BS: Edwards for VP after all?

Subject: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:15 PM

They say he is endorsing Obama tonight. There are pictures of them looking very lovey dovey and I think they have good chemistry together. I heard Edwards say on TV no way for VP but perhaps he is being coy. I think he is the best match chemistry-wise..perhaps when other calculations are made not...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:27 PM

I would think he would be just about the perfect choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:31 PM

That would leave them without any foreign policy experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:31 PM

On the other hand, I heard Donald Rumsfeld is looking for a job, so maybe...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:32 PM

Edwards has waited until the last moment to make an endorsement because whoever was the nominee he was going to be the VP on their ticket.
                                                      SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:40 PM

Ooh, I hope so!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:47 PM

A government is run by many people, not by one or two. There will be plenty of advisors available regarding foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:08 PM

You can take iot to the bank that John Edwards will not get the VP nod... Attorney General perhaps, but not VP...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:21 PM

"On the other hand, I heard Donald Rumsfeld is looking for a job, so maybe..."

He could be Secretary of Defense . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:24 PM

You mean Secretary of Attack, don't you? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:27 PM

Which one?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: pdq
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:39 PM

With John Edwards, I think that would be Secretary of a Tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Convidado
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:41 PM

I think he was withholding his endorsement until it would have maximum effect.

But this whole endorsement thing is silly. How do they matter, truly?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:44 PM

No, it has an effect. He's convinced me to vote for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:48 PM

Edwards' endorsement matters, far more than most, since it's not just about him. It gives his delegates the go-ahead to also endorse Obama. Also, up to now, it was always theoretically possibly that he would endorse HRC. Some of his delegates have already endorsed Obama, but there are likely to be more now.

Let's see what happens, say, by the end of the week.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 08 - 10:14 PM

"No, it has an effect. He's convinced me to vote for McCain." Riginslinger

We'll miss you, Rig. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 May 08 - 10:18 PM

But it's not surprising, Rig. After all, Obama is not going to support you in your struggle to keep the terrible brown hordes out of the US. You'll have better luck with McCain.

But please don't complain about the Iraq war continuing if you do vote for McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 14 May 08 - 11:39 PM

Wow!
These guys fight dirty.
This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own.
Yup!
I'd be for McCain too, I'm afraid.

Obama for change?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:36 AM

I like Wes Clarke for VP. It will probably be Hillary though.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 07:25 AM

I don't agree Edwards' timing was intended to do maximum damage to Clinton. But it is intended and desperately needed by Obama for damage control, due to Clinton's landslide victory in West Virginia.

It was, no other way of parsing it, a landslide victory of Reagan size proportions.

That should scare the shit out of the Democrats.

I'm sure Obama hopes to get street cred with the white working class voters with this endorsement, hence the timing.

Say what you will about Edwards, he is a very smart guy and knows how to play the game.

None of the pundits, of course, want this interpretation to be put on the West Virginia primary. In fact, the media and Obama camp would just as soon ignore that primary all together because it casts a pall of gloom and foreboding over the golden boy. And we can't have that for Mr. Sunshine President, now can we?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:08 AM

This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own.

Edwards is pretty enthusiastic in his praise for Clinton in this endorsement speech for Obama. I suspect some of the poeople in the hall may have thought he was going to surprise them all by making a u-turn, and endorsing her. And I'd have thought it was timed so as to do her bid for the nomination minimum damage, since by now, it seems generally agreed, it is virtually finished.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:17 AM

Obama will never pick HRC as VP. She has far too much baggage. And he'll be just fine with any number of other choices.

Janet--

You still need to get that stronger sedative. WV proves nothing except that racists still exist and that Obama has to make himself better known to many people--e.g. pointing out ad nauseam that he is in fact a Christian, not a Moslem, and that he and his wife are patriotic Americans. This is eminently doable between now and November.

If people vote their pocketbooks--- which they virtually always do unless there's a hot war----McCain has no chance.

McCain has 3 problems, any of which can cost him the election.

1) Sour mood of the country--voting pocketbooks means throw Mr. Bush's party out. Democrats are ostensibly in charge in Congress. Yet look at the most recent special elections. They're tossing Republicans out---in Republican districts.

2) He's tied to GWB--instant revulsion.

3) He has to reach beyond his base--but he can't. Every time he does, his base threatens to desert.

a)   illegal immigration
b) climate change
c) meaningful health-care reform

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:20 AM

What you aren't taking into consideration is the endorsements of Obama this week are to force the Clinton camp supporters into the party fold.

You can't ignore the timing, which isn't intended to damage Clinton at all--quite the contrary. It is intended to send a message to her & her supporters that because of her landslide victory in WV, she needs to start mending fences with the Obama camp, even if she stays in it until the convention, which I am beginning to think she might do.

She can do that, she just has to start nudging her supporters in a direction that herds them inside the fence of the Obama camp, is all.

In other words, Edwards decision to endorse now has two purposes. One is his own future political ambitions. You can bet his endorsement didn't come for nothing. Second, it was done to stem the bleeding after Clinton's landslide victory with the voters Edwards was carrying early in the season--especially the trades unions and all those WV voters who just handed Clinton her biggest victory of the entire primary season.

He can't deliver the rank and file trade unionists any more than he can the WV voters at this point. But Clinton can. So Edwards message is, now she needs to start working in that direction.

It is the end game, but it is a very delicate--and volatile-- situation. The Democrats know they need the Clinton vote to win in November. They really don't feel that Obama will look out for them, and they are likely right about that.

There is nothing in Obama's history or message that shows him to be a champion of the white "little guy" the way Edwards and Clinton are perceived by the party rank and file. They see Obama as someone who will champion poor people of color, very possibly at their expense by driving a wedge--the racism card--between the working class voters of color and white working class voters.

And that does look to be the way it is going down. The white working class voters--the unions especially--ARE working to create bridges, partnerships, and openings for working class people of color. But precisely because of the institutional racism in the US, those coalitions are extremely fragile. It is gonna take a boatload of finesse on the Obama camp's part, and frankly, he hasn't been doing it. He hasn't been able to attract those voters AT ALL.

And now, it is all about perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:31 AM

"These guys fight dirty.
    "This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own."


                Jim Lad - You are so right, and the way things worked out, I think there was something going on before the North Carolina primary that made Clinton think she would get the Edwards endorsement. That's why Clinton pulled her punches and let Obama back into the race. I wonder if she thought she would get Edwards just before the NC election.
                Anyway, it didn't happen, and he timed it perfectly to do the most damage immediately after West Virginia.

                   Yeah, it's McCain for me all the way!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:10 AM

I agree that Edwards is a savvy politician, and winning his endorsement is a major credit to the Obama campaign. Interpretations beyond that are armchair speculations but there certainly should be room in an Obama Administration for a man of his talent.

Richardson is still my favorite VP candidate for his international credentials but Edwards could be very helpful in helping to win back some (except for the rabid racists) of the white blue-collar vote.

West Virginia is a bump on the campaign rode, but was not enough of a bump to alter the math.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:54 AM

Fantasma, you seem to be putting too much credence into West Virginia's working class voters. Indiana is a working class state, and Hillary didn't win by that much of a margin there, so I don't think that aspect of your argument is true. Also,while it is true that Obama had poor support from unions, he has been making inroads-Teamsters, Service Employees, United Food. It's not always cut and dry. If it was only based on the unions, then Obama wouldn't be at this point now would he?

As to the rest, Edwards could be the VP choice, but he might get something else as well-I would love to see him as Attorney General. I still really think Richardson could be the VP choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:00 AM

Fantz,

Your perspective strikes me as delusory. Obama actually did a bit better in WV than I had expected from the talkingheads' prognostications. And I think itmight be a bit silly to zero in on the proportions of one state instead of the national tally to date.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ghost of Electricity (inactive)
Date: 15 May 08 - 12:53 PM

Bobert is right. Edwards may get appointed attorney general in an Obama administartion but he won't be VP.

