BS: Edwards for VP after all?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:17 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 - 07:09 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: 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: 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: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:17 PM

William Ayers

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:23 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 17 May 08 - 12:12 PM

Na! Na! Na! Na! Na!

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 11:32 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 - 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:11 PM

Canuck?

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 - 06:16 PM

Insert "a".

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 01:31 PM

It looks like my theory is coming to fruition.

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: Jim Lad
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:40 PM

Stop with the insults.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 08 - 04:12 PM

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


               Yeah, that'll do it for sure!