Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (438.261)
    "Larval Enemy of the Human"

    I love the language filters on this board.
    • CommentAuthorratjin
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2008
     (438.262)
    Romney's money is keeping him in the race, but, oddly, it would appear that money alone can't get you in the presidency. I'm frankly surprised. I heard a stat on the news tonight that Romney aired 4400 ads in Florida compared to McCain's 400, but McCain still won.

    Also, McCain's campaign can't afford a pollster. So he's just going out there being himself.

    I like McCain as a person, I suppose. I'm just concerned that he'll break into song-parody in the middle of diplomatic talks with the Middle East. . . A clip of him singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" springs to mind. But now that he's campaigning again, he seems to be forthright and honest (though wrong) again. As opposed to when he was stuck in the Senate after losing to Bush and "had" to choke back his hate.

    I'd like Obama to get the Democratic nom, but I'm less than confident that he will. And, of course, my own ability to judge people has bitchslapped me enough times that I don't trust myself there any longer. Fortunately I have other virtues.

    Do we really want AG Edwards?
  2.  (438.263)
    Edwards is a fine attorney who has done extensive anti-poverty work. He would make a very good AG, he would also make an exceptional Sec. of Housing and Urban Development.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2008
     (438.264)
    Edwards withdraw was just odd. I would have bet he'd stay in until at least Ultra-Tuesday. If for nothing better than to have some delegates to play with come the convention. I think he's making deals with both camps so that the convention is a coronation, not brokered.


    I think he's deliberately decided to get out of Obama's way and figure that the votes that were going to him will probably go to Obama now. Hillary's very much a "love her or hate her" candidate. People have already made up their minds about her. I think Edwards isn't officially endorsing Obama because he doesn't want to completely burn his bridges with the Clintons or stir up more infighting. Ultimately, though, Obama is "not-Clinton" and will pull a lot of Edwards' supporters for that reason if for nothing else.

    I'm thinking that especially with this, there's a strong possibility of a serious Obama victory Feb 5. Hillary's power-hunger is becoming more and more naked and people aren't liking what they're seeing.

    I'd love to see a McCain/Obama race in the general election because whoever won would, I think, be a decent, trustworthy person.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSJD
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2008
     (438.265)
    I still stand by my comment though:

    The field has been narrowed down and those remaining are found wanting. I can think of a few nice things to say about OBAMA and that's about it.

    Also, the excitement of watching the spectacle of the candidates trying to win has gone almost immediately.

    I don't know. I think everyone pretty much is going to back McCain now on the Right and that Obama may get the nod but only if he can go up against Hillary for the long haul. I do believe the Lady might have some tricks up her husband's sleeves.

    Sorry. Politics sucked the life out of me today.

    -SJD
  3.  (438.266)
    New York Times top story thursday? It's a story linking Bill Clinton to a guy running uranium mining in Kazakhstan. A guy who used Clinton to gain a footing in the country, run by a less than egalitarian leadership, who then turned around and donated 31 million to the Clinton Foundation. He just promised another 100 million. Quid pro quo? Oh yes.

    Obama should LEAP on that. The future first gentleman/co-president involved in brokering uranium mining deals with dictatorships? Makes that Rezko nonsense look like a parking ticket.

    Strange that a week ago the NY Times endorsed Hillary.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008
     (438.267)
    Not entirely strange, considering HRC has been an effective senator for NY state. Also, I don't know how hard Obama will jump on anything like this, as he's pledged to run a clean campaign. I do think the rules have changed now that it's a two-candidate race for the nomination, but if we've seen anything out of Obama it's his determination to keep the decisions based on policies and integrity rather than gossip and slander.
    • CommentAuthorPooka
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008
     (438.268)
    Kucinich :)

    but i generally hate politics so that's all i'm saying on that one..
    •  
      CommentAuthorRik Sunn
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008
     (438.269)
    My money's on Rudy being Herr Homeland Security Chairman, regardless of which of the present candidates were to win the Presidency.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008 edited
     (438.270)
    @pico

    On the issue of the 10th amendment, remember that the first ten amendments were a concession on the part of the pro-Constitution federalists to the anti-federalists. The anti-federalists feared that the new federal Constitution would lead to an oppressive federal government, even though, as the federalists argued, that the federal government could only do what it was given express power to do within the Constitution. To ensure ratification, the federalists in Congress agreed to draft certain amendments to the Constitution that made clear that there were certain well-defined lines that the federal government would never cross. Those were the first eight amendments. Amendment nine was added to make it clear that, because the U.S. is a federal system, the people could also have rights that were protected by their state constitutions, so that the enumeration of rights in the federal Constitution could not be used by either the federal or the state governments to argue that the rights guaranteed under state constitutions did not, in fact, operate to protect the people.

    Part of the oppression the anti-federalists feared, however, was the federal government's usurpation of the states' and their resepective people's rights of self-determination and self-government. Not, mind you, contemporary liberal notions of personal autonomy, but republican (little "R") notions of self-determination as expressed by a people's power to have a say in how they are governed. Amendments ten was adopted, then, to make it clear that the states retained all powers--not rights--that were not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor expressly prohibited by the federal Constitution. Those powers were the powers to make whatever laws that the peole and their state legislatures saw fit. The additional language of "the people" was included in the 10th amendment to make it clear that no state government, itself seeking excessive powers, could legitimately claim that the people had no right to change the laws of their respective state.