For VP, Obama needs someone who can, at the very least, carry his own state. Edwards couldn't to that as Kerry's VP candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:33 PM

Well, the Mc/Mc/Mc Attack Machine has been doing it's best to define Obama as this stuck up elistist who is incapable of taking up for the "little guy"... This is an area where Obama should be the strongest seein' as he spent alot of time as a community organizer in South Chicago...

What is happening is that his adversaries have taken a page oput of Karl Rove's play book and are attacking Obama's strenght... Once it bcomes Obama v. Mc rather that Obams v. McCain/McClinton/McMedia it will be a fairer fight plus by then Obama will have a lot more folks working for his election...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:52 PM

Don't know if many of you spend much time on the political blog sites but for the past week or so there have been a substantial number of bloggers suggesting that Hillary run as an independent.
The Democratic party has certainly given her enough reason to do so and yesterday's turn of event is probably all the excuse she needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:58 PM

Interesting suggestion Jim, but highly unlikely. She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office, as well as her up to this point. Lots and lots of people wanted Kucinich to run as an independent, or for the Green Party, but even he said, I am a Democrat, and I'm not leaving. I think certain others could do it, but not Clinton

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:03 PM

Fantasma, your analysis of the Democratic Party's overall strategy right now is fascinating! And I think you are probably dead right. They would like, if at all possible, to start mending fences now between Hillary's supporters and Obama's supporters, and they are attempting to orchestrate that fine-tuned strategy you allude to. This has escaped the attention of people here who are caught up in and distracted by the ongoing media drama of "Bad Girl Hillary...Good Guy Obama"...as if the Democratic Party Machine gave a hoot about bad or good anything as long as they get themselves elected in November! (with either Hillary or Obama as the candidate).

"It is the end game, but it is a very delicate--and volatile-- situation. The Democrats know they need the Clinton vote to win in November."

Exactly. Now the question is, how do they get it? How do they undo the tremendous damage and rancour and bad feelings that have been stirred up throughout the length of this campaign and get Hillary's people to back Obama in November?

That's a very tricky prospect, and it will require some very careful maneuvering and full cooperation from the Clintons to pull it off.

It's like watching a really bad soap opera approach the conclusion of the final season's finale. ;-) Tacky, tacky, tacky...but, oh! The emotional tension! The viewers just can't tear themselves away.

*****

Ron, you said:

McCain has 3 problems, any of which can cost him the election.

1) Sour mood of the country--voting pocketbooks means throw Mr. Bush's party out. Democrats are ostensibly in charge in Congress. Yet look at the most recent special elections. They're tossing Republicans out---in Republican districts.

2) He's tied to GWB--instant revulsion.

3) He has to reach beyond his base--but he can't. Every time he does, his base threatens to desert.

a)   illegal immigration
b) climate change
c) meaningful health-care reform


Yes, Ron...but you forgot the 4rth problem McCain has...

The biggest one of all...

The one that will most certainly doom him at the polls...

The final kiss of death to any slender chance he might EVER have had of being elected president...










He does not have the support of Ron Davies! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:06 PM

"She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office,"
You're joking!
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:24 PM

No, dead serious. When I said that I wasn't referencing Lewinsky, or any of that. I honestly and firmly believe she could not ever abandon the Democratic Party. I can't even think of elaborating more, because I just think it is not even remotely plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 May 08 - 02:42 PM

I'm with IrishEnglish, for more than one reason.

First, as he says, the Democratic Party is her political home, and has been very good to her and Bill. That's where her base is.

Further, note that if she couldn't get the best of the naysayers and Hillary-haters with the aid of a good section of the Democratic Party, how could she ever hope to be elected (even if nominated by some fringe party) WITHOUT that base? No way!

I think the first of those is the more compelling, but when buttressed by the second it's a no-brainer.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:45 PM

One of the most primitive and powerful tools known to man is the wedge.
Based on the support that she now has and how she rates in the national polls... she would probably win.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:57 PM

I think the chance of her choosing to bail on the Democratic party and run as an Indy is about as high as the chance she will be offered the VP slot. Somewhere between zero and none.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 04:12 PM

"He does not have the support of Ron Davies! ;-)"


               Yeah, that'll do it for sure!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 04:15 PM

"'She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office,'"




                      She could always pull a Ronald Raygun, and say, 'I didn't abandon the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party abandoned me."


                           Of course, he was just lying, like he was prone to do, but in her case, she'd be right.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 08 - 07:44 PM

Well, ont thing is for sure and that is when Fantz gets off the high horse and just allows herself to be objective, she makes sense...

I can't find fault with anything she said... Yes, Obama has his work cut out for him and it is MO it will be alot easier when he's only fighting John McCain and McCain's 527's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 07:59 PM

I think I've finally figured out this Edwards thing. Of course he's had a long time to work on it, so I'm just trying to catch up. But here it is:

               Edwards really wants to run for president in 2012. Knowing that Obama is unelectable in 2008, and John McCain will probably be a one term president, he had to do whatever he could to know Hillary out of the race.
               She, of course, is electable in 2008, and would almost certainly run for a second term.

               So it's just another case of a slick attorney/politician looking out for his own best interests. I really hope it backfires on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:58 PM

Jim Ladd is simply indulging in some fantasizing of what he'd like to see happen. No, Clinton would never abandon the Democratic Party, even if the Democrats reject her as their nominee. But that what BS threads are for, to indulge one's fantasy.

Now if he were willing to place a bet on his fantasy, I'd match him two to one!

Put up or shut up!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:26 PM

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hillary unknowingly brought the endorsement of Obama by Edwards on herself.

Lots of people were pretty repulsed by her remark about hard workers, white workers, not being attracted by Obama.

It struck quite a few readers as racist. John Edwards is sure as hell no racist. And he may well have said to himself: "That's it for me". So when Obama called soon afterwards, he was receptive.

This theory is at least as plausible as Janet's wonderful conspiracy theory about terrible treachery by a group of women stabbing another woman in the back. Though hers does of course have the advantage of far more drama, always a plus when outrage is your goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:27 AM

According to Edwards, he chose to endorse Obama because of the 41% loss to Hillary. Thought he could use a boost.
Now let me see.... 7% + 26% = 33%
Hillary had 67%.
Bugger! She got more than double their votes.
That'll teach her.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:20 AM

And why do you think Edwards thought Obama could use a boost? That idea does not negate my theory--that Edwards wanted to make as sure as possible that the Democratic party was not identified with what he perceived as a racist appeal.

You, Jim, appear to have no problem with such an appeal. Or perhaps you want to enlighten us as to your real reason for opposing Obama from the start--which was long before the "bitter" remark--so don't please bother trying to use that as an excuse.

Though you're certainly welcome to claim abysmal ignorance, which is also a plausible reason--actually probably more likely--and certainly well supported by your postings on Obama. And Hillary, of course--anybody who suggests that Hillary even entertained the notion of leaving the Democratic party shows shall we say, a less than total grasp of US politics.

Too bad she lost her best chance for setting herself up for 2012 or 2016, which, as I noted, would have been a gallant concession speech throwing her support to Obama--right after her WV win. She can try the same thing after her coming win in KY--but she'll have to share the spotlight with Obama's win in OR. Not the same impact.

Awaiting your next fascinating observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:22 AM

As for polls???

Polls this far out from ***this*** election have proven to be meaningless... The have jumped 10 points with just about any "breaking news", which in most cases haven't been "news" at all but "new spin" on old stories... That, my friendsm is not news... Jeremiah Wright was not "news"... It was "olds" yet it was paraded out as news and Obama took the "usual" 10 point drop in the polls and 2 weeks later, inspite of the Obama bashers, Rev. Wright was nothing more than last years birds nest...

