that started the down fall of Islamic terrorism.

Functioning Democracies in Iraq and Afganistan along with the wealth they will begin to create through free enterprise is going to start to crumble the basic building block of terrorist networks. That building block is poverty, despair, and the ability to channel that frustration into hatred of the west. They have been told that they are poor because of the wicked infidels and that the only option avaiable to them was to hit back in the name of Allah.

The fact is that a lot of Arab countries have already figured out that capitalism and peace are not at all at odds with being a good muslim and makes for a much more comfortable life.

Now you have muslims that have existed under tyranny for centuries beginning to figure it out with the help of the American armed forces.

This has been a fundemantal change in how we have delt with terrorism over the last half century. We are changing the game and not letting despots, and fanatical clerics determine the rules anymore.

This was a bold move and it's what Bush will be remembered for. Economic cycles come and go. With veru few exceptions nobody remembers or cares how a past president handled an economy. What historians ultimately write about is his impact on the world stage. George W Bush's impact will have been enormous. Enormously positive.

Posted by IUT at 08/20/2008 @ 3:16pm
Pontificus is right about Bush. History will forgive him for his domestic failures such as his retreat on Social Security reform and will instead, 50 years from now, hail what was the ultimate shift in US strategy that started the down fall of Islamic terrorism.

Functioning Democracies in Iraq and Afganistan along with the wealth they will begin to create through free enterprise is going to start to crumble the basic building block of terrorist networks. That building block is poverty, despair, and the ability to channel that frustration into hatred of the west. They have been told that they are poor because of the wicked infidels and that the only option avaiable to them was to hit back in the name of Allah.

The fact is that a lot of Arab countries have already figured out that capitalism and peace are not at all at odds with being a good muslim and makes for a much more comfortable life.

Now you have muslims that have existed under tyranny for centuries beginning to figure it out with the help of the American armed forces.

This has been a fundemantal change in how we have delt with terrorism over the last half century. We are changing the game and not letting despots, and fanatical clerics determine the rules anymore.

This was a bold move and it's what Bush will be remembered for. Economic cycles come and go. With veru few exceptions nobody remembers or cares how a past president handled an economy. What historians ultimately write about is his impact on the world stage. George W Bush's impact will have been enormous. Enormously positive.

Posted by IUT at 08/20/2008 @ 3:16pm
I have never seen such amusing fodder as the analysis of who Obama is going to pick.

Yesterday's short list had Biden, Bayh and Kaine on it and I would have made that the order of finish. I cannot imagine Obama being so crass as to hold out an icon's name like Biden's only to reject him. Curiously, Biden seemed to take himself out of the running yesterday only to backtrack a bit.

Mrs. Obama is said to be opposed to him and as the new Marie Antoinette of Democrat politics, I think she gets what she wants.

One would think with all of Obama's present polling trouble, Obama would make the smart calculation and turn to Mrs. Clinton. This is what I said late yesterday.

I think the call was made and she also demurred. Not interested, thank you very much Barack! Why? I think Mrs. Clinton, like Biden, suspects this may be a losing effort and even if the ticket wins, why spend four to eight years in exile as VEEP to a Prez who does not like you very much.

The Clintons are nothing if not clever. Bill and Hill have no doubt offered their sage counsel to Obama. He needs to do shore up base support among her disaffected voters.

Only a woman at number two can assuage the ill-feelings of the sulking Hillary supporters. Pick Sibelius, they urge and you will have chosen someone you like, we like and our 18 million voters like.

This is of course tailor made to create dissension in the party. Many of HRC's most ardent supporters will not get what Obama has done in passing over their gal.

Hillary will be gracious, but a touch wounded in the aftermath, slipping Obama the shiv and making sure he goes down to a bitter defeat.

Posted by pete kent at 08/20/2008 @ 3:31pm
We are changing the game and not letting despots, and fanatical clerics determine the rules anymore.----Posted by IUT at 08/20/2008 @ 3:16pm

We are? The Saudis and Musharref were "democrats" (small d)?

BTW, I wonder if you ever debate any fellow right-wingers on THIS point of yours?

"That building block is poverty, despair, and the ability to channel that frustration into hatred of the west. They have been told that they are poor because of the wicked infidels and that the only option avaiable to them was to hit back in the name of Allah."

So the cause of terrorism is NOT that Islam is an "inherently violent religion" or that they "hate us because of our freedoms"...but due to "poverty and despair"?!?!?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:35pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:13pm

"2. Just to be clear, you're predicting a McCain victory....NOT that Republicans will win back control of Congress, right? You still have some grip on reality?"

That's right. The Republicans will not win back Congress, but WILL win the Presidency. That's my prediction. You will recall, I have a pretty track record with predictions. I predicted that impeachment would go nowhere, Plame would go nowhere, the Iraq war would be a non-issue by election time...all things the things that you, Nichols, CRABBIE, and the rest of the moonbats have been wasting time here all year and last year haven't worked out to amount to more than a hill of beans; all have, I believe, worked out about like I expected. Go ahead, run one of those nifty little searches you like to do.

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 3:44pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 3:13pm

"1. You've now backed down from your stance that "Dem propaganda is the reason Bush's poll numbers are so low...just like they attacked Reagan"...because you had to admit that Reagan is popular, which negates your earlier theory."

Reagan was popular for the same reason that Slick Willy was popular. Charisma. Frustrated the hell out of the press, they used to call him the 'teflon President'. But boy did the left hate him. More than Bush, in some ways. Oh, and they also used to like to call him stupid. Bush has the disadvantage of not having Reagan's charisma. But he, just like Reagan, has the issues on his side.

"So...I guess we give it a mere 5-7 years and Dubya should be as popular as Reagan, no??? Or would you like to alter your theory even further?"

How did you come up with 5-7 years? Who knows how long it will take?

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 4:03pm
First; Hillary is not Bill. She did not cheat

Second; a surgeon in his first surgery has a better chance of success if an experienced surgeon is in with him. Bill will add some expertise despirately needed in our troubling time. Since when is experience a bad thing?

Third; They can play good cop bad cop. Obama can kindly set an agenda, Hillary can push it through.

Forth; Hillary is an intelligent mother. She gets the whole picture and how that picture affects future generations.

fifth; Hillary was able to be a senator while her husband did his own thing. Bill is working on a world mission. He can move forward. Hillary can work without her husband looking on, yet Bill can be there for that extra anaysis when needed.

Posted by dwwolf at 08/20/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 3:44pm

No need, PONTI. I'll accept this and already locked it away for November 5th.

BTW, I'll be happy to post it if you're right too!

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 4:36pm
Reagan was popular for the same reason that Slick Willy was popular. Charisma.......... But he, just like Reagan, has the issues on his side.----- Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 4:03pm

Wait a minute, PONTI...which was it?

Was Reagan popular due to "the issues" or "charisma"?

And I assume this is at the least an admission that Bush has little charisma?

BTW, the 5-7 year frame was the polling that showed Reagan very popular in the early 90s.

Again, HOW LONG will it take to "redeem Dubya in the eyes of the American people"? Love to save THAT prediction too....even if it takes until 2050 or longer.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 4:40pm
dwwolf at 08/20/2008 @ 4:14pm

H.C.S.O.T.D.

1.) Bill's 'cheating' may be the reason he had to 'get' her into office...

2.) Not when the 'experienced' surgeon was part of the 'old school' thinking that lead to the ilness in the first place...

3.) The 'good cop-bad cop scenario' may work great on hardened criminals... but we are in a position where it is necessary to reestablish democratic principles across the board.

4.) OK... fine

5.) Dream on... Bill wants a 'second chance'... and that's how Hillary has gotten this far.

Posted by ttr at 08/20/2008 @ 4:42pm
I'm curious about two of these points-

1. "Third; They can play good cop bad cop. Obama can kindly set an agenda, Hillary can push it through."

What agenda did Hillary ever get pushed through? Anything significant?

and 2. "Forth; Hillary is an intelligent mother. She gets the whole picture and how that picture affects future generations."----Posted by dwwolf at 08/20/2008 @ 4:14pm

"An intelligent mother"?!?!?? Is that like "You know, they say that Hillary is a bad mother__...hush your mouth...Hey, I'm only talkin' 'bout Hillary!"

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 4:52pm
After doing some soul searching I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama should seriously consider Hillary for his VP pick. Barack needs someone who is a fighter and smart. Hillary fills that need. If however Barack picks Joe Biden that would also be a plus. The McCain/Bush smear machine is in full gear again with nothing to offer but fear and lies as their tools to win. In conclusion the Democrats need a strong team to prevent four more years of misery.

Posted by LPSPGN at 08/20/2008 @ 4:58pm
Why is it taking so long?

