|
02 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM (#2251905) Subject: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Latest Gallup poll shows Obama closing in on Clinton nationally, with the gap between them smaller than a week ago before Edwards dropped out: Clinton 48% Obama 41%. McCain is surging and surging again, and has left Romney in the dust. It looks like Tuesday will sew up the Republican coronation here in St Paul. God, I hope either Clinton or Obama cinches it Tuesday too, because the idea of it going beyond another week is already getting pretty tiresome. I don't see a damn bit of difference between the two, so I don't give a damn which one it is. I don't think either of them can beat McCain. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 06:55 PM (#2251933) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bobert Exactly which blue state, G.G., do you see McCain takin' that Kerry didn't take??? Throw in the economy in Ohio which, guilty or not, McCain is going to get blamed for by association + Virginia, which may very likely come in for the Dems on Mark Warner's coat tails and I think it is somewhat a wish on yer part, GG... Polls and electorial college are two different beasts... B~ |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:00 PM (#2251937) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ebbie I suspect that some people emerge from their hole only when the opportunity arises to stir serious muck, not, in any sense, to clarify, dignify or codify the issues. Right, Janet? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:03 PM (#2251943) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: katlaughing Ebbie, nice to *see* you! It's too damn early for the endless speculation which is taking over the airwaves and the BS section here. Another argument against guests staring threads down here. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM (#2251949) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest I think the only thing that could defeat McCain is his age, or Iraq blowing up. Or Orsome huge snaffu over the horizon none of us can see--which is always a possibility for any candidate. If McCain can beat back the age issue by maintaining really good health through November, and he makes a good choice for VEEP (ie, someone younger, rigorous, moderate and somewhat independent of Bush/Cheney and Pat Robertson sort of ideology), I really do believe he is a shoe-in against Clinton or Obama. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM (#2251958) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk Sheesh. I do hope you're mistaken about that, GG. Not that I don't view the entire US electoral process with a certain measure of grim humour these days... |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:29 PM (#2251964) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest I think we're screwed no matter what, Little Hawk. Is that depressing? Yes, it absolutely is. Is there a cheerful spin to put on it? Not unless you enjoy American Idol reruns. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:38 PM (#2251974) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Big Mick GG, re: your post of 7:11 PM. You do understand hedging your bets, don't you. Mick |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:40 PM (#2251976) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Isn't politics a game of hedging bets? |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:48 PM (#2251986) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Don Firth Lemme see, now, GUEST,Guest. . . . How many threads have you started this past week, each one a tiny variation on the same theme? Why doesn't one of the clones combine all these threads so the place doesn't wind up choking with clutter? Don Firth |
|
02 Feb 08 - 07:49 PM (#2251987) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bobert Iraq has allrerady blown up... Check out the US economy if you need any further evidence, G.G... Half a trillion borrowed from the Chinese and growing every day to the tune of another billion dollar$$$$$... Yes, Iraq and stupid fiscal policies are bankryupting the US at a rate that no economist's nightmare scenerio could have concieved of 7 years ago... The US is hopelessly screwed... Between Iraq and globalization, the US's economy is about on par with those of Mexico, Russian and Brazil with all the wealth concentrated at the very top and everyone else scamblin'.... Yeah, and guess what, G.G??? The American people are figurin' it out and guess what, part B, G.G.??? Yer guy, guilty or not, is gonna get caught up in the purge of old schoolers that got US into this crisis... Like they used to say in the 60's, "You are either part of the problem or part of the solution"... McCain/McWar has been too chummy with Bush to be able to create enough seperation to be seen as "part of the solution"... B~ |
|
02 Feb 08 - 08:53 PM (#2252028) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Q (Frank Staplin) I have several relatives (in-laws mostly, thank the powers that be) in the Air Force. All of them are staunch Bush supporters whose votes will go to McCain or Romney. Of their families, mine is the only one for Clinton or Obama. Like GG, and the CNN polls, I expect a close one. I'd like threads combined, too, Firth. I find only three by GG and one of these (FL primary) is about dead because it is over and has been milked dry. Amos has started more (surprise) but the subject is important to a lot of us armchair politicos. A cover title now could be, "Feb 5th- "Speculation, Results and Post-mortem." One thread for each party. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM (#2252046) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos Hey--I started the Popular Views threads -- one on Bush, one on Obama. Well, maybe a few others in the heat of Bush's worst moments. Gimme a break here!! :D A |
|
02 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM (#2252057) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Obama drew 20,000 people to the Target Center in Minneapolis today, and tomorrow Clinton will be here at a much smaller venue. I think the vote will be split between the two of them on Tuesday, with Obama having enough delegates to at least claim he has the Big Mo, even if he doesn't really have it. I think the fat lady will sing for the Republicans on Tuesday, but it ain't over yet for the Dems. My .02 ain't worth much these days, though. |
|