As for John Edwards looking at 2012???

That ain't gonna happen... He is percieved as a loser... It's sad but it's true 'cause I like the guy... There won't be any more Richard Nixons in American politics because the American people are so "tribalized" into "brands" and once you get a negative "brand" you are stuck with it... That's a sad commentary on our collective ability to get beyond the way we process information...

As for Obama being un-electable???

That seems to be the the PR that the McCain/McClinton/McMedia folks have been trying to get to stick to the wall but here's a guy who is about to secure the nomination having beaten "The Clintons"... That, in itself, should let any thinking person see thru the PR...

As for John McCain being electable???

Not likely... Iraq, Iraq, Iraq for starters... Then high oil prices, a faltering economy, inflation, deficits, etc... Throw in the *fact* that Chairman Dean has reorganized the local precincts with a "50 state" strategy, the *fact* that Dems have been winning interim elstions for the House and winning local elctions in places where they didn't use to have a chance and the "fact* the Dems are rasing big money, it is hard to see how McCain can win...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:56 AM

"Too bad she lost her best chance for setting herself up for 2012..."


                   Ron - It looks like you're beginning to realize that Obama is unelectable as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:40 PM

Stop with the insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:25 PM

He has stated publically today that he's not up for it (Veep), but he really thinks Barack should be the next President.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:31 PM

It looks like my theory is coming to fruition.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:40 PM

Rasmussen Reports poll "reveals 29 percent of Democrats say she should run an independent campaign for the White House, with 61 percent opposing the idea" and Clinton supporters were "evenly split about the notion."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:45 PM

Well, whatever happens, it seems to me that the only way out of the mess the country is in now is for a viable third party to rise up and reshape politics as we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 08 - 02:00 PM

But only a Ross Perot or a Ron Paul will START a 3rd party, and all they can do is ensure the defeat of their closest rivals.
Unless the rules about how seats in legislatures are allocated are changed, 3rd parties have no leverage.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 08 - 04:25 PM

I understand the difficulties faced by 3rd parties, but I don't see any options.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:09 PM

Ron, Jim Ld is a Brit. Just another guy who doesn't have a horse in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:16 PM

Insert "a".

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 May 08 - 08:47 PM

"Ron, Jim Ld is a Brit."
Never was.
Never will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:11 PM

Canuck?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:53 PM

So sorry, Jim, that you don't like it pointed out that you have been rabidly anti-Obama right from the start--for no discernible reason. And that the only constant for your comments on US politics seems to be that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I assure you that if I commented on Canadian politics, I would not take quite the snide if not bigoted attitude which seems to be your hallmark. And I might even do a bit of research first.

And you're not even a US voter--Canadian, I think,--so your coarse anti-Obama attitude is even more mystifying. Some Canadians, Peace, for instance, have been much more reasonable--and knowledgeable.

Hillary has given those of us who oppose her more than ample reason--starting with refusing for years to admit she was wrong to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. And lots of other reasons since--which you could find out if you were willing to do a bit of reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:02 AM

Ah, I see the Mudcat Pit Bulls for Obama are hard at work, with cheap shot ad hominem attacks, per their usual game.

Yawn.

I don't know who now was mentioning Edwards' future political ambitions, but I fully expect to see him on the national or international stage in the Obama administration, after that cynically timed "endorsement" for the nightly news.

I kind of doubt he will be satisfied with Attorney General, however. I think he wants something bigger than that, possibly State. Maybe UN ambassador. He needs some international policy experience before his next run for president.

Clinton can easily make a comeback too. She won't come out of this looking bad at all, because she has made a great showing with the popular vote. However, expect to see her surrogates pushing for a revamping of the national party rules because of the Florida/Michigan debacle.

The Clintons aren't the only Machiavellians in the Democratic party by a long shot.

Clinton will go back to the Senate, I predict, and will not accept or entertain any offers of a position in the Obama administration.

It looks to me as though Obama will be the next president, but he is going to limp into office wounded on a lot of fronts, with his entire administration beholden to the corporate jackals who backed him.

Quite brilliant, those corporate jackals. They backed the candidate that was easiest to buy, that allowed them to racially polarize and divide the electorate in a way that insured their horse would win.

The Carnegie model plays itself out over and over and over and over...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:32 AM

About that sedative, Janet. Keep looking--just for your own sanity.

Obama is beholden to no one. Aside from your usual broad-brush attacks on the US political system--and now, of course, on Obama, since he has the highest profile--do you have any actual proof Obama is beholden to any corporate sponsors? Getting money from officers in a corporation proves nothing, by the way. Let's have specific examples of favors Obama has done in return for contributions. With specific names, sources, and dates.


But don't worry, since it's a free country, even if you have a bit of a problem coming up with any actual evidence, you're welcome to keep flapping your jaw.   Maybe it's the only exercise you get, who knows?

And as I've said before, your manufactured outrage is always-- at least fitfully-- amusing. Though sometimes your apoplectic spluttering does remind at least some readers of a broken record.

By the way, I wonder why neither you, nor any other Obama opponent, have not even begun to address any of the reasons I listed as to why McCain has serious problems.   Surely with your towering intellect you can come up with some answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:36 AM

"Obama is beholden to no one."

Ohmigodohmigodohmigod!

I am really ROTFLMAO with that one!

Good one Ron!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 08 - 11:52 AM

Janet--

About that actual evidence?

But at least you're getting some exercise rolling around on the floor. Watch out for splinters.

We're all waiting patiently for the proof I'm sure you have.

And in your spare time, you can also perhaps tell us why my list of McCain's problems is inaccurate.

Or just keep running off at the mouth. At least we know you can do that. Even if it's the only thing that's been established so far.

And recently you've managed to keep foul language out of your posts. Congratulations. Maybe you're not completely bankrupt of ideas after all.

One other question, As I recall you'd said you were going to ignore me. What happened with that laudable idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Dear Ron "Pit Bull" Davies,

Please hold your breath while waiting for me to reply to your "demands" of "proof".

Yours,

F

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:10 PM

Janet--

As I thought--no proof. Situation normal.

But keep posting-- at least your outrage is still entertaining--once in a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:11 PM

Enjoy your soliloquy, Janet. I have work to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:12 PM

Na! Na! Na! Na! Na!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:20 PM

Last wordism runs amok once more.

Monsieur Pit Bull, I can't tell you how much we all enjoy your "I know you are but what am I"? taunts.

Always elevates the civic dialogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: pdq
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:26 PM

Ronnie Rude says: " I have work to do"

Yep, kicking his dog and pulling the wings off flies. Odd that he calls that 'work'.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:49 PM

Ad hominem, ad hominem
How brightly glares unreason!
Ad hominem, ad hominem,
Perfume of hate, in season.
When other viewpoints bring you shame
Fall back on calling people names!
Ad hominem, ad hominem,
The spittle of unreason!

De da de dum, de da de dum,
De da de dum dum dum dum....



A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:51 PM

The actual evidence is likely to come after the Rezko jury makes its decision.
You really should be following this story.
If Rezko is convicted, the state of Illinois will be attacking corruption on several fronts. Once they prove that he is an influence peddler, the door to charging those who have accepted bribes is wide open.
If not then they will be going after corruption from other angles.
The jury is out right now.
Fact is.. the state of Illinois is on a mission and will not allow political interference from any level.
You should be following this. It's what has kept Hillary going and prevented many super delegates from choosing Obama.

I was born in Scotland.
I am Scottish.
Always will be.