I guess it is just that hard to find a candidate who is less experience as to not make you look inexperienced by comparison.

Maybe he should pick David Cook from 'American Idol'.

This will no doubt be like one huge firework that launched into the sky but never goes off.

No matter who the nominee is, it will be a disappointment.

Posted by Zamfeer at 08/20/2008 @ 5:02pm
Virtually anyone he picks will be more qualified and more experienced than he is.

Repackaged campaign slogans and nice suits won't win in November. The voters will start to wonder about the judgement of the Democratic party as to why they woul dpick such a lightweight who has to go out and pick an experienced Washington insider to overcome his glaring deficiencies after all the 'hope and change' talk.

He should pick Hillary and Bill. If the country is going to go down in flames, at least make it amusing in the process.

I don't think he wants Hillary becuase he probably does not want Bill alone with his wife Michelle while he is in some other country pretending to be a statesman.

Posted by Zamfeer at 08/20/2008 @ 5:08pm
Repubs want Hillary or a Washington insider as Obama's VP pick so they can undermine his "change we can believe in" message.

It ain't gonna happen!

Posted by Metteyya at 08/20/2008 @ 5:18pm
At an RCP average of Obama up by less than 2% does not bode well, even with the presumed "bounce" he will get from the convention.

The DNC brought this on themselves as they have so many times in the past.

More than anything though, Saddleback showed us for the first time who the candidates are and what they stand for. The national media did not do it, like YouTube, it took someone outside the loop, to do the work for Newsweek, Time, NYT, and MSNBC, to name a few.

This is a most interesting time!

Posted by sailcovershot at 08/20/2008 @ 7:02pm
Posted by pete kent at 08/20/2008 @ 3:31pm

Hillary Clinton will support Obama and so will her we. We were wounded and angry because she was the stronger candidate, but that does not translate into McCain votes. She may have been the best candidate, but Obama is the better candidate still in the race.

Even those of us who once admired McCain have found his recent pandering pathetic. There is also the foggy, lost quality in his speeches that make me(and a lot of other women who care for aging parents) wonder just how healthy he is. Bush makes me cringe because a man who attended private schools right through college should be able to speak his native tongue, but McCain used to be very sharp and now seems tired and confused.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 7:31pm
Posted by frankgrits at 08/20/2008 @ 7:35pm

I am speaking for women of a certain age here Frank. I haven't talked to any of them who are seriously considering McCain. Obama is a young whippersnapper and all, and it's a crappy time in history to have such a steep learning curve, but he is an able learner. John MCCain is turning into the poster boy for old dogs who can't learn new tricks.

I am also waiting for it to dawn on someone in the press that if McCain wins the woman who will be giving the White House Christmas tour committed adultery too. Cindy McCain had sex with a man knowing he had a family. That is not going to fly with married women of any age, except maybe the Evangelicals who seem to have an enormous tolerance for adultery as long as it is GOPPERS doing the whoring.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 8:09pm
Posted by Zamfeer at 08/20/2008 @ 5:08pm

Michelle Obama could kick Bill Clinton's ass and Barack Obama is a statesman whether you like it or not.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 8:13pm
I'll probably be laughed at for saying this...but I think Clinton is Obama's only chance. Biden is bland. I don't know much about the others. And if McCain wins I'd rather live on another planet. But what do I know..i'm only a naive 32 year-old (so my parents say).

Posted by jenjenjen at 08/20/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 8:09pm

Correcting my post "some loopy" Evangelicals. I have Evangelical friends who would be mighty offended to be lumped in with the pro-adultery contingent.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 8:19pm
If he were to name any other woman besides Hillary, he'd have a war on his hands in his own party. If he picks Biden, the repubs roll out all of his former quotes and make a fool out of him and a mess of the ticket. Then you'll see McCain go up by double digits.-----Posted by frankgrits at 08/20/2008 @ 7:19pm

And remember, you can always trust a FRANKGRITS' prediction...

to be wrong.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 8:34pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 8:09pm

Amazingly, same Repubs who went after Clinton for adultery...and joke about it to today (over 10 years later)...

have no problem with how John and Cindy "got together"!

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 8:36pm
Don't you people realize that the only SURE WAY for Obama to win this election is by taking Hillary as his running mate. I honestly don't understand the stupidity in this country. Yes, Bill Clinton made remarks and yes, he was a bit problematic, but is it really worth risking the election and having to deal with another Republican in the White for at least four more years, just to prove the point that Bill was a problem? Hillary Clinton is brilliant and effective and knows the ropes and has the respect and support of 18 million voters. There is no other candidate out there that can deliver a win for Obama the way an OBAMA/CLINTON ticket can. Biden's ok, all of the others are ok, Clinton is stupendous! Honestly, I wish she would grab for the nomination, because she is the best candidate out of any of them and it's a shame that the media put Obama on this false pedestal and just tore this woman to shreds, because she should be taking that Oath in January of 09. If Obama is truly a smart guy, and I think he is, but unfortunately he is listening to alot of idiots out there, and that includes the Kennedy's like Caroline and Uncle Ted, who pushed Hillary Clinton off the map. Well, guess what guys, if he doesn't choose Hillary, he isn't going to be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue anytime soon. You can bet on that!

Posted by LoisZimmerman at 08/20/2008 @ 8:36pm
Posted by LoisZimmerman at 08/20/2008 @ 8:36pm

Actually, Lois, you and FRANKGRITS need to get together. I think HE's a bigger fan of Hillary than you...

and he said EVEN IF Obama picks Hillary as Veep, he's STILL voting for McCain to give her a shot at 2012 instead.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 8:41pm
have no problem with how John and Cindy "got together"!

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 8:36pm

ooh,

elitists in hawaii!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 9:12pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 9:12pm

I have a problem not so much with how John and Cindy "got together", though it ain't a pretty picture, but with the pass Cindy gets while Michelle Obama gets hammered.

This is a woman who didn't have enough moral fiber to tell a married man she was unwilling to commit adultery and Michelle, an intelligent, tough, savvy, faithful woman is taking heat?

Women should be horrified.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 9:28pm
Ergo, McCain should win.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/20/2008 @ 9:31pm

Uh, MAASCH, didn't you also predict "Hillary should win"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 9:32pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/20/2008 @ 9:31pm

Hillary likes Obama. You can see it in their body language. It's Bill who has the problem. Contrary to the talking head who shall remain nameless Hillary Clinton didn't ride Bill's coattails to the Senate. She nearly sacrificed her political career for his and as it was her ambitions were on hold for decades and he knows it. She won in spite of him, not because of him.

Bill Clinton contributed to Hillary's problems in the primary and now he's feeling guilty. That explains his lack of enthusiasm for Obama, but after what the GOPPERS have done to him I can't believe he'll be so petulant as to not come around.

Posted by Pogge at 08/20/2008 @ 9:41pm
Wow, here comes Biden, another talking head and plagiarist; just as if one barak Obama's not enough.

----------

Biden is Democratic favorite for Obama's No. 2 By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - Sen. Joe Biden has emerged as the clear favorite among Democrats to be Barack Obama's running mate for his understanding of foreign policy in grave global times and his fighting spirit against the rival Republican ticket.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/20/2008 @ 10:03pm
Nothing surprising in McCain's lead. It should be that way. The people are practical. Who needs Obama - Biden?

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

McCain takes lead over Obama: poll Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:19pm EDT

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/20/2008 @ 10:16pm
mccain is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/20/2008 @ 10:16pm

wow,

the man admits he knows nothing and people still............

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:25pm
While he's making millions $ thanks to his race, his brother scraps by 1 dollar per month.

----------

Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya

By Nick Pisa in Rome Last Updated: 9:01PM BST 20 Aug 2008

George Hussein Onyango Obama, Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother was tracked down living in a hut on the outskirts of Nairobi Photo: Guy Calaf, Vanity Fair, Italy The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month."

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/20/2008 @ 10:31pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/20/2008 @ 10:44pm

So you're kinda batting .000 on your predictions, huh?

BTW, McCain can surely win. Obama can blow it, despite his advantages. But one thing to remember-

After St. Paul, Maverick is stuck with his public financing of 84 million...

while Obama will have 100s of millions. Money he can dump into "solid Red States" and force McCain to defend (where he shouldn't have to).

Right-wing getting a LITTLE premature in their "Obama is sunk now" prognostications I think.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/20/2008 @ 10:48pm
the US is experiencing growth...

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/20/2008 @ 10:53pm

thanks to a stupidly low fed rate.

it'll go up in december.

$10 trillion, jm, $10 trillion.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:13pm
the "dot.corn" bubble!

lol.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:19pm
ooh, goody! more oil:

SHAWN MCCARTHY

Globe and Mail Update

August 20, 2008 at 2:15 PM EDT

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams proclaimed a new era of partnership in the often-fractious relationship between his government and the oil industry Wednesday as he inked a deal to proceed with the $7-billion Hebron offshore project.