02 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM (#2252090) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Q (Frank Staplin) Not complaining Amos- just pointing out that there aren't all that many political threads going. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM (#2252658) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Stringsinger If the Dems can show in their ads that McCain is a continuation of Bush, I believe they can win. Frank |
|
03 Feb 08 - 10:55 PM (#2252896) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies The Democrats can win with Obama--who will unite the Democrats, get lots of independents, and even some Republicans--( see the op ed by Susan Eisenhower, for instance--and she is not alone)- -- and get scads of new voters. With Hillary--let's see: quite a few unenthusiastic Democrats, very few independents, hardly any new voters, and--despite all the gnashing of teeth by Republicans now, when push comes to shove, very few will not react to the well-known magic words for Republicans: President Hillary Clinton. And none will vote for Hillary. So it should be fairly obvious who has the best chance against McCain in the fall. And it ain't Hillary. If anybody disagrees with this analysis, it would be good to hear some logic and evidence. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 11:00 PM (#2252897) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Peace I have been calling Obama as next president for months. I am happy to see him into the race now. The man just hit his stride. I think he'll take California. US politics is about to receive a big shock on Tuesday when it finds out it just voted for the best candidate in decades. |
|
03 Feb 08 - 11:00 PM (#2252898) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Charley Noble Clinton's campaign is definitely looking defensive at this point. Still strong in some states but unable to enroll any new energy where it might be useful. Still she may have enough inertia (if not momentum) to garner a bare majority of delegates this Tuesday. At this point I view Obama as having more potential for outmaneuvering McCain in the General Election than Clinton. And I think he would do even better against Romney. I wish I had a better argument for why I think Obama is the better choice as a President. I've settled for less interesting candidates in the past, I suppose. Charley Noble |
|
03 Feb 08 - 11:12 PM (#2252902) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Charley-- Don't you think that rejecting cynicism for hope and rejecting divisive politics for unity are good reasons to vote for Obama? As I understand, that is the basis of his candidacy. And I can't imagine a better man to make the case. And of course it's the opposite of a naive crusade--he knows about the issues, as was made plain in the debate with Hillary. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM (#2253992) Subject: BS: Money running for Obama From: GUEST,Guest The Clinton camp announced their totals for January. Obama is out-milking the nation 2 to 1. Now doesn't that just cheer you all up? Doesn't it make you feel SO sure Obama and his Big Mo ain't the emperor with no clothes? He represents the best change for America the corporate plutocracy can buy. Yeah Obama! We love Obama! Don't look behind that curtain! Look at all those sparkly, shiny Kennedy girls with Oprah and Michelle Obama! I'm buying that candidate! That candidate is shiny and new! That's what I want! A candidate that doesn't remind me of the economy, the war, the crumbling infrastructure, and mostly, that doesn't show any signs of all those good ole boys hiding behind the curtain, pulling the strings! Shiny and new! Shiny and new! Be a good American and buy the one that is shiny and new!
-joe@mudcat.org- |
|
05 Feb 08 - 05:41 PM (#2254460) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Richard Bridge So, as Super Tuesday starts to close on the East coast,and gets into its stride on the West - what is the street-level news? |
|
05 Feb 08 - 06:16 PM (#2254499) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk There's "word on the street" that Bobert, having thrown in the towel and given his support to Obama, has nevertheless set his many, many supporters absolutely free to back whomever they wish. What a guy, eh? ;-) Chongo is already on his way to provide some much-needed security for the Obama camp. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:06 PM (#2254538) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Jeri CNN has called Georgia for Obama. They don't have any idea about the Republican side of things. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 07:35 PM (#2254569) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: McGrath of Harlow Georgia Democratic exit polls |
|
05 Feb 08 - 08:47 PM (#2254640) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Richard Bridge I have some difficulty seeing what that is telling me! |
|
05 Feb 08 - 09:13 PM (#2254656) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Obviously it tells us nothing unless the trend holds and the respondents are telling the truth. It's a tiny sample. But assuming it does hold, it's news. Obama is getting at least half, and lopsidedly more of the youngest voters--of white voters under 45--in a Deep South state. Against this, you have to realize these are Democratic voters only. The state would almost certainly go Republican. But--if it holds-- it certainly indicates that young white Democratic voters all over the country--not just in "blue states"-- are enthusiastic about voting for Obama. And it's also worth noting that--especially the young voters-- are not generic Democratic voters--they are Obama voters. Hillary cannot assume that if she is the Democratic nominee, they will come out to support her. And the Democratic leadership has to realize this--or the Democrats will probably lose the election. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM (#2254685) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger "it certainly indicates that young white Democratic voters all over the country--not just in "blue states"-- are enthusiastic about voting for Obama..." Yes it does, but young voters grow up, usually about the time they have to start paying for children who have to depend on them. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 09:58 PM (#2254694) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies "grow up" meaning "lose idealism"? Fortunately that won't be happening in the next 9 months--unless the Democrats have the unparalleled stupidity to pick Hillary. And if they do, as I said, they cannot count on these new voters to support her--and they definitely can count on the Republicans, now snarling viciously at each other, to come together at the threat of President Hillary Clinton. Whereas many Republicans would be perfectly happy with Obama. If the Democrats really want to lose the election, there's an easy way--pick Hillary. If on the other hand they'd actually rather win it, they can pick Obama, who will unite the Democrats, get many independents, and scads of new voters--none of which Hillary can do. |
