OBAMA FUCKING WON

[Tippster]

They went to the polls to lower their property taxes and from what I understand from NPR Obama actually won if you count only votes cast on tuesday and forget the the ones cast a month ago, I think that says a lot.

Everyone - Reps and Dems - got to vote on the Property Tax referendum. Yes, that brought out the voters, but the concensus in the Newsroom here is that your second point is false. There's no way that 17% difference is from early voting.

[AKA]

Everyone - Reps and Dems - got to vote on the Property Tax referendum. Yes, that brought out the voters, but the concensus in the Newsroom here is that your second point is false. There's no way that 17% difference is from early voting.

Its not my point, Im just stating what I heard on the radio yesterday.

[Mathematics]

I'll ask it again:

If Obama is motivating all these people to vote why did Hillary crush him in Florida? Neither one campaigned there, and there was no "need" to vote, so why were the Hillary supporters so willing to waste their time on Tuesday?

Obama dismissing it as a "Beauty Contest" is hysterical. I bet his looks and charm have gotten him a significant percentage of his votes so far.

thought it was pretty funny hilarys campaign cried about obama having a national ad spot run in florida after they'd agreed not to campaign there (nevermind it was a national -not state level - spot). and then hilary turning around and campaigning a bit in florida regardless.

I'm pulling for Obama.... and I think if McCain ends up getting the republican endorsement theres even more reason to support Obama. The ONLY way a republican has a chance in the next election is if they're running against Hilary as she's such a polarizing figure to the right (and many moderates as well). And in a race against McCain he's got Hilary beat on alot of issues.

The systems corrupt, the candidates are corrupt, I think most people know that. discrediting a politician because of whats in their closet is kind of ridiculous, because...well...they're politicians. thats what they do. but presidential elections are about the lesser evil, and Obama is the lesser evil.

[MassLiberal]

thought it was pretty funny hilarys campaign cried about obama having a national ad spot run in florida after they'd agreed not to campaign there (nevermind it was a national -not state level - spot). and then hilary turning around and campaigning a bit in florida regardless.

I'm pulling for Obama.... and I think if McCain ends up getting the republican endorsement theres even more reason to support Obama. The ONLY way a republican has a chance in the next election is if they're running against Hilary as she's such a polarizing figure to the right (and many moderates as well). And in a race against McCain he's got Hilary beat on alot of issues.

The systems corrupt, the candidates are corrupt, I think most people know that. discrediting a politician because of whats in their closet is kind of ridiculous, because...well...they're politicians. thats what they do. but presidential elections are about the lesser evil, and Obama is the lesser evil.

McCain beats Hillary on the issues? Yet Barack beats McCain on those same issues? How much crack have you been smoking?

[MassLiberal]

Its not my point, Im just stating what I heard on the radio yesterday.

Well, you must have heard wrong, early voting in FL accounts for, at best 15% of the votes cast.

[AKA]

Well, you must have heard wrong, early voting in FL accounts for, at best 15% of the votes cast.

Twice I've heard that on NPR, Im not claiming it's completly true just thats it's been stated by "experts" more than once.

[shamrockpow]

McCain beats Hillary on the issues? Yet Barack beats McCain on those same issues? How much crack have you been smoking?

Here is what Obama said in Colorado yesterday. I really don't see where Hillary has a leg to stand on if Obama can bring this up forcefully in the last debate:

It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.

We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that's exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One – you have to be right from Day One.

And a no prize to the first person that can tell me who said this?

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

[Spats]

Spats, I really admire your political convictions, way to put everything on the line for a candidate.

Just to rebut your point, The only time the budget has been balanced for the last 30 years has been under a democrat.

I know the numbers as well as you do, but that's not my point. I am comparing Ron Paul to the other candidates.

Note that in the Republican debate, Dr. Paul alone was unwilling to promise tax cuts, because he insisted that they must be accompanied by spending cuts before he would support them. His entire legislative career has been spent as one of a handful of people who actually vote against deficit spending.