The often-combative premier said the megaproject will generate some $28-billion for provincial coffers at current oil prices, and company guarantees of local contracting will lure back Newfoundlanders who have left the province to find work.

But he said the oil companies - led by operator Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. - can expect generous profits even if oil prices fall back from current levels.

"This is really a win-win," Mr. Williams told a news conference in St. John's.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 11:21pm
half and half?!?

happy, your "fingers" are a superfund site.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 12:10am
Sorry...Obama's lead has dwindled state by state also. One popular website has McCain winning by 4 and another has Obama winnning by a couple electoral votes. The media could only prop him for so long. His inexperience and far left views are what's killing his poll numbers. Conservatives aren't thrilled with McCain but, he is the lesser evil.

Posted by JustTheTruth08 at 08/21/2008 @ 12:19am
growth:

After the binge, the purge

For the past five years, the U.S. restaurant industry has been on an expansion tear. Now, high fuel prices, a shaky economy and rising food inflation are keeping customers at home, sending four major chains running for bankruptcy protection so far this year

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 12:28am
The shaky economy, the credit crunch, plus soaring food and fuel prices have combined to create the worst conditions for restaurateurs since 1991.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 12:35am
There is still hope that the Democratic party will nominate Hillary at the Convention. All these problems with Obama as the potential, or presumptive, nominee only highlight what a mistake it was to bury Hillary's candidacy.

If the DNC is incapable of making a decision that will win the Democrats the Presidency, i.e., allowing the nomination of Hillary to go through, then their only other hope, is to have her as the VP.

Millions of Hillary supporters have stood by her all this time, withholding their support for Obama. If she were on the ticket 75% of those Hillary supporters would throw their significant weight, power, energy and dollars behind Obama/Clinton.

At first some of their supporters would balk, but both candidates should be able to reasonably convince their supporters of the sound logic of this choice.

An added benefit, even more important that politics (No!), the country needs a healing and those two joining forces would take us in the right direction for that healing, as nothing else right now can. So even if Hillary is on top, I firmly believe that a combined ticket is required to bring peace between these two groups and unity back to the Democratic Party.

This making peace between the two groups has the potential for more power than either candidate possesses. A candidates power always lies in reaching the hearts of the people. Most Democrats have been deeply troubled over the schism within the party. A union, reunion, of the Party would bring forth from most supporters that rapt commitment both candidates are capable of channeling. The naysayers would not be able to resist the pull of the tide.

Posted by Rockrooky at 08/21/2008 @ 12:55am
And it's the return of the H.T.O.T.D.'s!!!

Posted by yutsano at 08/21/2008 @ 02:00am
Well, my guess is, if Hillary's the nominee, then Obama would be on the ticket, but not the other way around. That's, if Obama's the nominee Hillary might not be the running mate. She should not even accept the offer. What's that sh-t, VP.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/21/2008 @ 02:29am
The United States needs HRC...Bill should be relegated to AR to turn that state around. HRC has the ability to use precise language. Biden has a habit of screwing up. Don't forget his past plagarism of speeches. Bring HRC out in Springfield Saturday ...Let's march together and defeat the GOP. Let's ask how many planes McCain crashed...Let's discuss his character or lack thereof... Clinton

The Bush now has us in a near war situation with Russia..That should be an issue..

D McCage

Posted by bushout at 08/21/2008 @ 04:10am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/20/2008 @ 10:25pm

"mccain is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/20/2008 @ 10:16pm

wow,

the man admits he knows nothing and people still............"

If McCain admits he 'knows nothing', then Obama doesn't even know enough to KNOW he knows nothing. It's been a long time since we've had a candidate with as thin a resume as Obama's. Two years in the Senate? Give me a break!

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 07:58am
McCa has been sooo out of touch on sooo many levels that his competitiveness only proves that what's worse is how clearly out of touch and morally bankrupt the new con repub GOP is now-- all their candidate has to do is turn into a maniac shouting "KILL KILL KILL KILL, my freinds"... and they all come out.

All Obamre has to do is play McCa contradictory statements on a loop, split screen, mirror image of McCa saying completely opposing statements, with flashes of others telling him corrections--- over and over and over...

Yes it's 3rd grade level stuff, but apparently it seems to work for those in a mass media fog.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 08:19am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 08:48am

yuts is right, MAASCH. "Rockrooky" is merely the Hillary Troll Of The Day returned. Soon they shall pass again, this time into oblivion.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 09:02am
BTW, I notice from the "blurb" to this thread that John Nichols is saying "it'll probably be Biden"...

ergo, given Mr Nichols track record...

it probably WON'T!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 09:03am
Mask,

Who do you suppose will be the picks of both candidates?

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 09:11am |

From the movie National Treasure, very fitting for my predictions of VP picks, consistent with all the speculation.

Abigail Chase: What do you see? Ben Gates: [holding a water bottle up to a 100 dollar bill and peering into it] 2:22 Abigail Chase: What time is it now? Clothing Store Clerk: Almost 3 Abigail Chase: [sighs, defeated] We missed it. Riley Poole: No, we didn't. We didn't miss it because... [looks up and Ben and Abigail, to Ben] Riley Poole: You don't know this? I know something about history that you don't know. Ben Gates: I'd be very excited to learn about it, Riley. Riley Poole: Hold on one second, let me just take in this moment. This is cool. Is this how you feel all the time? W-well, except now. Abigail Chase: Riley! Riley Poole: All right! What I know is that daylight savings wasn't established until World War I. If it's 3 p.m. now that means that in 1776 it would be 2 p.m. Ben Gates: Riley, you're a genius. Riley Poole: [Abigail and Ben start heading out. Riley follows.] Do you actually know who the first person to come up with the idea of Daylight Savings Time was? Abigail Chase, Ben Gates: Benjamin Franklin [Riley stamps his foot in defeat.]

Sooooo,

What I predict is that Obama will pick Al Franken and McCain will pick Dennis Miller.

Posted by Benchrest at 08/21/2008 @ 10:35am
I have been of both extremes of the reaction for a Obama-Hillary ticket. Yesterday I abhored the idea, in fact I sometimes think she is partly to blame for Obama's recent slip in the polls. But I can also see that it would ONLY be with her announcement that the convention would be awesome and the Party would come united. In addition, McCame seems to want a pro-choice vp. If he gets it, he will erode deeper into the Democrat constituency that is still loyal to her. It's time to come together and WIN the elections. Let's spoil the party for the Republican's.

Posted by carlosbas at 08/21/2008 @ 10:43am
The Clintons believe that they have 2012 sewn up and will do what they can to get Obama to lose and it will be interesting,if Obama loses,to see how many ignorant democrats allow the Clintons to get away with it and go for the Clintons in 2012.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 11:07am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 09:11am

Obama doesn't "go safe", i.e. Biden. He doesn't pander to women, i.e. Sebelius.

I think he takes a page from Clinton when he picked Gore, instead of an "older, Establishment Democrat" and finds somebody who keeps up the change paradigm (since it's a winner for him).

No ideas who that might be.

As far as McCain goes? Despite his "leadership", he'll FOLLOW Obama's lead and pick HIS Veep based on Obama's Veep. He's pandered about everything else, why not this? Obama doesn't pick a woman...McCain might pick Palin in a BLATENT attempt to woo Hillary voters, but he might be smart enough to know it would back-fire.

My hope? He picks Romney and LVLIB goes nutsy over a "Temple Mormon a heartbeat away from the Presidency!!!"....LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 12:23pm
I like how everyone is making their predictions and everyone here has bee repeatedly proven wrong in this election. How many people on here, including Happy, during the primaries said Obama wouldn't win, that Hillary was going to steal it? Now look at where we are. As much of a political guru as you are Happy and as much as you say you are looking through crystal balls you got that one way off base. This election is a funny thing. Predictions are worth about as much as the gum on the bottom of your shoe.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 12:24pm
Al Gore.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 12:33pm
McCain rolling on...states are turning from deep, cyanotic lip blue to a kind of pale blue...others turning from baby blue to pink...time to panic, lefties! Nominate Hillary!

http://www.electionprojection.com/president08.shtml

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 1:24pm
ponti-Why is it time for the lefties to panic and nominate Hillary?

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:41pm
"half and half"

Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/20/2008 @ 11:55pm

So what are you happy? A freakin' clone?

I'm a smattering of German, English, Irish and Norwegian but when I lived in Germany (and dressed from the German clothing stores) my blonde hair and blues eyes allowed me to "pass" as German. Not a big deal in 1986, but with a Jewish great-great grandmother it would have been important in 1939.