    That's what the 9th and 10th amendments are there for: when people forget that they live in a federal system and under a Congress with, formally, enumerated powers, they lose sight of the import of these amendments. A great book on this is Yale law professor Akhil Amar's The Bill of Rights.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008 edited
     (438.271)
    Also, a buddy of mine claims that Romney is not buying any ads in the Super-Duper Tuesday states.

    If that's true, then, writing, meet wall.
    •  
      CommentAuthororwellseyes
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008 edited
     (438.272)
    Speaking of ad buys, Hillary Clinton is buying an HOUR of time on the Hallmark Channel.

    A cable station that skews female, older and lobotomized.

    Visions of Ross Perot's graph-based lectures run through my head.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2008
     (438.273)
    God, I remember one of Perot's anti-NAFTA infomericals from '93. He ended it by saying to the camera: "I love you."

    I was much less cynical then than I am now, but even the me of that summer was just dumbfounded.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2008 edited
     (438.274)
    http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php

    This is a great little graphic showing the contributions of the oil companies to the various Presidential candidates.

    It's heartening to see that one of the two main recipients of oil money is already out - Giuliani.

    That leaves Romney as the largest recipient of oil company money still in the race. Clinton is third. Obama is fifth behind McCain - and the biggest single recipient of Exxon money.

    Some companies, of course, just give equal amounts to all the major candidates every election cycle because they think it makes them good corporate citizens.

    But its disturbing to see even people like Edwards and Chris Dodd taking money from the oil companies.

    In fact, about the only name candidates I' m not seeing there are Kucinich and Ron Paul - even Vilsack and Tommy Thompson were recipients. Considering Paul's from Texas that's surprising - and kind of encouraging.

    What would be great would be if you could see charts like this for HMOs; defence contractors and other special interests.
    • CommentAuthorratjin
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2008
     (438.275)
    I'm not confident that the oil money data is as significant as it would appear. If any employee of a company gives money, it gets entered under that company, whether or not those employees are part of organized industry efforts. Employees' political interests are not necessarily the same as that of their employers. Of course, there may be a certain amount of 'group think' involved in an industry (we often think like those around us), but it's not as though the oil companies themselves are giving the candidates all this money. . . most of it appears to be from the people who work for the companies.
    • CommentAuthorzenbullet
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2008
     (438.276)
    Well, Ron Paul IS being ignored by the media. No one {in the party} really wants a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican as President. I've been glued to the screen ever since people started dropping out {I sprained my ankle, can't work} and I've only seen one clip of him since my obsessive searching started.

    And that was on the O'Reilly factor.




    As for the dems, I think Obama is going to get it.
    People just hate Hilary, for no reason I can see.





    Did anyone else see him use Edwards catchphrase, "It's the cause of my life"?
    You could tell he was so uncomfortable with the swipe.
    •  
      CommentAuthorroque
    • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2008
     (438.277)
    Well, Ron Paul IS being ignored by the media.
    I know, I'm no Ron Paul fan, but it's obvious he's being shortchanged by the media. it's always offputting to watch the machine work.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpico
    • CommentTimeFeb 3rd 2008 edited
     (438.278)
    I saw Obama at a rally in Minneapolis Saturday. If he doesn't win, it might as well be Dick Cheney getting elected.

    Happy Super Tuesday, everyone. Any predictions?
    •  
      CommentAuthorARES
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2008
     (438.279)
    I haven't followed this thread, but will likely read the whole thing later tonight.

    Today was the first time I voted non-electronically in years, which was nice. I went with Ron Paul to show my support for the first policitician I've actually liked in many years. No I'm not a diehard follower, but the fact that Faux News made a crusade against him shows that his politics have to have at least something right about them. :)

    McCain seems to be a foregone conclusion, and I don't expect Hillary to win even though I have a little glimmer of hope that she does. I didn't love Billary in the White House when they were, but I've grown to at least respect them. A bit. Obama seems like a good enough dude, but I don't know much about him and am tired of hearing about the whole CHANGE thing, because anything short of a Jeffersonian Revolution, I don't see it. McCain doesn't scare me, but probably should. There will be plenty of time for my rage to build with that guy, even though 8 years ago I liked him, before he was blatantly pro-war. I'm still giddy that Giuliani is out. Fuck that asshole.

    There is no way a black man or any form of woman will win in November. No way is this country ready for something that simple. It would be nice to see though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLokiZero
    • CommentTimeFeb 5th 2008
     (438.280)
    There is no way a black man or any form of woman will win in November. No way is this country ready for something that simple.
    I don't know about that. I think if you put Obama up on stage next to any of those republicans (except Ron Pal), all of them running on the "More of the Same" platform, Obama wins. Maybe that's my liberal optimism speaking, but I could be wrong. And I've spent all of my adult life in Texas, I've seen my share of racism.

    Now with Hillary, the Republicans come out in full force in November and she loses. I do think there's a woman out there who'll be president some day, but it's not going to be a former president's wife.

    Personally, I'd love to see Obama vs Paul, but that ain't happening.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.