As far as my tepid support for the current Dems, given my beliefs, why are you surprised?
-I've been against the Iraq war since long before it was popular to do so
-I'm against unconstitutional spying, denial of habeas corpus, and "anti-terrorism" laws that enable a Presidential dictatorship
-I'm against the "War on Drugs" that puts tens of thousands of nonviolent people in jail, particularly minorities and the poor who can't afford lawyers, and supports urban gangs that kill thousands each year, just as Prohibition supported the Mafia

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich support these views. Neither Obama nor Clinton do. They're unwilling to commit to getting out of Iraq by 2012, neither has uttered a peep about the police state we are rapidly becoming, and like Bush, they're perfectly willing to enforce drug laws that would have put them in jail and possibly ineligible to be President (see: Obama's cocaine use).

[Platinum Pete]

Who has more to gain from the Edwards drop out?

Seems like Edwards' message of "we're going to lay the smack down on the corporations and special interests that control Washington" resonated more with people who want a fighter than a uniter ala Obama. However, It seems to me that anybody who was going to side with Hilary did so a long time ago and she's really just trying to keep them with her and deliver them to the polls. I predict some message change up from both candidates, more from Hilary, and I hope (but sorta doubt) that Obama feels the lift more than she does.

[Jer]

MoveOn is gonna endorse one or the other now. They're polling their members.

[MassLiberal]

Who has more to gain from the Edwards drop out?

Seems like Edwards' message of "we're going to lay the smack down on the corporations and special interests that control Washington" resonated more with people who want a fighter than a uniter ala Obama. However, It seems to me that anybody who was going to side with Hilary did so a long time ago and she's really just trying to keep them with her and deliver them to the polls. I predict some message change up from both candidates, more from Hilary, and I hope (but sorta doubt) that Obama feels the lift more than she does.

In my opinion, it will be a wash. He may gain more votes in places like NY, MA, but he'll lose a similar amount in the south.

All Obama has to do on Feb fifth is to stay close enough that there is no decisive winner in delegates. An extended primary battle is to his benefit.

[PNWbrit]

All Obama has to do on Feb fifth is to stay close enough that there is no decisive winner in delegates. An extended primary battle is to his benefit.

Was just discussing this very point with someone.

I find it difficult to see Clinton building support as easily as Obama if he manages to carry momentum.

make sense?

[MassLiberal]

Was just discussing this very point with someone.

I find it difficult to see Clinton building support as easily as Obama if he manages to carry momentum.

make sense?

Well, there is one key aspect in that the Clinton Field team is REALLY FUCKING GOOD. Which makes it more likely that she could hold onto her lead. Obama would need to continue to score endorsements, and really needs to figure out his field program, as it is sorely lacking.

In all honesty, I hope he does do well on Feb 5th. It would give me the opportunity to rethink my career path.

[PNWbrit]

Obama would need to continue to score endorsements

So off the top of my head with Kennedy and Kerry in his pocket.

Edwards, Gore, Blair spring to mind as biggies.

Can you share your thinking on other targets of opportunity?

[lemon boy]

So off the top of my head with Kennedy and Kerry in his pocket.

Edwards, Gore, Blair spring to mind as biggies.

Can you share your thinking on other targets of opportunity?

Obama already has Jimmy Carter and is getting ready to announce Bill Clinton.

[Tippster]

Who is Blair? Tony Blair? Why the fuck would anybody care whom he endorses?

I look forward to seeing how Obama plays with the Hispanic vote. According to many "pundits" we've been interviewing Hillary has that locked up - don't ask me how or why.

[MassLiberal]

Blair would be a bad endorsement, Americans don't like foreigners meddling in their affairs.

I don't think Gore would endorse, he's learned his lesson from 2004.'

The kind of endorsements I'm talking about are:

1) Labor Unions that had endorsed edwards (these give the campaign locations to phone bank and an army of volunteers)

2) Mayors of cities with populations > 100,000. Mayors generally live and die by their abilities to build grassroots support through patron client ties, getting these endorsements generally gives you access to an army of activists who you can work into the ground. Since nobody expected this thing to go beyond February 5th, a lot of these endorsements are available.