There is a difference between "bi-racial" and "half and half" that has nothing to do with being PC and you are bright enough to know it. The language of bigotry is intended to demean, diminish and degrade. It's disgusting.

Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 1:43pm
Al Gore.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 12:33pm

What about him, HSUB?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 1:43pm

Pogge, "Half & Half" is Limbaugh code for a word that he (and ditto-heads like HAPPY) would LIKE to call Obama.

The original one was "Magic"...aka "Magic Negro" (from the mocking editorial by David Ehrenstein in the LA Times).

By way of excusing their use of "Negro", they claim "Hey! The mainstream media started calling him that, not us!!!!" (A lie of course since Ehrenstein was being sarcastic).

Probably got too much heat for that, now they're onto "Half & Half" (code for "mulatto")

Ultimately, we know...and THEY know...the word they REALLY want to use for Obama...."Negro" was close...just need to slurrrrrr it a bit more.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 1:46pm
I'm still trying to figure out how people regard McCain as being experienced in economics. He admitted to the entire nation that he knows NOTHING about the economy. Like I've said before, if war was all the president had to deal with then I'd vote for McCain. Unfortunately for McCain, being president encompasses more than that. I also think the president should be able to relate to the majority of Americans(i.e. working class). McCain does not. I'm sure that offering your wife up for a topless beauty contest may impress some people but not me. My president atleast has to have some respect for his wife. Please, no Al Gore. I'm not going to give him another shot. He had his chance and he fucked it up. This time I'll stand in line for hours for someone else. Thanks but no thanks on Al Gore.

Also, I don't agree that Obama needs Hillary to win. She will be a hindrance if anythign at all. I'm sure she does have redeeming qualities. I just didn't see her exhibit those qualities after the Iowa primaries and please Bill just pissed everyone off. I've never seen the man's face and neck be more red than during the primaries. I thought he was going to explode. Also I don't trust her especially the way she conducted herself regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries. Both state parties knew the delegates were not gonna be counted if they held their primaries early but they did it anyway. People, don't say your vote doesn't count. It does count within the rules of the DNC. If your state party decides to break the rules, don't be mad at Obama. Be mad at your state party and their leaders. They're the ones who fucked ya'll over. Or be mad at the DNC for instituting those policies years ago. I'm sorry but it is what it is. Such is life.

Posted by k330k at 08/21/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:41pm

Because at some level the lefties must know that America is simply saying no, once again, to the far left candidate that the far left fringe that dominates the Democratic Party has put up. This much slippage, this early, even with the unprecedented in-the-tank-for-Obama MSM performance, has got to have alarm bells ringing all over kool-aid land. Lying about Obama's past has not worked, people are starting to figure out just how far left this guy is, and what an appallingly poor fit his beliefs are to that of most Americans. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, this Chicago project that Howard Kurtz has been working - the bottom has just begun to fall out. Obama needs some kind of crediblity injection fast, and only Hillary can provide it.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 1:48pm
ponti-There is nothing,including polls, that indicates that America is simply saying no to Obama nor is there any evidence that Obama is a far left candidate.Save your bs for Rush's site.Those people will believe anything.The bottom has not fallen out for Obama and the war in Iraq has not been won and will be a campaign issue despite your desire to have it otherwise.It will be a close election and you know that which is why your republican partisan self is pushing for Hillary.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by k330k at 08/21/2008 @ 1:47pm

So, please give us a rundown on all of Obama's economic experience. Has he ever even held a paying job? Bwahahahahahahaha. Please insert your answer here -------->[] use more space if necessary.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 1:55pm
ponti-Bush never earned anything in his life and got everything through family connections.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:57pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:54pm

"nor is there any evidence that Obama is a far left candidate."

Really? 20 years of 'God Damn America' and 'the government invented AIDS and drugs to kill black people' doesn't provide a clue to you? Friendships with far left domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOkie dokie!

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 1:59pm
Ponti-I see that you were unable to back up your claim that he is far left.Of course,all one needs to do is look at his voting record to know that he isn't far left,but that takes effort.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 1:57pm

"ponti-Bush never earned anything in his life and got everything through family connections."

Well, there's no question he earned several million dollars running businesses. Whether you approve of that is, of course, problematic for any leftist, because by their definition, pretty much all of capitalism is a criminal enterprise. What I mean is, Obama's experience with economics is so tenous, I can't even explain how he makes a living at all, outside of milking the public coffers. No wonder he thinks money grows on trees, or in the bank accounts of wealthy people, by some kind of evil, magical, mystical process.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:04pm
So, please give us a rundown on all of Obama's economic experience. Has he ever even held a paying job? Bwahahahahahahaha. Please insert your answer here -------->[] use more space if necessary.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 1:55pm

SENATOR OBAMA has a job, the same one McCain has-not that the old man has shown up much lately.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 1:46pm |

I had bi-racial foster kids who called me mom. Up to that time I didn't really get just how insane racists are. I am a pacifist by nature, but took it out in the parking lot with one pasty wench. Someone intervened before it went beyond shouting, but I have never wanted to hurt someone so badly in my life. She said vile things to two sweet little kids who were nothing but sunshine and smiles till she started in. What in God's name is wrong with these people other than a total lack of conscience, empathy or a sense of fairness?

There is no excuse.

Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 2:05pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:04pm

Obam's voting record is the most far left in Congress. 100 percent rating by the ADA, even Kennedy doesn't get that. Look it up if you have to, I'll wait here.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:06pm
Ponti-I am a capitalist and have no problems with rich people who earned their money without hurting anyone and Bush did not earn millions on his own.He used family connections to avoid Nam and run businesses into the ground.On his own, we never would have heard of Bush.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:09pm
Ponti-You mean the Obama who voted to fund the war and voted to give Bush power to attack Iran?Those are,certainly,very far left things to do.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:10pm
ponti-You mean the Obama who voted in favor of the revised FISA bill?Very far left.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:12pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 2:05pm

"SENATOR OBAMA has a job, the same one McCain has-not that the old man has shown up much lately."

When I say 'economic experience' or 'paying job', I don't mean working for the government as a politician. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with understanding how economics works, it's a world completely divorced from economic reality. Any business that managed their finances the way the government manages theirs would go out of business immediately. The fact is, Obama has not got the slightest experience in business, or pretty much anything else for that matter. This explains how his economic policies are so completely fucked up and bass-ackwords. I suspect most of the people who vote for him are similarly economically illiterate as well, or else they wouldn't be looking for more handouts from the govenrment.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:13pm
Ponti-McCain has no experience in running an economy.In fact,he doesn't even run his own families economy.The wife's family does that for him.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:15pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:06pm

We live near an Army base and were a military family ourselves. This is the first time I have ever heard the majority of the soldiers saying they will not vote for more war-in this case McCain. They may not like voting for a Liberal, but when the president of Iraq says, "Congratulations, you won, pack up and go home" and John McCain is still giving speeches where he is shouting he will never surrender....well? I know what the polls are saying and I'll be darned if I can explain it because we live in Right Wingville and most of the neighborhood is voting Obama or staying home.

Worth noting, it was a winger who pointed out to me that Cindy McCain was culpable when John McCain committed adultery-like I care being a godless Liberal and all-so apparently someone has actually read all the Ten Commandments, not just the ones that are convenient. It's a point that to e is as fine as frog's hair, but the winger seemed to take it very seriously.

Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 2:20pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:13pm

Since I need to return to MY paying job I will respond later I guess :)

Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 2:21pm
pogge-I'm an Army brat.

Posted by i'm nobody at 08/21/2008 @ 2:22pm
Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 2:05pm

The Limbaugh guys aren't your old "Bull Connor" guys with firehoses and talk of "Nigras"....they aren't even the quasi-smoothness of a David Duke (though they're close).

They couch it in "gangsta/hip hop culture" talk (even when referring to somebody like Obama who is Harvard-educated). They bring up crime stats on crimes committed by Latinos s supposedly part of an "illegal immigration" debate.

And they use their little code-words....like "Half & Half" ....which of course brings up the question "Why does Obama being biracial MATTER to you?"...to which they say "What's wrong with that? It's not me, it's you libs who want to make him white and black for your own political purposes!"

Really? Then why aren't WE calling him "Half & Half" over and over, if that's "our agenda" and "there's nothing wrong with that"???

Then they'll say somehting like "Hey, some of my best friends are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or J.C. Watts!"....just like the old, equally subtle anti-Semites used to say about "all their Jewish friends"....as cover for the crap they're spewing.

BTW, anybody want to dispute Rush's racism...go here and read the first few quotes alone-

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 2:39pm

MASK, the fact that some Republicans are racists does not excuse or justify your embrace of politicians who practice and/or espouse poor economic policies. There are plenty of racists who vote Democratic as well. I don't oppose Obama because he's black or half-black, I oppose him for the same reasons I opposed Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, and Carter: bad policies.