Now, can we please stop the stupid name calling and personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:23 PM

Jim - I'd kind of forgotten about Rezko, but that's a good point. That could also be why Edwards and Obama waited to run their scam to stab Hillary in the back at just the right time. Obama thought it was helping him, but Edwards still might be on track to pull this whole thing out for himself. He might not want to wait until 2012.

                If, in the end, Obama is linked to organized crime, Hillary could end up looking like the greatest American hero since Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:33 PM

I don't think Rezko will kill Obama's chances, and find it unlikely they will fit into the Rove attack scenario at all.

At least, not going by what Rove was foaming at the mouth about to the NRA on Friday.

It was all about the elitism quote from San Francisco, and well, guns and buddies.

Not guns and religion. Guns and buddies.

Like shooting one's buddy in the face while engaging in the great American bloodsport pasttime.

No, what will kill Obama is the same thing that kills all the Democratic nominees. They represent Nobody in the Democratic Party.

Here is the thing. Getting Anybody But Bush or Nobody elected has proved very difficult for the Dems.

I too want Anybody But Bush, but don't want the Republican Lite version of Bush to win that scenario, because the Dumb Ass Dems for Themselves & Their Elitist Navels can't pick a winner to save their fucking lives.

Enter King Obama.

We'll see. But I know one thing for sure. If you were for Anybody But Bush this year, you may well be shaking your head at the latest version of Dukakis gaining the nomination over Clinton. At least Clinton was a guaranteed winner in the general. Obama? Weeeeelllll...ain't he a Muslim foreigner?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:41 PM

Yes, Fantasma, I think you are right about all of that. Even if the Resko thing became a really big deal, it wouldn't catch the voter's attention as much as the other items you mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:44 PM

The point about being "beholden" isn't whether particular people or interests have given some kind of help, but whether that means they have some control as a result, over and above merely hoping that the person helped will feel some sense of obligation or gratitude.

Its a bit analogous to the situation of a voter being provided with a lift to the polling station by a [party activist. I suppose there are some people who would feel an obligation to vote the way the people providing the lift wanted them to vote. I'd just take the most comfortable ride, and then vote the way I felt like voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 01:46 PM

Pew Research just recently polled independents, who haven't been paying much attention, if any, to the Democratic primaries.

They know McCain, and like him a lot.

They don't know Obama from Adam, except for the Rev. Wright, and that is a foreign born Muslim.

That they are pretty sure about.

Obama keeps kicking the Hillary Dems in the teeth, thereby insuring only a handful of them will work for him in the general, and the indies don't like what they've seen of him so far. He is too good to descend upon the unwashed masses of West Virginia and Kentucky.

So it looks like a McCain victory isn't exactly out of the question.

Talk about lesser of two evil strategies blowing up in the Democrats' faces AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 02:52 PM

ANyone who "doesn't know Obama from Adam" is too asleep to vote.

Next?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:17 PM

William Ayers

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:29 PM

Amos, you are talking out your asshole.

When Pew Research refers to Obama as an unknown, they mean indie voters and Republicans don't know his biography or if you prefer, his "story".

Of course they recognize his face and name. But beyond that, the Pew Research showed, the main associations indies can make with him are Rev Wright, and their belief he is a foreign born man of the Muslim faith.

Oh yeah, I forgot. There is one other thing that indies, Repubs & Dems associate w/Obama. The guns and god quote Rove was using against him in front of the NRA yesterday. According to Pew Research:

"In terms of public awareness, the controversy surrounding Obama's statement has become one of the biggest political events of the campaign so far. More than half of the public (52%) says they heard a lot about Obama's statement. By comparison, 54% heard about Obama's March speech on race and politics, and 51% heard a lot about the videos of Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 06:18 PM

I am not talking out of any such thing. You are simply annoyed because you used one of those extremely absolutist phrases to exaggerate with, and it simply isn't the case, as you point out plainly in your next post. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't know his position or his biography can find it with fifteen minutes worth of search time at the nearest library or internet cafŽ. This is a case, i would suggest, where ignorance is not an excuse, but a choice.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 May 08 - 07:09 PM

I wonder if these indies think that Rev Wright is a Moslem too as well.

I'd rather assumed that one crumb of comfort Obama could draw from the Wright business was that it would mess up the efforts to make people think he was a Moslem.

Would "indies" in this context mean people who have voted in the past, or who are set on voting this time but who are apolitical in a party sense? Or would it be people who never have voted and aren't likely to?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 07:17 PM

It refers to roughly 1/3 of the US electorate, and yes, they vote as regularly as Democrats and Republicans.

Don't confuse apolitical with non-partisan.

Independent voters are non-partisan because they choose not to affiliate with a party, be it Democratic, Republican, the Constitution Party, or the Natural Law Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 May 08 - 07:42 PM

But 40 to 50 per cent of the US electorate don't vote do they?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 07:54 PM

That is correct. So when polling is done, they use the term "likely voters".

But that doesn't change the percentage between the parties and independents much, if at all.

However, I read the Obama campaign has gotten behind some 'New Math' in order to declare victory this Tuesday, no less--in Iowa. Seriously.

""Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded," wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Wednesday in a memo to superdelegates."

So, now the Obama Math is all about Most Legitimate Metric.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:23 PM

There has been a major PR campaign by McCain and McClinton to ***frame*** Obama as someone who folks don't know anything about...

Anyone parroting this crap needs a refrsehr course in ***independent thinking*** because they are regurgitating PR pablum like a baby in a high chair...

"But we know McCain, don't we Ralph??? He was a war hero, wasn't he???"

Well, who here wants to tell me what it was that made John McCain a war "hero"???

Who here wants to tell me when he started messin' 'round with his current wife and when he was divorced from the last one???

Hey, it's okay to say "Well, Ralph, we don't know anything about this Obama feller" but not okay to ask about McCaion's past and who he is???

Only the most ignorant people fall for this PR crap... Which doesn't speak well to those who *******parrot****** it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:25 PM

It's not Obama Math, wiseacre.

It's the process defined by the Party elders.

The delegates who come to the DNC are selected apportioned against the districts and the popular votes within those districts, and they are generally expected to reflect those preferences at the DNC. There are some circumstances where they might not do so, but they would have to be extreme.

Whatever are you smoking?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:35 PM

I don't smoke, Amos.

Obama is all set to declare victory this Tuesday, yet the math be not with him.

Neither he nor Clinton will have amassed the magic number of pledged and super delegates to declare victory, and he cannot say he has won the popular vote, so long as the party hasn't finished the reconciliation of Florida and Michigan.

So, voila! Obama Math reveals the incredible, the unstoppable, the unfathomable Most Legitimate Metric in the whole wide world!

Party elders rules?

Me not think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:51 PM

Or were you smoking something that made you conveniently forget for the purposes of this thread, that the Dem Party Rules and Bylaws Committee won't meet to decide the fate of those votes until May 31?

Just a trifling technicality I know, but shouldn't the Obama camp like wait until all the votes are counted or something before declaring victory by arbitrary mainstream media fiat?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:21 PM

The only people who are claiming he is "all set to declare victory on Tuesday" without the necessary delegate count are some parts the mainstream media and the tinfoil brigade. Not exactly robust sources, as we both know This is not an assertion he has made. So what are you beating on the gong about?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 May 08 - 03:37 AM

"54% heard about Obama's March speech on race...."
Ah yes. The famous speech. That's the one where Obama chastised the whole country for misinterpreting Rev Wrights speech and being a bunch of bigots.
He even flung his granny off the train to make his point.
Then it turned out that everyone else was right and he was wrong.
Boy!
Didn't see that coming.
So he flung Wright off the train...
Don't think Obama wants to be remembered for his speech somehow.

Rig: Remember, John Edwards "Suspended" his bid for the presidency.