3) lastly, Bigger name endorsements, such as the US Senators and Governors. The only benefit you get from these endorsements = access to money lists. Experienced campaign staff that work underneath these individuals have already been hired by others, and it takes a long time to get the fundraising lists together, so these are essentially useless at this point.

[PNWbrit]

Tipp - Are you suffering from hemorrhoids or something? You don't seem to be your usual affable self recently.

Yes that Tony Blair. If nothing else it would be kind of amusing to see the one-time leftish winger and great friend of Bill Clinton who turned born-gain catholic, neocon, war hawk and Bush ball stroker supporting a Dem. candidate. Plus he's one of the few people on the planet that can stand next to Hilary Clinton and make her look slightly less greedy for power.

Actually, I mentioned him because I'd seen the subject in a number of articles some of which were GASP not written in Amurika. Some people think such stuff and places and their opinions are important. I'm sorry if that irritates your delicate posterior.

[Tippster]

Scientology thread made me grumpy, I guess....

[PNWbrit]

d00d - don't get your Thetans all knotted up over it

[MassLiberal]

Tipp - Are you suffering from hemorrhoids or something? You don't seem to be your usual affable self recently.

Yes that Tony Blair. If nothing else it would be kind of amusing to see the one-time leftish winger and great friend of Bill Clinton who turned born-gain catholic, neocon, war hawk and Bush ball stroker supporting a Dem. candidate. Plus he's one of the few people on the planet that can stand next to Hilary Clinton and make her look slightly less greedy for power.

Actually, I mentioned him because I'd seen the subject in a number of articles some of which were GASP not written in Amurika. Some people think such stuff and places and their opinions are important. I'm sorry if that irritates your delicate posterior.

I really don't get the "Hillary is greedy for power" argument. Look at her career, after graduating Law School she turned down multiple offers from extremely high paying law firms to work for the Family Defense fund, a decidedly low power job. Afterwards she moved to Arkansas with a politician who was 0-1 in his career and worked on education reform.

If you ask me, the argument smacks of sexism, as it has very little basis in reality.

note: I am in no way calling you sexist PNWBrit, but just that the "hillary is power hungry" meme doesn't seem to be based in reality, so I'm assuming that it comes from an undercurrent of machismo in our society, which seems to view any woman seeking power as dangerous.

[timvwcom]

-I've been against the Iraq war since long before it was popular to do so
-I'm against unconstitutional spying, denial of habeas corpus, and "anti-terrorism" laws that enable a Presidential dictatorship
-I'm against the "War on Drugs" that puts tens of thousands of nonviolent people in jail, particularly minorities and the poor who can't afford lawyers, and supports urban gangs that kill thousands each year, just as Prohibition supported the Mafia

Psst... I think you are voting for the wrong party!

I find it interesting with these views that you'd even consider voting for a Republican of any stripe. I see your point about a specific candidate (RP), but because much of politics is "collaborative" a vote for any Republican would seem counter productive. The good news, a primary vote for RP... since he's, ummm, not going to be the Republican nominee, won't hurt anything much.

I guess that brings up a good question. Are a majority of the Ron Paul supporters going to vote Democratic in the actual Presidential election? Or are more of them self identified Republicans who would find it hard to make a change over to the other side; thereby voting Republican anyway, or maybe just not voting???

[PNWbrit]

If you ask me, the argument smacks of sexism

Now you're just being bloody silly.

I think this country should be embarrassed that it has yet to elect a female president and even more embarrassed that it still makes such a ridiculous fuss about your candidate's gender, Obama's race or Edwards hair.

note: I am in no way calling you sexist PNWBrit, but just that the "hillary is power hungry" meme doesn't seem to be based in reality, so I'm assuming that it comes from an undercurrent of machismo in our society, which seems to view any woman seeking power as dangerous.

Thanks for the edit.

You have my meme much mistaken. I take your point about society but would point out as a relative newcomer that it's probably more yours than mine.

[rideit]

Margaret Thatcher was a MAN, Baby!

[MassLiberal]

Rumor around the office: Richardson to endorse Clinton tomorrow, Biden on Monday.