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/21/2008 @ 2:52pm

No problems.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:06pm
When did mulatto become offensive? Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/21/2008 @ 3:06pm

Always has been. Mulattos used to be hated in the black and white communities. It was a term that differentiated them as neither black or white. Belonging to no group. Grow up as someone who doesn't belong to either group and you start to understand. Mullato was used as a term of separation.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:08pm
"I don't oppose Obama because he's black or half-black, I oppose him"

Because you have bought into dogmatic and factually bad Republican policy. I have already disproven the myth of lowering taxes makes the economy better. Want to keep going?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/21/2008 @ 3:04pm

Won't be Jodi Rell....reason?

"On April 20, 2005, Rell signed into law a bill that made Connecticut the first state to adopt civil unions for same-sex couples without being directed to do so by a court."

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:15pm

"I have already disproven the myth of lowering taxes makes the economy better. Want to keep going?"

Wow, talk about deluded. You've proven that lowering taxes doesn't improve the economy? Where's your Nobel Prize?

And if lowering taxes doesn't make the economy better, wouldn't the opposite, RAISING taxes make them better? In fact, wouldn't raising taxes to 100 percent make us achieve economic nirvana? And if not, why not, my economic genius friend?

Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm

PONTI, Clinton raised taxes...I believe you guys call it "The BIGGEST tax hike in history"....economy crashed?

(BTW, here's where you AMAZINGLY come up with "extraneous circumstances"!...heheh)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 3:30pm
Here's my guess on their picks. I think that a good move for McBush would be Condi Rice. But, if he does that, then Obama would practically be forced to pick Hillary to try to pick up the pissed off Hillary supporters though Frank wouldn't buy into that.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 2:49pm

Yep, and we've seen where the grand republican policies have landed us.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:37pm
Wow, talk about deluded. You've proven that lowering taxes doesn't improve the economy? Where's your Nobel Prize? And if lowering taxes doesn't make the economy better, wouldn't the opposite, RAISING taxes make them better? In fact, wouldn't raising taxes to 100 percent make us achieve economic nirvana? And if not, why not, my economic genius friend? Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm

No. Your logic is the logic of a child actually. You have to attain a homeostasis. Raising taxes to 100% doesn't make and economy run better. According to demonstrable FACT from looking at world economies and rapid growth within those economies. If you look at tax brackets. The biggest and fastest growing economies have a typical consistency in their tax brackets. 20-35% corporate taxes, 10-40% income tax (depending on income), 5-15% VAT.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

Don't believe me look there. There is not ONE successful economy that is taxing their people less than 20%. So no even though you try to spin it doesn't work that way. You have to find the balance. According to world estimates and historical estimates it would seem 25-35% depending on the economic situation is the golden number for corporate taxation. 10% on the low end to 30% on the high end is the golden number for income tax. 5-10% is the golden number for VAT. You can vary within those brackets but going outside of them can get you into dangerous turf like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania. In a mature economy you might be able to vary slightly more than an immature economy. But swaying to much is assured failure based on history and present times.

It doesn't take genius to figure this stuff out it just takes logic.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:49pm
And if not, why not, my economic genius friend? Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm

Because taxes like everything else is finding the proper homeostatic percentage. Just like with your body. If eating Iron keeps you healthy then according to your logic eating an entire bar of iron is good for you. No because you then get Iron poisoning. It's about finding the right homeostatic percentage. You seem to be incapable of understanding simple logic and only work in the extremes. I work in the logical middle. I don't swing too far one way or another because taking anything too far one way or another is assured disaster. Its about find balance.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:52pm
Mask, I've come to the conclusion that Ponti, Happy,Darin and of course Liv either are millionaires or more, work for some right wing blog group, or are just plain stupid. Anybody living in this time frame (in this country) making less than $100k or even $200k supporting policies that screw over roughly 90 percent of the working Americans and benefit only the top one or two percent who don't need the money are mentally bankrupt.

They buy into a bunch of phony, flag waving, religious rhetoric and are kidding only themselves.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:53pm
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Look at your tax history if you want proof ponti. The biggest booms in economic growth were during the highest tax periods. Tax law has to be adjusted for the economic period but there is a tried and true percentage that it has always fallen between in order to fix a failing economy. We were up to 70% on the top brackets during some of the best economic times.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 4:04pm
"...if lowering taxes doesn't make the economy better, wouldn't the opposite, RAISING taxes make them better? In fact, wouldn't raising taxes to 100 percent make us achieve economic nirvana? And if not, why not, my economic genius friend?"

Cccomfo1, A government represents the decision for people to come together to solve problems for the benefit of each member. In forming tax policy, there is an interplay between freedom, security, responsibility, and other factors. As such, NO extreme is going to be optimal. The correct amount of taxation is up to each society to decide, and it will necessarily change over time. The blindness to this quite basic principle is one of the reasons non-ideologues grow frustrated with ideologues. When a policy maker or commentator goes on and on about "trade liberalization" or "no new taxes," it just seems juvenile and irresponsible to those of us that would like to find an optimal solution for the entirety of the US's governed. By making the statement that lowering taxes (which means a little bit more money for each individual to spend, but a lot less money for the government to spend) invariably helps the economy, THAT commentator seems to be advocating anarchy, a lack of national security, no social safety nets to speak of, no law enforcement, etc. For wouldn't zero taxes be "nirvana"? No, we all know that's ridiculous. We like having governments. And the security and services the government provides us cost money. We have to grow up and be willing to accept that. For some reason, it is always those who subscribe most forcefully to the notion "nothing is free," or "you get what you pay for," that always want a GOVERNMENT for free.

Unyielding ideology, like ignorance, is an enemy of democracy.

Posted by Nick Ziegler at 08/21/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/21/2008 @ 3:21pm

Also if you look at it. In response to inflation Reagan massively cut taxes and implemented a few more monetary policies meant to fix the inflation problem which ended up sending us into a recession immediately after he implemented them. He then had to backpedal to fix the damage done.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by Nick Ziegler at 08/21/2008 @ 4:06pm

Uhh. That was Ponti who said that. Read the names at the bottoms of the posts. Then read my posts about tax policy. I essentially said the same thing you did.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 4:08pm
I'm sorry, I believe I addressed my last comment to the wrong poster. I believe I mistook the person quoting for the person who made the initial comment. Apologies.

Posted by Nick Ziegler at 08/21/2008 @ 4:09pm
Yeah, I was having trouble with my browser as I tried to post so I think your got your post in the interim before I could send mine out. But I think yours was much more succinct. And then when I saw your name below it I realized that I'd mistaken you for the other fellow.

Posted by Nick Ziegler at 08/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/21/2008 @ 4:05pm

God I wish I could google your comments DURING he primary saying Hillary was going to take it and that Obama didn't stand a chance against her.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Nick Ziegler at 08/21/2008 @ 4:11pm

No biggy happens to all of us.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 4:11pm
Al Gore.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 12:33pm

What about him, HSUB?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 1:43pm

"I'm not supposed to say anything, just sign books," he announced when he started. But when he got to number 214 in the line, he noticed the lanky figure and stood up. "Nice to see you! How you doing? . . . I'm really so grateful to you for coming by."

After more pleasantries, Gore scribbled a line in the book: "For my friend, Ralph Nader. With respect, Al Gore."

Nader was smitten. "He's liberated!" Nader said. "He's defining what progressive Democrats should be about."

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 4:31pm
Nader was smitten. "He's liberated!" Nader said. "He's defining what progressive Democrats should be about."

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 4:31pm

It is you that is "smitten"...with all things ALGORE....beyond common sense.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 4:52pm

No,

I'm not at all "smitten",

but

is it you

that is

shittened...?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 6:11pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 4:19pm

Apparently you are wrong. Darin agrees with me and he works in some sort of accounting field. Reagan showed what LOWERING taxes can do. YOu can say what you want but Reagan lowering taxes to counter inflation sent the economy into a recession. It didn't start to rebound until he counteracted his changes. All the proof is there Jom.

You need to realize that what works for your business doesn't work for economies. I don't care if I do open myself up for guffaws from rich people running business. They aren't look at the numbers they are looking at their single business. I ask you again. Show me an example of more than one flourishing economy that has a tax bracket below 20% on corporate.

You can't because it doesn't exist. So ridicule all you want but you have no facts to back you up. All the facts are on my side. I'm talking about raising taxes, I am saying we are in the proper tax bracket and lowering anymore is treading on thin ice.