If Obama cannot find a way to make the numbers work for him by May 31st, he will probably declare his running mate.
Then, some time after September, when he is indicted, the running mate will take his place and Hillary is still on the outside looking in.
The Democrats are so finished with her.
Brings me right back to... Hillary will run as an independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:19 AM

From May 9th online issue of the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Obama, who is already developing his campaign against the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, gave every indication that May 20 would prove a red letter day after nearly 16 months of campaigning.

"I think we [could] make a pretty strong claim that we have got the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we have won," he told NBC television, referring to the final phase of a baseball game.

"But, you know, I think it is also important for us to, if we win, do so in a way that brings the party together."

Privately Mr Obama's campaign staff insisted that some kind of declaration will be made on May 20, when 103 delegates are up for grabs.

By then, they fully expect him to have 1,627 pledged delegates – 51 per cent of those available.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:27 AM

Jim Lad - All of that comes under the heading of "masterful plot development," and I'd love to see it work out that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:57 AM

Jim Lad---

You're nothing if not stubborn--and ill-informed.

Would you care to take a small wager that Hillary--as she says herself over and over--will support the Democratic candidate in the fall--and not run as an independent?

And it's obvious why she will not run as an independent--she still thinks she can run in 2012 or 2016 as a Democrat. And in fact if she had bowed out gracefully and gallantly--throwing her support to Obama-- any number of times she had the chance to end on an up-note--most recently after her WV victory--she could have run in 2012 or 2016 ---and possibly won. But she's now blown her last chance. Even if she concedes after winning in KY this Tuesday, there is enough exasperation with her in the Democratic party that her presidential ambitions are dead for good.

But she doesn't realize this.

And, as I say, she has promised over and over to work her heart out for the Democratic candidate this fall. And that will be Obama.

I don't want to bankrupt you, so, how about a nickel--five cents? Hillary will not run as an independent. That's just your pipe-dream--who knows why. My guess is that it's because you just refuse to admit you're all wet--again. As I recall your first prediction was that it would be Hillary vs Romney. And Romney would win.

What a track record.

I'm sure I couldn't do any better in predicting Canadian politics. But at least I have sense enough not to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:22 AM

Actually I think Hillary has no chance to run in 2012. Obama will have two terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:24 AM

Yes Ron, I think you might have a drug problem. Or maybe there is something in that koolaid you're drinking you aren't aware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:36 AM

Janet--

How about some facts and logic to contradict mine? Still having a problem with that?

The "Kool-Aid" metaphor is a bit tired. Don't you have a bit more imagination? I wonder if you'll still be using it at Obama's inauguration in January.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:46 AM

And one more thing. Quite a few independents--and some Democrats--don't know Obama very well--witness the absurd number of supposedly educated people who still think he is a Moslem.

That's something he'll have to address, obviously. No reasonable observer of the political scene would deny this. But it's easily done. He's got plenty of time. And he'll do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:48 AM

First of all, folks, Hillary, like it or not, is one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country and she isn't abiout to throw that away... Especially in a year where the Democratic Party is poised to put a good size whup on the rival fraternity...

She has everything to gain politically here by being perceived as a team player in being very supportive of an Obama campaign... One rap on the Clintons that perhaps has been their undoing this year is that they paly hardball and if she can muster up some "grace" then maybe it in itself can chip away at her negatives...

This should be a no-brainer for her and Bill... And they have had time to figure it out so Bill's temper won't override common sense this time... Well, that at least is the "conventional wisdom"...

My own feeling is that having gione thru this campaign and lost is that the Clinton's will see that they really have it purdy good with her being a Senator from a big state and him being able to free-wheel... Yes, I am sure they are disappointed and somewhat embarrassed but they, IMO, will look back at this loss as a blessing...

As for Edwards??? He did what he had to do... And none too soon... He probably has salvaged an opportunity to sevre in an Obama cabinet where I think he can be an effective Attorney General and restore some level of sanity to Justice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:03 AM

Edwards has said for years he isn't interested in the AG spot. He wants a Cabinet post or some special czar status--highest levels only.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:04 AM

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:19 AM

And Bobert, your sexism is showing again. Hillary Clinton isn't just "one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country".

She is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Democratic Party in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:24 AM

Janet--

Uh, just how is that different from what Bobert just said?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:41 AM

Maybe the drugs have effected your reading ability, Ron? Or do you just need remedial help in understanding context?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:51 AM

What, Hillary isn't a woman??? Well, well, well??? News to me...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:59 AM

Not to worry Bobert, you and Ron have clearly been demonstrating your neanderthal credentials in the gender arena for quite some time now--long before Clinton got into the race, even.

So we don't exactly expect you to "get it".

hehehehe

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:24 AM

Janet--

You are amazingly touchy this morning. Didn't get any sleep last night tossing and turning about Hillary?

Why is Hillary not "one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country"? If Bobert and I are sexist for endorsing that phrasing, please explain, from your position as a superior authority on sexism, exactly why.

If you don't, it will be obvious to all--not just us--that you are blowing smoke---again.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Dear Ron Davies,

Yer fuuuunnnnneeeee when yer head explodes like that.

XOXOXO,

F

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:00 PM

Ah, yes, one more thing, Janet. It's " 'affected' your reading ability", not "effected". You might want to consult a dictionary more often. Or at least proofread.

Don't thank me; I'm happy to help you.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:03 PM

And as I thought, you're blowing smoke again. It's fairly obvious that you are the only woman on Mudcat who would ever object to Bobert's phrasing regarding Hillary's position in the Democratic party. Now I wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:35 PM

"All identities are different. All similarities are identical. All differences are actually similarities."

Semantically it looks like F and B said pretty much the same hting to me. What part of Wonderland is this now, may I ask?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:54 PM

"Quite a few independents--and some Democrats--don't know Obama very well--witness the absurd number of supposedly educated people who still think he is a Moslem."


                      Ron - As you know I'm not an Obama fan, but the people who have described Obama as a Muslim to me might have a high school education at best. Most do not. The do vote though, and that's where I think you will see results like we witnessed in West Virginia.
                      If you don't think this is a positive deveopment, that's one place where we agree. The solution, I would suggest, is vastly improved education. I don't think we will get that from McCain. I don't think we will get that from Obama either.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:37 AM

Um, Bobert, Ron and Amos, I agree with Fantastic. Women, imo, see a vital difference between saying 'she is the most powerful woman in the party' or saying 'she is the most powerful person in the party'. In the first phrasing, one is saying that there are others - meaning men - in the party that are more powerful.

Ver stehen sie?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:25 AM

Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim.
He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them.
He's stuck with it.
Not his fault.


Or mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:38 AM

Okay, I'll admit to being "neanderthal" when it comes to the womenz... I was brought up in a family where "we said grace and we said mam and if ya' ain't into that then...." Nevermind...

But accusing by good buds Amos and Ron of being neandertahal gets my dander up...

Hey, ain't the womenz in Congress have this little get together... You know, like a caucus 'er somethin' where they get together and discuss policies and "knit and quilt" (joke)... So to me the womenz see that there is a difference... Heck, if they wanted to not be seen as womenz then why do they put on makeup and wear purdy dresses??? Huh???

You don't see men Congress people waerin' makeup... Okay, maybe some do buit that's in the privacy of their own homes...

That's my point... Womenz want us to say stuff like "nice dress" and "oh, I like yer hair that way" on one hand but then when we make a distiction that a senator is a "womemz Senator" we gotta get the ***blast*** and have to write stupid stuff on the chalkboard a hunert times....

Sheeeesshhhh, ya all...

"Woman Senator, Woman Senator, Woman Senator!!!"

Sorry, I gotta go to work now... You all have all day to put the blast on me but, hey, I earned it...

But leave poor ol' Ron and Amos outta it... It was all me idea and they din't have nuthin' to do wuith it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:03 AM

"Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim. He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them."