|
05 Feb 08 - 10:34 PM (#2254717) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos If you want help raising children, you'd be far better off backing Barack, my friend. He has two young ones and he knows what the hoops are. Hill raised her singlet in the White House and the Governor's manse. A |
|
06 Feb 08 - 12:36 AM (#2254782) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: katlaughing Well, I went to our caucus undecided and wound up voting for Obama. I asked the other why they chose him. They were women and men, of a broad age range, Hispanic, Indian, white, and black. To a one, they said they were voting for change they think Obama is capable of bringing about, that they did not want the "baggage" or "status quo" which would come with Mrs. Clinton. They said much more than that, but that was the main gist. I also was interested to see some Independents who were there to listen in and see what they could do to help. The turnout was outstanding; we had standing room only, until they opened a couple of more classrooms with more seats. kat |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:07 AM (#2254911) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Wolfgang We had a poll too, in Germany, with a very small 3% majority for Obama over Clinton. No, McCain was not a choice in that poll, for the results in such a choice would be too obvious with whoever Republican candidate. Most of the breakdown of the number in this poll were obvious, like the older the person asked the more Clinton votes, but one breakdown did surprise me: Obama did win easily with the leftmost and the right-wing voters, Clinton did win in the middle and the moderate left. Wolfgang |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:12 AM (#2254916) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Mrrzy Why are we so far from being a democracy? I have a French friend who is amazed at all the intermediaries between the voter and the candidates... |
|
06 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM (#2254961) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos The biggest and most debated intermediary is the electoral college system, which was designed as a damper to prevent large population centers (New York and LA) from unduly tipping the balance. There is alot of reading up to do on why it was invented and what detractors think is wrong with it which I have not done. But it should be studied carefully to understand why it is there before getting too anxious to throw it out. A |
|
06 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM (#2255398) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Mrrzy I read today that while either C or O could beat either Huckabee or Romney, Clinton would lose to McCain and Obama would beat him. Also, and to my mind contradictorily, Clinton is still preferred over Obama. This was on RealClearPolitics.com, they have a lot of stuff there. I want McCain to lose. So, should I hope for Obama or Clinton? It's AMAZINGLY hard to tell! |
|
06 Feb 08 - 06:24 PM (#2255414) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,mg I would vote for Obama. I do not believe his spouse is involved in uranium deals perhaps in exchange for what? mg |
|
06 Feb 08 - 06:29 PM (#2255423) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: McGrath of Harlow "Also, and to my mind contradictorily, Clinton is still preferred over Obama." Not really contradictory. I'd imagine Clinton would be preferred by two lots of people - those who would favour her rather than Obama as President, but also by Republicans who might, very reasonably, see Obama as a more dangerous opponent. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM (#2255541) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest It makes no rational sense, in light of yesterday, to claim that Obama can beat McCain and Clinton can't. Obama lost the majority of states that McCain carried--especially the big states of the Northeast, AZ, CA. etc. Clinton won most those states pretty handily, which means she still has the better chance of beating McCain. It is already obvious, by Obama losing the states that McCain won to Clinton, that he isn't competitive against McCain. That part ain't rocket science, people. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:17 PM (#2255549) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger GG - The other thing that nobody seems to be looking at--or, if they are, they're being very quite about it--is the allegation made today by Obama that the Republicans will dig up a bunch of dirt on Hillary. Obviously, anything they could possibly find on Hillary, Kenneth Starr would have found already. There was nothing to find. They haven't scratched the surface to look for dirt on Obama. I think they are rubbing their hands together for the chance to get started on that. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 09:30 PM (#2255556) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest The other thing people aren't talking about is how twice now Obama was said to be surging in the polls just before the vote (New Hampshire & yesterday), and the polls, pundits, and spin ended up being 100% wrong. Considering all the media hoopla surrounding the bogus Obama 'surge' and the fact that Obama is so far beyond all the candidates in terms of money, Obama should have upset Clinton and taken some of the big states and coasted comfortably ahead in the delegate count. Not only has Obama not gotten a bounce coming out of the day as everyone expected him to, but his campaign is spinning, spinning, and spinning pretty furiously at this point. They claim to be ahead in the delegate count. Maybe yes, maybe no, depends upon who is counting. He is hitting her much harder in terms of heating up the rhetoric (as he did going into SC), in what seems to be a sort of blind attempt to make some mud stick to her. I have to say, the Obama campaign folks aren't looking very brilliant this morning, considering he is supposed to be able to buy and pay for the best and brightest Dem operatives right now. And there is precious little evidence the Obama camp will try and keep it civil. With his momentum slipping so much, and him coming up empty in the big states, I just don't see how he can afford not to go very negative, very fast. Like I said in the Primaries thread, Obama has to win ALL the upcoming primaries to stay competitive delegate-wise. That would be tough for any candidate to do. But all those millions he keeps sucking up will certainly buy him plenty of advertising. We were swamped with it from here in MN, whereas Clinton didn't even make much of a media buy here at all--we were written off for Clinton a couple of weeks ago by her campaign. It remains to be seen if her big wins yesterday on both coasts will turn money out for her. Only the shadow government knows. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM (#2255590) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Anybody who knows anything about elections knows that by far the most important factor is turnout. You can have a wonderful candidate, buckets of money, and brilliant ideas--but if your candidate's supporters don't show up at the polls, it's worthless. This entire issue should be patently obvious--but some appear to not have grasped it. So: 2 factors: 1) maximizing your turnout and 2) minimizing your opponent's turnout. And the case in point is ultimately geared to November, not now--as rational members of any political party should see. Maximize your strengths: Strengths: Obama: Democrats of all stripes and all ethnic groups--some obviously more than others. Many independents--and this is important--since McCain will be appealing to independents in the fall. Some Republicans--anecdotal evidence suggests actually quite a few--Susan Eisenhower has company--probably because a big part of Obama's approach is getting beyond vicious partisanship. And of course legions of new voters--enthusiastic for him personally--not Democrats in general--and definitely not Hillary. And these are new voters all over the US--not just in the South and not just the young. Strengths: Hillary: Older women who are afraid they will not see a woman president. But not all of them--anybody for whom a strong anti-Iraq war posture is paramount is likely not to vote for Hillary--her opposition to the war, like her attitude on many other issues, is carefully hedged. Universal health care advocates--who may not realize 1) she is not offering a single-payer program 2) The mandate for everybody to get health insurance is totally unenforceable. If she tried, as she says, to garnishee wages--there would be a huge storm--that idea will never fly. The reaction to this idea is already setting in. Some Hispanics and Asians who feel they are competing with blacks--some, not all, by a long shot. Some Hispanics support her since they know and like Bill--and don't know Obama yet. They may also not be aware of her stand against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--read primarily Hispanic. I have no idea if whites are voting on a racist basis, but I expect some are. But many, especially the young (under 45) are not--and that is a big change. Reason is obviously that Obama appeals on a non-racial basis--change and an end to pointless partisanship. Lopsidedly fewer younger voters than Obama. Very few independents--again this is a real problem--since McCain will be getting quite a few--especially the national security oriented independents. Team Clinton has also alienated some of the Democratic party's strongest long-term supporters by the despicable campaign in South Carolina and Bill's immediate attempt after Obama's victory to typecast him as another "black candidate". Minimizing Opponents' Strength Obama: As I said, since his appeal is the opposite of aggressive partisanship, many Republicans can accept him as president. Some will vote for him. Republicans still angry at McCain may well stay home or leave the top position on the ballot blank So turnout of the opponents goes down. Hillary It's been well known for years that the vast majority of Republicans loathe and detest Hillary--for a host of reasons--some having to do with Bill. Despite their well-publicized squabbling now, when faced with the real possibility of President Hillary Clinton, they will return to the fold--and show up--in droves--to vote against her. So, far from minimizing the opponent's votes, she maximizes them. As I've said before, if the Democrats want to win in November, there's no question who they have to pick. And it ain't Hillary. And the feeble argument that Hillary took NY, NJ, MA and CA fails totally. First, Obama took sizable percentages in each--including 40% in Hillary's home base, NY. Secondly, there is every reason to think that a unified Democratic party--possible under Obama but not under Hillary--will take these and lots more across the country. I'd be happy to hear any possible rebuttal of any of the above points. But rebuttal by logic, please. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 11:05 PM (#2255606) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk People's interpretations, as always, are being very much skewed by their prior prejudices, I note... That figures. It's the way the human mind functions. I take it all with a grain of salt. The only way you'll know for sure is when it's all over...and maybe not even then. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 11:11 PM (#2255614) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Yah, sure Ron. Only flaw in your twisted logic--Clinton won the big ones, and the Democratic base stuck by her. Obama, like McCain, can't win it with the independents, but not their base. McCain without the Republican base can't win, and Obama or Clinton without the Democratic base can't win. Plus, Clinton increased voter turnout yesterday too, just like Obama. But instead of increasing the youth vote, she increased by a sizable margin, two solid blocs that are voting consistently Dem--women and Latinos. |
|