All you have to do is look at history and current times to figure that out.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 6:11pm
John Zogby: "But exit polling shows that global warming was a sleeper issue that may have snuck up on politicians in close races. Global warming was most influential among Latinos and youth – two constituencies that helped propel Democratic gains. There are also signs that global warming may be eroding support for Republicans among religious voters. Looking ahead, politicians in both parties ignore this issue at their peril."

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 4:49pm

It doesn't make a difference what you WANT Jom. What works it's what's important. You are basing your economic mind on a business. The government does not run anything like a business. They aren't dealing in products and sale. A government has to be paid for and generally large governments seem to need about 20% of the GDP at least. I point you to the history books AGAIN. Ignore the FACTS of what has worked all you want. I am a man of facts. I look to the past and learn from history.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 6:18pm
No he won't have to even acknowlege the thought exists.. ...the MSM and the left will never even let this, ah, "wild right wing nut theory" come to light ..for the public doesn't need radical wild baseless suppositions to cloud the public mind...so it will end up on the editing floors and swept out with the trash. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 5:59p

What do you care about the middle class? Your proposed tax system would hit them the most. Think about the middle class are the biggest percentage of consumers in this nation. The rich only reinvest and the poor only buy what they have to. So if you put a 25% consumer goods tax you would hitting the middle class the hardest with it while the rich pay barely anything.

So don't play angel and lover of the middle class. Your system would solely shaft them.

Plus Obama has never proposed raising taxes. He proposed destroying all the loopholes the rich use to get out of paying the amount they are asked to pay. That's not raising taxes thats fixing tax code.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 6:21pm
While Al Gore was tasked with making the government the most efficient it ever was--

hsuB was lacks in making it the most deficient it's ever been...

And sicko new con repubs like it like that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 6:29pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/21/2008 @ 5:33pm

It's never going to happen but it is going to become hopefully a place of compromise. Bushes tax plans haven't worked and it's time to try something new. My 300 check, which I guess was supposed to be 600 looks like I got the shaft, didn't "stimulate" the economy. His tax breaks the rich haven't "trickled" down like he said they would. Trickle down economics has been shown to do one thing great, put the government in massive debt.

My point is more to Jom than anyone else who is look for Consumer only taxation which is proven unwieldy and has yet to produce a success. The bracket right their burned into the moon for them through historical observation and current affairs. You don't need to raise taxes and you don't need to lower them. That's not going to fix the economy.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 6:42pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 4:31pm

Nice story, HSUB. What relevance does it have?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 7:35pm
Never been tried. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 7:20pm

Ahh so you would balance the fate of a nation on a tax system that you can't possibly know if it works instead of a tax system that has already worked to make us the sole world super power? All of a sudden NOW it's unfair. I say go with what works. I don't mind paying my taxes. I consider it the fee I pay to be lucky enough to live in this country.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 7:55pm
Never been tried. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @

If you want a 0% tax rate go live in Monaco or Latvia.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 7:56pm
Never been tried. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @

Russia has a 13% tax rate. Bulgaria is only 10%.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 7:58pm
Nice story, HSUB. What relevance does it have?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 7:35pm

Don't you get it?

It was sweet, and then they hugged.

And everyone lived happily ever after.

Posted by Benchrest at 08/21/2008 @ 8:03pm
NO, he did propose raising Social Security Taxes on people earning more than $250k Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/21/2008 @ 7:37pm

I stand corrected. I don't so much mind paying into my retirement fund though

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 8:07pm

The cap on income taxed is 90K....means even Gates and Buffet pay only on the first 90K. Raise it to 150K and you make SS liquid for another 30 years. (past 2039).

And remember...Darin might...it was REAGAN who worked with Tip O'Neill to fix it back in '83 with increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.

Yes...RONALD REAGAN raised SS taxes.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 8:14pm
http://shop.cafepress.com/design/15419993

http://tinyurl.com/6f44xp

http://tinyurl.com/5pbpso

http://tinyurl.com/6qowux

http://tinyurl.com/5nnwzh

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 8:39pm

Oh, brother. Saturday and Obama's REAL pick can't get here fast enough!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 8:48pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 8:14pm

Hmm I see. So in actuality he's not raising the percentage he's just raising the amount that is taxable and it is still taxed at the same percentage.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 8:52pm
What relevance does it have?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 7:35pm

Can't do your usual fantasizing about the possibilities; perhaps neutralizing of another Nader run with Gore as Obama's VP....?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 9:08pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 8:48pm

And you renege paying $1000.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 9:17pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 6:11pm

My uncle, the Rush groupie, always said the economy was great when Reagan was president and maybe for him it was though with a 100k a year income and one child I think even the Carter years were pretty easy for him. I was a single parent, one of the working poor and Reagan was a nightmare for us. It wasn't even his policies it was the whole "greed is good", "me generation", "I'm rich because God loves me" crap. Women who used foodstamps or even WIC vouchers were harrassed in grocery lines, called welfare queens($217 bucks a month in Washington State. Whoo-hoo!)or worse and it wasn't much better for the guys. Sorry, but the early eighties sucked and Reagan sucked too.

Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 9:43pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 9:17pm

HSUB, I bet the odds...

You predicted impeachment, many times....didn't happen.

You predicted Gore would run in the Democratic Primaries.....didn't happen.

You predicted Gore would win the "inevitable" brokered convention, taking Obama as HIS Veep....didn't happen.

Now, you're predicting that in less than 48 hours, Obama will pick Gore as HIS Veep....

I expect your perfect record to continue.

After that? Either "Gore's goinig to run as an Indy, since Obama is lagging"....OR you hope McCain wins (like FRANK) so that Gore can run in 2012.

Cuz as a side-bet I'm betting you don't just "drop it" with Al SOMEHOW coming back into the West Wing.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 10:02pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 8:52pm

Find one of the die-hard "Reagan cut taxes and never raised them" Righties around here...

and ask them about the Social Security fix.

As for fixing it now, a simple adjustment up of the income cap from 90K to 120K?....and Social Security solvent for another half century or more.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 10:04pm
THE RUSSIANS HAVE THE RUSSIANS IN A NEAR WAR WITH THE WEST AND NATO

JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 08:55am

perfect.

another sucker takes the bait.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 10:19pm
By what objective measure has Bush done a bad job?

Posted by pontificus at 08/20/2008 @ 1:47p

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

golly, thanks ponti.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 10:24pm
Wanna kill off the middle class? Tax the shit out those who create jobs..the investor class and the corporations, as they pass on investing completely and as they pass on the tax increase you impose to the consumer..

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/21/2008 @ 7:15pm

utter nonsense.

bush cut taxes to the "investor" class:

HERE'S THE RATE OF JOB GROWTH FOR THE ADMINISTRATIONS SINCE 1960:

Kennedy-Johnson 3.27%

Nixon-Ford 4.93%

Carter 3.06%

Reagan 2.06%

Bush I 0.60%

Clinton 2.38%

Bush II 0.59%

BUSH IS WORST!!!!

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

want to create jobs in china? listen to john maasch.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 10:27pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/21/2008 @ 10:24pm |

PONTI's "objective measure" would be, of course,....

"The Weekly Standard" or Sean Hannity!

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 10:49pm
Well. we've had one elitist in Obama. Now we've got two: One who bought houses thakns to his war veteran status, the other got his houses simply out of PAC.

-----------

White House Contenders Trade Economic Attacks After McCain Home Gaffe McCain said that he wasn't sure of how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own By JAKE TAPPER CHESAPEAKE, Va., Aug. 21, 2008--

Sen. Barack Obama says his Republican rival Sen. John McCain is out of touch and "just doesn't get it."

Obama's argument sprang from comments made by McCain Wednesday during an interview with Politico's Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen in which the Arizona senator said he wasn't sure of how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you," McCain said. "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you," he added.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/21/2008 @ 11:11pm
Raising money afar: Obama is used use race to get high.

----------

Nigerian Police Probe Obama Fundraising Dinner Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:57 PM

LAGOS - Nigeria's anti-corruption police were questioning the head of the stock exchange after she organised a gala dinner in support of Barack Obama's U.S. presidential campaign which raised hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, chairwoman of the "Africans for Obama" campaign group, organised the fundraising dinner in the commercial capital Lagos on August 11. A "platinum" ticket for a table of eight cost 2.5 million naira ($21,226).

In a letter to Nigeria's The Punch newspaper, the Obama campaign in the United States said it was in no way affiliated with "Africans for Obama" or with the gala dinner and said it would not accept any funds from the group.

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/21/2008 @ 11:22pm
You predicted impeachment, many times....didn't happen.

(hsuB's admin isn't over and there's no statute of limitations on constitutional crimes.)

You predicted Gore would run in the Democratic Primaries.....didn't happen.

(Yep, definitely way way off on that one.)

You predicted Gore would win the "inevitable" brokered convention, taking Obama as HIS Veep....didn't happen.