                     I didn't know that!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:13 AM

His father is Muslim, but he was not raised by his father. His mother apparently is secular? Not sure, but I think that's what I heard. Obama, like many American adults, had the freedom to choose religion as an adult.

As it should be.

But then, I don't care about religion, except where it is linked to fanatacism, including and especially evangelism and proselytizing of any kind.

You want religion? Fine. But keep it to yourself.

That is my take on it, but clearly the easily manipulated American voters see it very differently.

I'm waiting for the day we elect our first secular president. Now THAT would show a sea change in politics. But a black guy and a white woman both acting like all the WASP politicians in history doesn't seem like change to me one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:12 AM

Well, Fantasma, when Obama was choosing his religion as an adult, it looks to me like he made a pretty poor choice. If those are the kinds of choices he would make as president, the whole thing gets kind of scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:19 PM

Women can be wasps too. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Any human being can be neurotic on one or another issue, and when they are, everything about the issue gets blown into gargantuan scales of importance and meaning that they do not actually have int he broader perspective. The present snaffle over phrasing is a classic case in point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:10 PM

Hey, Amos, yaluv, women(z) had a struggle to get to this day. 'Phrasing' was an important part of the struggle. Men, by and large, still don't quite understand that.

It's kind of like a White person trying to understand a Black person's view. With all the good will in the world, I still know that I will never truly grasp the Black person's struggle in a White world from childhood on. Slurs, offhand remarks, outright and blatant biases and putdowns, seeing one's child have to undergo those kinds of thoughtless but infurating things (like hearing 'No offense intended'. Ha!) while one is sensitized to it, perhaps overly so, and thus seeing malice where there is none - it's going to take a L O N G time before we can all relax. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:08 PM

Well, I've lived with black folks and I've lived with womenz folks and will say that I feel I understand black men alot more than I understand womenz... Now I know ya'll try to be, ahhhhhh, normal but as much as I loves each an' every one of ya'll, you womenz is nuts...

(You can't say that, Boberdz...)

You gotta a better word fir 'um than spit it out...

That's my story an....

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:19 PM

From my point of view, Bobert, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Men and women are very different (duh?) and as long as their strongest and most intimate desires are aimed at each other they will never understand each other (I think women understand men better than the reverse but that may be my 'womanhood' speaking *g*).

The people to whom those desires are not aimed are uncluttered and non-threatening and therefore more easily understood.

(So there. I am not nuts! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:28 PM

Sorry Bobert, but your phony down home persona playing doesn't cut it with me.

I think you are sexist jerk, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:32 PM

Well, I think Hillary is the most influential woman in the Democratic party. I do not agree she is the most influential person in the party.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:57 PM

"Edwards has said for years he isn't interested in the AG spot. He wants a Cabinet post..."

Attorney General IS a Cabinet post, and generally considered one of the three or four most desirable or "highest ranking" among all such appointments ~ if not the very first.

It has often been reserved for the President's closest personal ally, because when worse comes to worst, nothing is more important to the Prez and/or his policies than skilled legal representation at the very top of the Justice Department.

Bobby Kennedy as his older brother's AG is the most obvious example. I believe that several recent Presidents have installed their campaign managers as Attorney General.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:01 PM

Eb,

I know **you** are not nuts... It's just the rest of the womenz that is...

Especially Fantz... Her wiring is so screwed up that it is most likely beyond fixing... Okay, may an entire new wiring harness but no splices here and there...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:17 PM

You don't become a Muslim by virtue of the fact that because one or both of your parents are Muslim, any more than you become a Christian by virtue of the fact that one or both of your parents are Christian. It's not a matter of genetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:19 PM

Good point, McG... Faith is a personal thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:34 PM

Janet--


It's amazing how dealing with you reminds me of the "Music Man"

Are you sure you're not from Meredith Willson's 1912 Iowa? "There's an Iowa type, a special chip-on-the-shoulder attitude we've never been without--that we recall".

So it appears that Bobert--and by extension, Amos and I--were wrong in not designating Hillary one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party, not just one of the most powerful women in the party.

This has been explained to us calmly--and with humor!--by Ebbie.

But it's a measure of your hypersensitivity that Bobert's misstatement--and our defense of it----was immediately jumped on as a deliberate sexist slur.

Obviously in your world there's no such thing as an honest mistake on this topic. We're all brought to the guillotine before trial--and I get the impression that Madame Defarge is type-casting for you.

As I've said before, your dial is always set on "outrage".

Whereas a reasonable woman like Ebbie can easily and benevolently set us straight.

All your attitude does is give us great incentive to pull your chain--not that we'd ever stoop to such a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:12 PM

"The Music Man" Ron?

                Here's a man named Obama
                Whose name starts with "O"
                Which rhymes with Ho'
                Which stands for...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: balladeer
Date: 20 May 08 - 12:13 AM

Fascinating reading.
As a British-born Canadian and life-long student of US politics, I really appreciate the skill with language, breadth of knowledge, and acute political insight so many of you bring to this topic. I know I'm an outsider to your political process, but I do tons of research. For entertainment, I watch Wolf Blitzer daily (love Jack Cafferty) and to have any kind of voice, I maintain an episodic blog at MyBarackObama.com I think all of that qualifies me to have an opinion, which today is that Barack and John Edwards looked very good together on that stage - all kinds of young charismatic energy and enthusiasm - and pretty much intellectual equals. I'm glad the race issue has shown itself in the public debate so early, and I'm hoping John Edwards' presence in the campaign will help reassure the fearful that Barack is not a monster.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 20 May 08 - 02:23 AM

"Well, Fantasma, when Obama was choosing his religion as an adult, it looks to me like he made a pretty poor choice. If those are the kinds of choices he would make as president, the whole thing gets kind of scary."

Could have said it better myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 08 - 06:05 PM

"There is a vital difference between saying 'she is the most powerful woman in the party' or saying 'she is the most powerful person in the party'. In the first phrasing, one is saying that there are others - meaning men - in the party that are more powerful.

I wouldn't question the distinction being made there. But at this time it seems as if the truth is that while Hillary Clinton probably is indeed "the most powerful woman in the party", she is not "the most powerful person in the party'. Barack Obama has a better claim to that title, for the time being at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: balladeer
Date: 20 May 08 - 07:02 PM

I don't believe Fantasma or Ebbie meant to suggest Sen. Clinton is the most powerful Democrat, but rather one of the most powerful Democrats. The point is, power is power and strength is strength, and it seems to weaken those qualities if you attach the word "woman" to them, like saying, "She's a pretty good (fill in the blank) for a woman."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:43 PM

Thank you, Jim, for your input. Be sure to vote at your local polling place for the person you feel is best qualified to be US president.   The quality of Rig's judgment is also well established.

Re: Hillary's position in the Democratic party: I don't think anybody alleged that she was the most powerful person in the party. But it's certainly true she is--at this point--it may well change soon--one of the most powerful people--not just powerful women-- in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:07 PM

"The quality of Rig's judgment is also well established."


                  As beyond reproach!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Not exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:22 PM

Actually it's very similar to the peace of God--it passeth all understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:23 PM

Rig is at least American and has a stake in this. Misinformed or not. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:40 AM

So, discussions about the Democratic primaries are now restricted to Americans unless, like Bruce and some others, you happen to favour Obama.
More rule changes to benefit your Messiah.
Boy!
Didn't see that one coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:54 AM

Messiah, my left foot. You seem to understand scarcely any part of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:43 AM

That's Obama talk for "You seem to disagree with me" but milder than most.
Going through the various blog sites, there seems to be the never ending cycle of Clinton & McCain supporters as well as some undecideds & independents, warning the Obama supporters that they are being conned while the Obama supporters hurl back insults and call their "Rivals" names.
Not much substance to their arguments at all only the willingness to trample on the rights of others as a means to an end.
The exact opposite of what the man preaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:53 AM

More than a bit of xenophobia showing, Ms Ebbie.