06 Feb 08 - 11:33 PM (#2255632) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger Ron - It doesn't make sense to think that Hispanics are unaware of the candidates' position on driver's licenses. Many Hispanics who have lived in the country for a long time, and are concerned about equal treatment under the law don't think that illegal aliens should be issued driver's licenses either. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 05:47 AM (#2255755) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: McGrath of Harlow So "the Democratic base" who voted for Clinton are going to refuse to vote for Obama if he is the candidate adopted by the party? Even though you can guarantee that Clinton is going to be campaigning for him? Doesn't seem too likely. Whereas the opposite scenario, in which people who aren't part of that "Democratic base" but who came out to vote for Obama refuse to vote for Clinton, if she is adopted, doesn't seem at all unlikely. Even though you can guarantee that Obama will be campaigning for her. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:07 AM (#2255819) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest No McGrath, most Clinton supporters would vote for Obama and vice versa. The question is, which candidate can beat the Republican base and steal the independent voters back from the Republican party, in order to win in November. My bet had been on Hilary, until I saw how broke she was. Why bet on Hilary? She has the biggest, best oiled political machine. Obama is having to buy and build as he goes, and with a pool of very fickle 'new' voters--the youth vote, which is notorious for evaporating over night. But even if the youth vote would disappear if Obama loses to Clinton (which it won't, I think at least some will still be excited to elect the first woman president), Clinton still has the Democratic party base behind her. The African American vote won't go to McCain. A lot of them might stay home on Election Day, but not enough to hurt Clinton where it counts--the big states, which she carried pretty handily yesterday without the African American vote. Hard core Dems only need their base to win. Republicans, because there are far fewer of them as registered voters, can never win with just their base alone, which is why McCain is the best candidate for the Repubs this year. McCain does really well with independents and Reagan Democrats. The unknown factor in this race really, is how will the Reagan Democrats (or the conservative white male Democrats) and independents (who in many states now make up a growing and large percentage of registered voters) vote in November. In 2000, the majority of them supported McCain when he was in the race, and most of them ended up voting for Bush. Same thing happened in 2004, when most of them voted again for Bush. So the truth is, no one knows, we are all just ruminating here. I have a tendency to piss off the Obama voters, because they are voting based on feelings for the man. I don't vote like that, so when I challenge their thinking, their emotions tend to color their responses in a way that doesn't happen with me, is all. Hell, even Little Hawk figured that much out. There aren't very many American posters here at Mudcat that don't identify with the partisan Democrats, whether they are registered Democrats or not. So if you are looking for a solid analysis of what is happening in American politics, you can't really go by the conventional political wisdom of this forum, because it skews so partisan Democrat. And the more their beliefs about their chosen candidate gets challenged directly, the nastier they get. Think about it McGraw. Just as many Democrats voted for Hilary Clinton on Tuesday as voted for Obama--and they weren't all women, either. So where are the Clinton supporters here at Mudcat? You see the problem here? This forum is very much a closed shop as far as the political spectrum goes in the US. You get a lot of what we call in the US the True Believers. People who tend to get overly emotional (usually anger and hatred towards the other side is their motivator), and who are over attached to their own political beliefs. The True Believers are both Dem and Repub ideologues (even if they aren't registered as members of the party) and they engage in the vast majority of political demagoguing in our political conversations. Take politics out of the mix, and they seem very normal and nice. Have a political conversation, and they turn True Blue or True Red. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 08:14 AM (#2255823) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest BTW, betting on a candidate is not the same thing as voting for them. I'm just an armchair observer. I won't vote for either party's candidate because I think there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them (enter the anti-Bush faction to shout me down), and because they all--every single one of them, will suck as president. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM (#2255861) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Charley Noble Nice post, GG! When are you going to sign up as a member? Wanna make a side bet on the outcome of this Sunday's caucus in Maine? Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM (#2255920) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: artbrooks We had a very interesting caucus in New Mexico,,,so many people turned out that they had to run out to Office Max to print more ballots! I managed to get into the wrong line, and ended up in the "people with issues" line (well, maybe not all that wrong...). Neither of the two people in front of me were on the "registered Democrats"; one was give a provisional ballot, although he made a big fuss about being required to sigh an affidavit that he was a Democrat, the other was turned away after saying, "oh no, I can't sign that, I'm a Republican". Our caucus is still undecided and will depend delegate count will be decided on the provisional ballots - I wonder how many og the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans? Drivers licenses? They are, and should be, nothing more than proof of a person's ability to drive. Perhaps if the lady who rear-ended me a couple of years ago, and who also had no insurance and didn't speak English, had one I wouldn't have a new car today. If a National Identity Card is necessary to prove citizenship, than lets have one, but trying to make the one serve for the other is stupid. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:20 AM (#2255931) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger Art - I agree completely about the National ID thing, but until they do that, everybody insists on using driver's licenses. Of course, having a license doesn't equate to having insurance, unfortunately. And, as a sideline event, how does somebody who doesn't even speak English read road signs in New Mexico? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:27 AM (#2255944) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos I swan, GG, you are becoming downright civilized. As for Obama, my support of him is not just the "feelings for the man", but my assessment that he is a better candidate. I have no trouble defending him, up to a reasonable degree, but I am not sure it makes a lot of sense to put a lot of time into it right now. A |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:37 AM (#2255956) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Donuel Hey ringslinger, I gotta bumper sticker that says John McCain & Cheney 08. fill the world with war and hate. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:48 AM (#2255965) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos See also the December analysis in the Atlantic called Why Obama Matters. A |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:54 AM (#2255971) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk I've told you and told you, Amos, a swan is a bird! ;-) Look it up in the dictionary, man. It's a noun. You know, on a personal basis, I like Obama too (and I like his wife Michelle as well). No question about it. They're very atttractive personalities who come across well. On a political basis? I don't know. He's an unknown quantity. I'm not sure if he is as against that Iraq War as he says he is...and I don't expect to find out unless he gets elected. Then we'll see what he does. The proof is in the pudding. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:03 AM (#2255977) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: artbrooks An example of proofreading your stuff before you push the "SUBMIT" button. Let me restate my first paragraph above, so it makes at least as much sense as my contribution usually do.. We had a very interesting caucus in New Mexico...so many people turned out that they had to run out to Office Max to print more ballots! I managed to get into the wrong line, and ended up in the "people with issues" group (well, maybe not all that wrong...). Neither of the two people in front of me were on the "registered Democrats" list; one was given a provisional ballot, although he made a big fuss about being required to sigh an affidavit that he was a Democrat, the other was turned away after saying, "oh no, I can't sign that, I'm a Republican". Our caucus is still undecided and the final decision on New Mexico's delegates will be based on the provisional ballots - I wonder how many of the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans? |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM (#2255978) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos That kind of second-guessing and thinkity-thinkery is exactly what I was talking about. Anyway, on other subjects, I wish to make a public apology for starting the scurrilous rumour the other day that Hillary was in the early stages of a late-in-life pregnancy carrying John McCain's love-child. THis is an unfounded and irresponsible rumor, inaccurate in the extreme, and I had no business leaking it without checking my sources. So I retract it. It was Karl Rove's love-child. A |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:41 AM (#2256009) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos LIttle Hawk, How many times do you have to let your ignorance fuel another tedious episode of acute embarassment before you learn? Here's what the Word Detective says, in part: ""I swan" is generally used as the equivalent of "I do declare," which makes perfect sense since the two phrases are essentially professions of sincerity. "I swan" is apparently derived from the northern English dialectical pronunciation of "I shall warrant" (meaning "I shall be bound by my word; I promise I am speaking the truth"), which probably sounded like a slurred "I s'wan." The longer form "I shall warrant you," pronounced "I s'wan ye," gave us the form "I swannee" or "I swanny," still common in the South. None of this, of course, has any connection to actual swans. Oddly enough, given their background, both "I swan" and "I swanny" are considered Americanisms and never gained much of a foothold in Britain. One reason for the continued use of "I swan" and its variants on this side of the Atlantic may be that, because of their initial consonants (that "sw" sound), they also serve as handy euphemisms for "I swear," an expression considered by many to be itself blasphemous. This would make "I swan" a member of the not-fooling-anybody group of euphemisms that includes such old standbys as "gosh" and "golly" (for "God") and "darn" for "damn." " |
|
07 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM (#2256013) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: pdq "...how many of the 17,000 outstanding votes were really made by Republicans? " Nicely put, Art Brooks, but I did not know you felt Republican votes were outstanding. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:27 PM (#2256042) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk "How many times do you have to let your ignorance fuel another tedious episode of acute embarassment before you learn?" Is that a rhetorical question, Amos, or do you want me to provide a provisional estimate? ;-) As for your explanation...bollocks! It isn't in my dictionary, old buddy, and my dictionary has been blessed by the Pope, knighted by the Queen of England, kissed by Angelina Jolie, and gnawed on by my dachshund. It is the ultimate source, the final authority, the last word. It is the next thing to Holy Writ. In my dictionary, "swan" is defined as a noun. Period. It is a long-necked bird. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:31 PM (#2256046) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: artbrooks Well, pdq, Republican votes certainly stand out in a Democratic Party primary. We don't have open primaries in this state. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 12:47 PM (#2256056) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: McGrath of Harlow I's one and you's another... |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:29 PM (#2256133) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos LIttle Hawk: Obdurate though you may be, I suggest you consider the possibility that you are just projecting again, my little long-necked bird friend. :D HEre's yet another form of the word, from JOE (Jolly Old Englande): Verb to swan (UK) To travel from place to place with no fixed itinerary or purpose. (From Wiktionary). 'Fess up, varlet; thou hast declined into defensive provincialism!! A |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:33 PM (#2256137) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Peace 'In my dictionary, "swan" is defined as a noun.' Thought it was the past of swoon. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM (#2256141) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: pdq I was an attempt at humor, Art. Just asmall attempt to lighten things up. |