(Er, convention hasn't happened yet.)

Now, you're predicting that in less than 48 hours, Obama will pick Gore as HIS Veep....

(Er, have you already gotten the Obama email?!?!?)

I expect your perfect record to continue.

(How's that in any way perfect? Oh, 'you're' FANTASIZING about the future-- again.)

After that? Either "Gore's goinig to run as an Indy, since Obama is lagging"....OR you hope McCain wins (like FRANK) so that Gore can run in 2012.

(Now you're just totally into YOUR own fantasies-- you can tell the difference, right?)

Cuz as a side-bet I'm betting you don't just "drop it" with Al SOMEHOW coming back into the West Wing.

(Still YOUR own fantasy world, but it's legit cuz you said "I'm".)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/21/2008 @ 10:02pm

But you didn't state all the times I was right and you were totally wrong, but that's no big surprise now is it...

Seen your Frito lately? You said that they'd never let him go.

How about Ruinsfeld? rOve?

And we do have a petty dic'tatorship.

And both the senate/house went dem 2006, like I predicted. You said it wouldn't happen.

Lie berman is a big mistake the dems allowed to happen by not backing Lamont better and condemning Lie berman. Weren't you ok w/Lie ber?

Plus congress continues to investigate and report criminality of the hsuB/cHeney admin.

Now if only we didn't have a petty dic'tatorship (unitary exec) and a gestapo DoJ...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 11:51pm
Man, if it weren't for all those people that poo-poo-ed impeachment early on and had gotten off their asses to actually protest the hsuB/cHeney admin criminality...

Hopefully they didn't just hand us a series of new con repub GOP petty dic'tators in perpetuity.

The blood is on their hands.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 11:58pm
"If you listen to Barack Obama and the people around him, they certainly seem to be signaling that the choice will be someone who has instantly recognizable national security experience," Stephanopoulos said. " That means Joe Biden. Maybe Evan Bayh. Not Tim Kaine of Virginia. And maybe even the big surprise, you know, someone like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore."

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 12:12am
Well. we've had one elitist in Obama

Posted by HelenDAO at 08/21/2008 @ 11:11pm

I wish everyone would stop ripping on the elitists as if elite meant the same thing as priveleged. The elite are the best, the select few, but you earn your status as the elite in any given group whether you are a street sweeper or an Olympian.

The privileged simply belong to a class that enjoys special privileges whether they deserve it or not.

Obama has worked hard to become one of the elite whereas John McCain was born to privilege. That's not saying one is more worthy than the other, it's just the circumstances of their birth playing out-single working mom or Admiral Daddy.

It isn't a sin to want to be the smartest, fastest, best. I would love to be in contention for top honors of any kind, but alas, was born with both moderate talent and ambition.

Fortunately I have endless optimism and a cheerful nature which takes the sting out of my underachiever status :)

Posted by Pogge at 08/22/2008 @ 12:23am
Poor poor McPOW. He's sooo filthy rich, can't recall how many houses he's got. Poor guy.

I guess he's going to fully understand how Rudy 9/11 Giuliani felt hiding behind the one tragedy that happened to him for every situation.

That's all he got.

And well, he is also older than all hell, needs things simple and scripted-- but

McPOW likes to kill a lot.

And the new con repubs like it like that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 12:30am
Posted by Pogge at 08/22/2008 @ 12:23am

http://www.elitebowling.com/

••••• pba!

http://www.elitetrailers.com/

••••• fema had no clue.

http://www.eliteintroductions.com.au/

••••• those naughty aussies!

http://www.elitechicago.com/

••••• obama's site.

www.elitepharma.com/

••••• better yet, ¡elite farmers!

www.elitetravelnurse.com/

••••• don't leave home without her.

www.elite.ac.uk/

••••• brits always keep their cool.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2008 @ 12:54am
holy cow!

Bovine Elite, LLC

We offer: A complete line of AI equipment, Semen and Embryo sales, Liquid nitrogen containers, Estrus-syncronization supplies, Chin ball markers, ...

www.bovine-elite.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2008 @ 12:54am
Fortunately I have endless optimism and a cheerful nature which takes the sting out of my underachiever status :)

Posted by Pogge at 08/22/2008 @ 12:23am

from your accounts,

it seems you have completed a few trips around the sun,

an achievement many creatures do not have the pleasure of enjoying.

but then again,

how long does a day feel to an ant?

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2008 @ 12:58am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:15pm

"I have already disproven the myth of lowering taxes makes the economy better. Want to keep going?"

Sure. If lowering taxes doesn't help the economy, why not have a tax rate of 100 percent? After all, by your logic, lowering them would not help the economy, and who can argue with giving the government the maximum amount of funds available to make society 'fair'. Right? Finally, is it this understanding of economics that underlies your support for left-wing fiscal policies, and do you consider yourself typical in this sense with other people of a similar political persuasion?

Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 01:49am
Barack Obama without a teleprompter is an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes he reveals his ignorance of history, sometimes he stumbles incoherently, and sometimes he blurts out what he really believes. That's what happened today when Obama tried to talk about Georgia, a topic that has embarrassed him more than once already, beginning when, in the first hours after the invasion, he parroted the Russian line.

Today Obama equated Russia's invasion of Georgia with our toppling of Saddam Hussein:

Democrat Barack Obama scolded Russia again on Wednesday for invading another country's sovereign territory while adding a new twist: the United States, he said, should set a better example on that front, too.

The Illinois senator's opposition to the Iraq war, which his comment clearly referenced, is well known. But this was the first time the Democratic presidential candidate has made a comparison between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russia's recent military activity in Georgia.

"We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies," Obama told a crowd of supporters in Virginia. "They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So our "charging into" Iraq--with dozens of allies, supported by a U.N. resolution, as a last resort after six months of build-up and negotiations, to unseat one of the cruelest dictators of modern times who had twice invaded neighboring states, was in violation of more than a dozen U.N. resolutions and was responsible for the deaths of something like two million people, who was shooting at American aircraft and had tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, in Obama's childish mind, was just like Russia's "charging into" Georgia, which resembles Saddam

Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 01:51am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/21/2008 @ 3:15pm

"I have already disproven the myth of lowering taxes makes the economy better. Want to keep going?"

Oh, and I think I can anticipate your answer. You feel there needs to be a 'balance' point of a top tax rate, which let's just say for argument is 60 percent. But why should there be a balance at all? If going from, say, 70 percent to 60 percent does not help the economy, why give up that 10 percent at all? What's the government getting in exchange for 'spending' that money?

Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 02:00am
"McPOW without a teleprompter is an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes he reveals his ignorance of history, sometimes he stumbles incoherently, and sometimes he blurts out what he really believes. That's what happened today when McPOW tried to talk about the economy, his mansions, Afghanistan, Iraq, war, bombing Iran, starting a draft, picking a VP,... topics that have embarrassed him more than once already,..."

Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 01:51am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 08:17am
taxes were cut. deficits grew.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2008 @ 08:20am
Those tricky dic'tatorship lovers, new con repubs play the attack an opponents strengths and frame them with ones candidates weaknesses game as much as possible.

Confusing, confounding, con-fucking, new con repubs.

Seems to work with new con repub followers.

New con repubs like it like that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 08:26am
er, Those tricky dic'tatorship lovers, new con repubs play the attack an opponents strengths and frame them with 'their own' candidate's weaknesses game as much as possible.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 08:29am
taxes were cut. deficits grew.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/22/2008 @ 08:20am

Now new con repub dic'tatorship loving corporate reptilian vampires are lock jawed on the middle-class bone marrow. Only a well sharpened wooden stake to their DU encrusted hearts will work-- as even the most holy-blessed crucifixes no longer penetrate their fixations.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 08:53am
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2008 @ 11:51pm

Okay, okay, HSUBBY. Willing to wait and let it all play out as I have lo these many years.

And by January 19th, 2009....impeachment will become an impossibility; Gore won't have entered and won the Dem primary; Gore won't have been nominated at a brokered convention; and Gore won't have been named Obama's Veep.

And then you'll still have a 4:1 loss record on predictions compared to me!

heheh

BUT, I'd still like an answer to this- Obama wins this Fall, you DO admit that Al Gore will likely NEVER become President of the United States? (Due to Obama being re-nominated in '12, and Gore being 68 in 2016 and Obama's Veep the likely nominee)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 08:59am
Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 02:00am

BTW, PONTI, still waiting on your spin on why the economy boomed in the 90s after "the biggest tax hike in history" in 1993?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 09:01am
And by January 19th, 2009....impeachment will become an impossibility;..

(Er, once again, there's no statute of limitations on constitutional crimes. Punishment can mean prison time.)

And then you'll still have a 4:1 loss record on predictions compared to me!