Tsk tsk.

I think the Pit Bulls for Obama are very, very insecure human beings, who feel the need to attack anyone who dares criticize their preferred candidate because their egos are so tied into the choices they make.

Those who are the absolute worst Pit Bulls for Obama see their candidate simply as an extension of themselves, of their own ego, hence the bizarre need to "defend" Obama, even though he has already bagged the nomination.

It isn't normal behavior. The vast majority of people would never go to these lengths to "defend" a politician of any stripe, even if they think well of that politician. In 3D life, one might get fed up with someone repeatedly trashing a politician they admire, and speak up and defend that politician. But the dynamics of these forums are different.

If the Pit Bull faction here wasn't in attack mode, then they couldn't keep playing their game, over and over and over in all these political threads that have the same dynamic (drive the dissenters out of our "thread territory") unfolding day after day.

Because it appears most of them either spend a lot of time here at work or don't have jobs, they apparently don't have a whole lot else going on.

"The exact opposite of what the man preaches."

Not only is that one of the many ironies of all this, but it speaks volumes to me of what types of people Obama is attracting. Dividers, not uniters.

If Obama was the real deal, that wouldn't be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:04 AM

Nasty, Jim Lad.

Specifically, whose rights have you seen trampled here at Mudcat?

You have been repatedly called out, as has Fantasma, for speaking from spite and hate instead of facts and issues.

Your tone of condescending sarcasm, your insistence on conflating things that don't conflate, and speaking in dire or condemning generalizations -- these are the things you get called for.

If you have specific issues with Obama, I'd be glad to hear and discuss them. But put your slime gun away, first.

And if you cannot speak to facts and issues, then I think it would be reasonable for you not to tangle in threads which are meant for that purpose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:44 AM

Good Lord, Amos!
Look at what you just wrote.
You start with...... "Specifically, whose rights have you seen trampled here at Mudcat?"
Then follow it up with a string of insults.
But here is your most astounding statement.... "If you have specific issues with Obama, I'd be glad to hear and discuss them."

We've been throwing facts at you for months and met with nothing but insults, to the point that most have given up and gone away.
You remain blind to the facts.

The people of Michigan and Florida have already voted.
There is no way to not count those votes as cast without trampling on peoples rights.
Counting them in a way to ensure that your candidate wins is not any kind of a democratic solution.
You are trampling on peoples rights when you go along with this no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use to justify it.
Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part.
He is currently trying to convince everyone that the race is over in order to avoid facing the voters in those two states.
His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.
That's a plain fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:49 AM

His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.
That's a plain fact.

Wow, did I miss election day? Seems like someone knows the results before the rest of us. Who should I put my money on Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:56 AM

"Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part."

That was following the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:20 PM

Not so.
Not campaigning in those states was following the rules.
Obama broke that rule in Florida by running T.V. ads.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:56 PM

Jim:

He ran one ad in Flordia as part of a multistate buy, for which he got an exception tot he ruling, as I understand.

As to your other almost facts:

The people of Michigan and Florida have already voted.
There is no way to not count those votes as cast without trampling on peoples rights.

You are conflating the primary process, which is designed by the rule-makers of the various parties, with the constitutional rights to vote in an election. They are not, first of all, a consitutional right, as the general election votes are. I hope the difference is plain. THis is not choosing who gets elected, but who the party wants to put up as a candidate.


Counting them in a way to ensure that your candidate wins is not any kind of a democratic solution.

Seems to me counting them in states where one of the candidates wasn't on the ballot, and another where he did not campaign, except for the incidental ad mentioned above, is not exactly democratic process at work either. Hillary entered the race with a lot more bias due to prior exposure working in her favor. Fair? Not.

You are trampling on peoples rights when you go along with this no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use to justify it.

The right to vote in the Democratic Party selection process is not a poeple's right, but a conventional courtesy. You may not realize it but the decision gets made at the Convention, by the processes defined by the DNC, not by a process defined by law. I do agree the residents of FL and MI should have been allowed by their states to participate, but they were disqualified by their states, not by either party or any candidate.

Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part.

It was consistent with the rulings made and the agreements made at the time. The question is not why he did so, but why Hillary did not.


He is currently trying to convince everyone that the race is over in order to avoid facing the voters in those two states.

You haven't heard what he has been stating. IF the rulings of the Democratic Party who govern this process have bearing, his statement that he has won over 50% of the available vote-based delegates is correct. Obviously if the party changers the rules, as Hillary would strongly prefer, then the score changes. Under the present agreements, the statement he made is correct.

His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.

This is not a fact, but a silly opinion. HIS role was to cooperate with the rules set by the party. HIS role was to play fair. The process that resulted in FL and MI primaries being disqualified was not his role, but that of the state government who scheduled the primary, or the state party, I am not sure which. Do you know? Why do you think he had a role in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:55 PM

Ah yes!
The rule makers.
What about the party faithful who have watched their party being hijacked by a bunch of students who may or may not bother to vote twice in one year?

Amos!
Again, please try to answer folks without using insulting adjectives.
Come on!
You lose every time you do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:11 PM

"trampling on people's rights". Interesting. Hillary's campaign chairman said in January the primary season would be for 17 states--til she finished off Obama on "Super Tuesday". That was fine with him--and her.   But it seems that would have trampled on the rights of the other 33 states. But that was the plan. Too bad it didn't work.

The "people" in MI and FL whose rights are allegedly being trampled could have put pressure on their state parties not to move up their primary days. But, being big, important states, they assumed that everything would turn out to their satisfaction, regardless of their flouting the expressed will of the DNC.

And in fact they will have delegations--but it may be 50/50 or something similar.

If the DNC gives in to the wishes of FL and MI Hillary voters on this, there is absolutely nothing to prevent complete chaos next time--when all the states, knowing there is no real punishment, try to push to the start of the primary season. And the DNC knows this.

It might make a fun spectacle for people outside the US to watch--but may not be the best way to actually run Democratic primaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:15 PM

He is currently trying to convince everyone that the race is over in order to avoid facing the voters in those two states.

As Democratic candidate for president he would automatically have to face the voters in those two states, as well as in all the other states. And that is what he is aiming to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:02 PM

Jim,

We all express silly opinions from time to time. The art is in being able to acknowledge them. Predicting Obama's national defeat this early in the game is extremely presumptuous, in light of the polls and his success as a campaigner.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:06 PM

Amos:
    You almost came back with an answer free of insults.
      Almost.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:10 PM

Ok, so thats $50 on McCain. How many states will he win Jim so I can go double or nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:12 PM

People who have such sensitive egos they cannot stand any criticism would be advised to try a different thread--or perhaps to get off Mudcat once in a while and be productive.

Obviously this is just a general statement--no particular people in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:15 PM

Good luck. I can't even get him to bet a nickel on whether Hillary will run as an independent. I say she will not.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:16 PM

Damn, and I was going to buy that new ivory backscratcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:17 PM

Some people are so insulting towards others that I don't bother to read their submissions. I scan over them once in a while but that's about it.
Ron Davies comes to mind but there are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:25 PM

Jim your beef with other people on here is one thing, but don't be expecting to let off the hook when you claim it's a plain fact Obama will not win the presidency. He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:24 PM

Jim:

When I said "presumptuous" I meant it in a nice way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:50 PM

"He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact."
Sure. That's a certainty.

Amos:
When you said "We all express silly opinions from time to time." you meant that in a nice way?
That stuff gets in the way. No need for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:12 PM

Well, Jim, I'll lower the epŽe if you'll turn down the snidely whiplash. Because this is a two-way street.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:20 AM

I sincerely hope Obama selects Edwards has his VP candidate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:31 AM

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:13 AM

"He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact."
Sure. That's a certainty.