|
07 Feb 08 - 10:59 PM (#2256508) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Janet-- You have provided precisely zero evidence that the black community, after Hillary's treatment of Obama, will come out to support her in the fall. You seem to think she can win without them. Dream on. And the Obama new voters want no part of her either--for similar reasons. If she is the nominee, it's back to 1968. Remember how many McCarthy supporters voted for the Democratic nominee that year? Whereas the opposite scenario is much more promising. Since Obama has not carried out a campaign smearing Hillary at every opportunity--as her surrogates have done to him--"what he was doing in the neighborhood...", etc. her supporters will have no problem supporting him. Especially when he makes it plain, for instance, that his platform is at least as pro-Hispanic as hers--probably more so--see the illegal immigrants drivers license issue. Added to which, as I've said, he stands to get far more independents than she ever will. And some Republicans. She does nothing but unite the Republicans--against her. I note with interest you have provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary. What's really interesting is that you want to debate at all--after all, you've given us ample evidence that you think the whole political system--certainly all the major parties--being associated with filthy lucre--say it ain't so--is totally worthless. So you must be defending Hillary as a totally pointless exercise, not believing a word of what you yourself say. Since there is a persistent rumor she is actually associated with a major political party--and therefore hopelessly corrupted in your book. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 06:51 AM (#2256651) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger "John McCain & Cheney 08. fill the world with war and hate." I like it! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 03:48 PM (#2257133) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Herga Kitty My copy of Chambers English Dictionary has (in addition to the noun meanings)not "swan" as a verb by itself, but: "Swan about or around" (colloq) - to move about aimlessly or gracefully "Swan in or up" (colloq) - to arrive, either aimlessly or gracefully "Swan off" (colloq) - to wander off, or depart, in a nonchalant, relaxed or oblivious manner. Kitty |
|
08 Feb 08 - 04:14 PM (#2257158) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: PoppaGator Ron: Who's Janet? I don't find a post with that name attached. Could it be that you know "GUEST Guest" personally? Or am I guessing wrong about who Janet might be? |
|
08 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM (#2257199) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! Ron must have evidence, not just opinions. He spits on opinions that differ noticeably from his own. WHERE oh WHERE is your empirical and undeniable evidence to back up your damnable assertions???????????????????????? ;-) Now be very specific when you dare to voice a political opinion that Ron doesn't like, and be sure to provide lots of links to your evidence. Your "evidence" cannot be considered real evidence unless it passes certain stringent conditions and standards of verification as set out in the Davies Code, and those standards will not be revealed until well after your evidence has been first considered, and then roundly scorned and rejected...and possibly not even then. So I'd say just give up now. Forget it. Shut up and go away. You really have no chance. ;-) **** Question: Who the hell is "Janet", anyway? Is she someone famous from the early days of Mudcat? I don't think I've had the pleasure. Is she a Redemocrapublicant or a Democrepubliblricant? Does she secretly work on salary for the Clinton campaign spreading disinformation? Is she a personal friend and confidante of Ann Coulter? Has she ever partied all weekend with Bill and Opus? Inquiring minds want to know! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 05:02 PM (#2257205) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ebbie "Is she a personal friend and confidante of Ann Coulter?" If birds of a feather flock together, that's my guess. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM (#2257227) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bill D "I'm the constable of Punkinville, Just traded horses at the mill. My name's Joshua Ebenezer Fry. I know a thing or two, You bet your life I do. You cain't fool me, 'cause I'm too durned sly!" cho: "Well, I swan, I must be gittin' on. Giddyup, Napoleon..it looks like rain. I'd shoot a hawk, if the critter didn't balk.. Drap in when you're over to the farm again!" |
|
08 Feb 08 - 05:20 PM (#2257232) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ebbie FWIW, Little Hawk, 'I swan' is a common exclamation in Virginia. Used, I think, the same as 'I do declare!' |
|
08 Feb 08 - 05:34 PM (#2257244) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk Yeah, I know....I just pretend to object to the expression "I swan" in order to provoke silly set-to's with Amos. ;-) I love the way he talks, specially when he's engaging in verbal combat with me over such trivialities. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM (#2257315) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bill D It is not commonly known that 'swan' as a verb is the past participle of 'swin'. Swin-swaan-swan. Swin is a an archaic term from Welsh farmers, meaning "to win in a sneaky manner". They coined it to taunt the English who attempted to buy their coal at reduced prices during rough times...often mixing black obsidian with the coal to reduce the amount of heat obtained and confuse the speculators. Thus..."Let's swin this guy...12 pence a tonne...ha!" |
|
08 Feb 08 - 07:35 PM (#2257321) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos Ron is revealing his Mudcat hipness by penetrating the veil of identity; this is because he pays attention over a long period of time. He learned this trick from Big Mick, I believe. But you would have to go do a search to track down those instances where Mick was calling her out on her use of simultaneous anononymity and innuendo in passive-aggressive persiflage. A |
|