(Er, only if you ignore all the other times I was right and you were wrong as previously stated.)

BUT, I'd still like an answer to this- Obama wins this Fall, you DO admit that Al Gore will likely NEVER become President of the United States? (Due to Obama being re-nominated in '12, and Gore being 68 in 2016 and Obama's Veep the likely nominee)

(Er, if Al is Obama's VP?)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 08:59am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 09:25am
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 09:25am |

1. Oh, Lord. You mean until Dubya croaks in 30-40 years, you're going to keep dreaming of a "Post-Presidential impeachment"?!?!??! That's going to get REALLY funny in the 2020s...heheh

2. WHAT other times have you been right? Gonzales? Okay, that's one. Remember, I didn't even mention this one-

"hsuB pardons Libby and he's just a few days/weeks closer to getting impeached. hsuB has everything neccessary for being impeached and low poll numbers aren't helping him in any way not to be. I say he doesn't." ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

And the Libby pardon came and went.

3. If Gore is NOT Obama's Veep. Surely even you cannot be so deluded as to think that Gore is going to come back to politics...AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS on the outside (AND at the age of 68) and try to beat an incumbent Vice-President for the nomination in 2016????

Wait...I forgot who I'm talking to....heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:15am
1. Oh, Lord. You mean until Dubya croaks in 30-40 years, you're going to keep dreaming of a "Post-Presidential impeachment"?!?!??! That's going to get REALLY funny in the 2020s...

(Apparently you'll defend hsuB from impeachment until you die-- rather than admit people like you, those that will defend hsuB/cHeney admin of their anti-constitutional activity are the biggest problem with our nation.)

2. WHAT other times have you been right? Gonzales?

(I already listed a few previously. Stop 'your' FANTASIZING {with straw dildos} and you might be able to percieve all that I wrote.)

Okay, that's one. Remember, I didn't even mention this one-

"hsuB pardons Libby and he's just a few days/weeks closer to getting impeached. hsuB has everything neccessary for being impeached and low poll numbers aren't helping him in any way not to be. I say he doesn't." ----Posted by HSUBFOOLS

06/05/2007 @ 8:33pm

And the Libby pardon came and went.

(er, Libby was commuted not pardoned, second it didn't help hsuB's poll numbers, third because we didn't impeach hsuB/cHeney earlier, because of hsuB defenders like you, we now have a petty dic'tatorship and 3-4000 more US troops dead, 10's of thousands more maimed and committing suicide. Thank you for being soooo wrong.)

3. If Gore is NOT Obama's Veep. Surely even you cannot be so deluded as to think that Gore is going to come back to politics...AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS on the outside (AND at the age of 68) and try to beat an incumbent Vice-President for the nomination in 2016????

(I never said that, that's YOUR fantasy with a straw dildo.)

Wait...I forgot who I'm talking to....heheh

(Again-- stop playing with straw dildos and it'll come to you...)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:15am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 10:32am
(I never said that, that's YOUR fantasy with a straw dildo.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 10:32am

See, HSUB, THAT's the one thing I really dislike about you. This dishonesty streak you have where by you "hint" and "suggest" and "mention" all these things about Gore becoming Obama's Veep...

and then deny you "ever said that".

Jesus, man, just step upto the plate and come clean on it. EVERYBODY knows what you're "hinting" at with your little links to tinyurl.com and some guy in a "Obama/Gore in '08" T-shirt.

Why do you feel you have to lie about what you are thinking and play "You're saying that, I'M not saying that!" games??!?!?!???

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am
Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 01:49am |

My God you really do have problem understanding things. Let me help you here, this is the tutorial for the slow. The magic number in taxes seem to be 20-35% corporate tax rate. 10-40% income tax rate. SO. By that mold if there are problems in the economy if you are going to raise or lower taxes it needs to be within that bracket. You don't go above nor below the bracket. So 70% would hurt the economy unless the economy was primed for that kind of tax hike.

Have I made it so that a 7 year old can understand or do I need to explain it to you again?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:52am
Oh, and I think I can anticipate your answer. You feel there needs to be a 'balance' point of a top tax rate, which let's just say for argument is 60 percent. But why should there be a balance at all? If going from, say, 70 percent to 60 percent does not help the economy, why give up that 10 percent at all? What's the government getting in exchange for 'spending' that money? Posted by pontificus at 08/22/2008 @ 02:00am

I already told you what the balance point is. I have given you the percentages OVER AND OVER. Can you not read? 10-40% income tax. 20-35% corporate tax. You play within those bounds. If you step out of them you stand a high probability of killing the economy. If you raise or lower it within that point of balance you can help the economy in an economic crisis. If you step outside of those bounds you are just going to hurt the economy. What is so hard to understand about this? Jom seems to have gotten my point on the first go around. With you it's like speaking to a cinder block wall.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:54am
Posted by Pogge at 08/21/2008 @ 9:43pm

I was lucky enough to experience that period. It seems like the people who enjoyed Reagans time were the people with all the money who didn't have to deal with the crappy economy.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/22/2008 @ 11:57am
CCC, get him to explain why we didn't sink into a depression when Clinton passed the "biggest tax hike in history" in 1993?

Guarenteed...he claims "Cuz Newt curbed spending (two years later and well into the boom) and the Tech Bubbled saved us (which means extenuating circumstances CAN allow for a tax increase and prosperity...which undercuts his basic (and simplistic) premise)!"

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 12:38pm
" If Gore is NOT Obama's Veep. Surely even you cannot be so deluded as to think that Gore is going to come back to politics...AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS on the outside (AND at the age of 68) and try to beat an incumbent Vice-President for the nomination in 2016????"

(That's IS what YOU said. I NEVER made a prediction about Al Gore in 16 years 'NOT' being Obama's VP.)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 10:15am

"See, HSUB, THAT's the one thing I really dislike about you. This dishonesty streak you have where by you "hint" and "suggest" and "mention" all these things about Gore becoming Obama's Veep..."

(So by me stating what you said, isn't what I said, I'm being dishonest? No it's actually you denying that you're describing YOUR own straw dildo fantasy and upset that you're called on it. OWN your own straw dildo fantasies. I don't share in what I don't want.)

Why do you feel you have to lie about what you are thinking and play "You're saying that, I'M not saying that!" games??!?!?!???

(No game just fact. And you don't know what I'm thinking-- that's in YOUR mind, that's what YOUR thinking.)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 1:24pm
re, (No game just fact. And you don't know what I'm thinking-- that's in YOUR mind, that's YOUR thinking.)

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 11:14am

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 1:24pm

Simple proposition, HSUB....

yes or no...Are you predicting (in probably less than 8 hours now), that Barack Obama will name Al Gore his Vice-Presidential running mate?

Yes or no?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 1:38pm
Are you predicting (in probably less than 8 hours now), that Barack Obama will name Al Gore his Vice-Presidential running mate?

Yes or no?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 1:38pm

Funny how banging you over your head with the obvious helps you clarify a question.

Although I've been terrible at specific timing, as it might be 'more than' 8 hours or might just have occurred, but 'yes' of course.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 3:14pm
but 'yes' of course.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 3:14pm

So what's with all the "You said that, not me" stuff?

I know you don't want ANOTHER prediction to go down in flames...but fair's fair, man. I never denied saying I thought Gonzales would "ride it out".

BTW, the countdown is probably under 4 hours now....Obama likely to name his nominee just in time for the 6pm news...no later than the 8-9pm talking head shows.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 3:58pm

Er, like you think maybe words actually have meaning and when you state words with a different meaning than the words I use-- it's legit for me to point out the difference.

For anyone else what you do would be labeled constructing a straw man, but for you I label it playing with straw dildos, since the way you do it is below even unseemly; more like self-absorbed excessive fantasizing.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 4:11pm
It won't be 8 hours. He is going to wait till after the Olympics. Possibly till the Convention.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/22/2008 @ 4:25pm
Obama already said he'd have something to say about his VP via email and text message-- a hint of course... before they take stage on Saturday.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/22/2008 @ 6:17pm

Yep, Hsub is right. Has to be before tomorrow.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/22/2008 @ 6:41pm

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)
John Nichols (Posts | Bio)
Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)
Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)
Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

One Last Clinton Scenario

posted by John Nichols on 08/20/2008 @ 12:00pm

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Notion

» Act Now!

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation

One Last Clinton Scenario

posted by John Nichols on 08/20/2008 @ 12:00pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Cora Currier (Posts | Bio)

John Nichols (Posts | Bio)

Katrina vanden Heuvel (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Max Blumenthal (Posts | Bio)

Tom Engelhardt (Posts | Bio)

Victor Navasky (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Notion

» Act Now!

» The Beat

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Editor's Cut

» Altercation