Not so. He could get shot or have a heart attack. Or even, stretching the possibilities a bit, Clinton could win the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:27 AM

"While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, friends of the couple say that former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama's running mate.

    The reports about Mr. Clinton's musings surface as the Obama camp has quietly begun the process of searching for a partner on the Democratic ticket."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 08:24 PM

Gee, Jim, what made you think the reference to sensitive egos had anything to do with you?   I mentioned no names.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: frogprince
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:34 PM

I'm a little late getting to this but:
"Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim.
He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them"
Jim, you might consider going to the "effective arguments" thread and checking out the links on logical fallacies.

And as to "one of the most powerful women", sorry, Bobert, but Fantz does have a right to call you on that phrasing. Other feminists I've known would have called you on it too, but they would have smiled and made you squirm a little, not ranted at you. I once referred to a fellow student as "one of the brightest women in this class." I had no intention of implying that she was bright "for a woman", but I a couple of women promptly (without a bit of meanness) called me on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:14 AM

"Not merely is she one of the brightest people in the class, she is one of the brightest women in the class."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:33 AM

There ya go, Mcgrath; I should have told 'em that's what I meant! : )

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:55 AM

Okay, gang, that "womanz" thing is like beatin' a dead horse... When Ebbie sat me down in the corner fir a little quiet time I realized that I had mis-spoken... Big whup... I went thru this back in the 60's with this "person", Jessica, who beat me up over it over and over...

But back to Jim Lad's little swiftboating game... Better get used to it, folks... Ever hear of "American Survival, Inc."... Well, if not, you will... This is an anti-Obama 527 Swiftboat Liars for McCain think tank that is in the process of figuring out which lie to spend the 527 $$$ on...

Here are a few that are under consideration:

1. Obama was "mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party"... Joe McCarthy would love that one..

2. "That he launched his Illinois state senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer."

3. "That while serving as a state senator, he was a mamber of a socialist front group."

4. "That his affiliation are so didgey that he would have trouble getting a governemnt security clearance."

5. "That there is reason to doubt his loyalty to the United States."

This are just starters...

(Source: Washington Post, "Obama as You've Never Known Him!" by Dana Milbank, May 23)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:48 AM

What's interesting is that there are any Mudcatters willing to spread this sort of garbage--and implying approval of parts of it themselves. So the question remains: are they racist or just abysmally ignorant?"

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 08 - 01:24 PM

The ability to think--to look at propositions and assess them for falsity,consistency, or hidden intent, among other things -- is not as common as the ability to sound off on a forum. They seem to be independent variables.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:29 PM

Ron,

There are only two kinds of folks who get into swiftboating... People who have financial interests and folks who are duped by folks with financial interests...

Which category Jim Lad falls into only he knows...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:46 PM

Hillary and McCain have literally no foreign policy experience since neither of them have a clue as to diplomacy. They are simplistic saber-rattlers. The Hanoi Hilton is not the best credential for foreign policy decisions. The question should be asked why he was there in the first place when Vietnam was such a fiasco? Comments about "obliteration" of Iran belies any sense of foreign policy expertise. Why is it that some Americans think they can bully their way into fostering their ideologies on other countries especially at the point of a gun or a bomb? This general deterioration of the analytic processes of the American public is the real enemy. "We have met the enemy and it is us"......Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:36 PM

Actually the Pogo quote is "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us." Or rather WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US" - the capital letters provide for an interesting ambiguity...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:34 PM

I often reflect on what sort of mindsets and channels of thought were established in the early lives of McCain and Barack. McCain learned courage and military views; he learned persistence in the Hanoi Hilton, and survival; he came out with unknown scars in his body, heart and psyche. Small indicators -- such as his origination of the Bomb Iran joke and the speed with which he came up with the hundred years in Iraq remark (even though he played it down later) seem to point to the fact that he has a part of his mind firmly lodged in militarism.

Barack Obama had a very different exposure to life in his formative years. He was raised in a confluence of white, Buddhist, Muslim and other groups in Indonesia and Hawaii. He came of age in Chicago learning to hold his own on rough streets, but more important, to find common ground and build consensus. He is no shirker from confrontations, but he is not a militarist.

McCain learned the horrors of war first hand. Obama seems to me to understand them instinctively.

McCain is in the stage of life where his own mortality is a continuous whisper in his evenings. Obama is in the stride of his young manhood.

I think it will be a close race between them, but I believe the deep latent racism of some of the American people will be moved aside by the hopeful ajnti-racism of the youth vote. I believe McCain's inherent militarism will be rejected by those who have seen what5 a futile solution unnecessary war is.

So Rig, I think you are a tad off base.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:36 AM

I'm not sure what it is that I'm "off base" about, but I think the racism issue is worth looking at.

                   There are some people like Neo-Nazi's and Ku Klux Klan members and sympathizers who think one race of people are either superior or inferior to others. These people are obviously racist.
                   There are others who have been victims of programs like "affirmative action" and minority set-asides in contracting, who want to see those programs ended.

                   When a candidate announces that he/she wants to continue these minority based programs, and a voter votes against that candidate because the voter wants them ended, is that racism? I think the media will interpret those actions as racist, and that will skew the results for those of us who believe that it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:42 AM

If anybody is against "affirmative action" it may be interesting to note that Obama has said that his own daughters should be in the general pool of applicants and not receive special consideration on the basis of "affirmative action". He may be moving towards a economics-based interpretation of this idea. We'll see what develops.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:53 AM

The deep latent racism of some classes of voters IS a factor, Rig, no mistake. I think, when I have had my coffee, that we have a chance of overturning it. To do so would(by electing Barack Obama) (in addition to being a politically Good Choice) also set a phenomenal precedent for the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:21 AM

That's precedent or president?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:31 AM

There are definately degrees of racism... It's not like a light switch where that it's all or nothing...

Yes, the KKKers certainly represent the the extreme... They have burned down hundreds of black churches, have lynched black folks in my life time, have shot and killed demonstrators in Greenville, N.C. in my life time, have killed civil rights leaders in my life time... This is extreme behavior...

Then there are folks not alot unlike the folks who live here in Page Co., Va., who accept black folks as long as black folks "act white" but will freely tell ya' that they won't vote a "colored man"...

I think it is important to be mindfull that generalizations are not part of the "solution set"...

Also, I have to agree with Amos in his observations about both McCain and Clinton... Each, with their campaign "styles", he telegraphed who they are are and how they might go about setting foriegn policy... Both seem to think military first, diplomacy when first fails... How that differs from the Bush foriegnpolicy escapes me...

Obama, on the other hand, has been "respectfull" of his adversaries... Respect, IMO, will get US further toward a sane foriegn policy than the current one of bluff, blunder and bombs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:44 AM

Racism, sexism and ageism will all play out in this election.

If the American public can rise above those three types of discrimination, the best will be chosen. Unfortunately, most voters will see their choice as voting for a black man, a woman or a very, old man. I have problems with all three but Obama is by far the best hope, especially if he chooses the right V.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: mg
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:02 AM

Why do you say white, Buddist or Muslim? Whites can of course be either religion. It is an odd set of categories. It could be white, green or purple, which are colors, or Buddist, Muslim or Methodist, which are religions.

Also, Obama in many areas of the world would either be a patriarch or dead by now. He is middle-aged and certainly should not be considered young, except perhaps by the society for perpetual adolescence. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 08 - 05:27 PM

To be accurate that should of course have been "Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, black, white and brown..."

I can't see why they keep on about Obama being over young for the job, when he would be older than either Kennedy or Bill Clinton were when they became president.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:16 PM

The medial community had not developed Viagra when Kennedy was in office, so he just seemed older at the time.