08 Feb 08 - 07:43 PM (#2257328) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,petr There seems to be a real movement with Obama, people are lining up outside of the auditoriums to hear his speeches.. His acceptance speeches on the internet have an incredible number (millions of) views which means listening to the whole 9min speech to be counted. There are even comparisons to the excitement the Kennedys generated. I think the Democratic party should go with it. Hilary would probably make a good president as well, but I wouldnt really see her as a 'change' candidate. Ralph Nader wrote an article recently, that during the Clinton years there were plenty of missed opportunities to get things done. I dont believe the Republicans have a chance on this one. With such a low approval rating - fiscal mess, constitutional violations, fear politics, renditions, etc.. On the other hand if Muqtada AlSadr and his Mahdi army start a Tet offensive in Aug/Sept who knows what might happen... |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:00 PM (#2257341) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ebbie I wish I felt as confident as you do, Guest Ptr. I'm afraid that we'll wake up the day after the election and fimd an impossible situation... I just got back from Oregon (a mostly liberal, green state) and heard from various fundamentalist people that their minds have not changed a whit. They voted for Bush and the Republicans and they would do it again and they don't understand why everyone is so negative and doesn't give Bush a chance, there are so many lies told about him it is a crime, Bush is a godly man and he has a difficult job, why don't you try it if you think you're so smart? groannnnnn.... |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM (#2257345) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bill D Indeed, Ebbie...there are some who would continue to vote ANY Republican, even if they started to see horns & a tail peeking out. Lets hope there are not too many in November. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:20 PM (#2257351) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk That worries me too, Ebbie. It is one of the thing that is perennially worrisome about elections in the USA. Amos - "persiflage" !!!! Omigod. Another gorgeously aristocratic word that is known only to the most obscure savants and a few close friends of Penelope Rutledge. Gad, sir, it is a splendid word indeed! I intend to use it frequently once I become quite certain of its meaning...and assuming that I can find an appropriate occasion to casually slip it into the conversation... ;-) I'll have you know that the vast improvements already wrought in my ever-growing arsenal of arcane and impressive verbiage by a careful study of your writings has reduced many of my local friends and acquaintances to stunned silence. They dare not admit that they have no idea what I am talking about, and it is clear that my local reputation is approaching the status of "unsung genius". Yes, I owe a great deal to you, my friend. "Persiflage"....God, I love that sound of that! Watch out, Orillia! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:34 PM (#2257355) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Charley Noble Now that we've wrested this thread away from GG, a totally fictional creation of some regular Mudcat member who may also have created Chongo the chimp and Corridus the hamster, it's high time to focus on the real political contenters or pretenders to the Democratic nomination. The Clinton and Obama race is indeed too close to call. Either could be supported by liberal Democrats at this point, and Obama might actually be supported by a broader range of voters. Maybe that's why the powers that be are lining up behind him, not necessarily because they are evil international entrepreneurs but simply because they want to back a winner in the General Election, and turn back the radical Republican administration which has dominated the States (and part of the world) for the last seven years. That's not necessarily a bad level to analyse the election outcome. It much more dangerous (on a personal level) to assume that a particular candidate will actually realize his and your dreams for a better America and a better world. It's a much more difficult path. And there is always the danger that an attractive candidate will become enamoured of his or her new celebrity status and self-destruct in spectacular fashion. I certainly will not be voting for McCain but I will be voting for whoever survives the bruising Democratic Primaries. May the better candidate win! Charley Noble, Chair of the Richmond, Maine, Democratic Caucus this Sunday, provider of chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies so the people will have a choice! |
|
08 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM (#2257366) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk Charlie, you are way off the beam if you imagine that I have created GG. I create fictional characters for humorous and satirical purposes, not to sew confusion on the political threads. I think GG is some former member of this forum, but from a long way back, probably before I was even here. And anyway, some of the things GG has said have been quite interesting in their own right, specially as regards inner power struggles within the DLC. I don't see why anyone should fear his or her comments. What's so bad about someone who has lost faith in both the Democrats and the Republicans? Sounds like someone with a good capacity for grasping unpleasant truths to me... We all hope for a change. We should probably all temper those hopes with, as I think you have suggested, the realization that no matter who gets elected change will at best only be gradual....because there's a tremendous inertia in the $ySStem, and it tends to perpetuate itself. This makes fundamental change very, very difficult. |
|
08 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM (#2257383) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger "Charley Noble, Chair of the Richmond, Maine, Democratic Caucus this Sunday, provider of chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies so the people will have a choice!" Well, isn't that what America is all about, choice? |
|
09 Feb 08 - 08:06 AM (#2257571) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest In the cereal aisle at the big box grocery stores, you bet. You have your choice of 500 different boxes of sugar cereals that all taste exactly the same. Choice in our political leaders? Not so much. I have finally come up with an iron clad reason to vote for Clinton, though. If you all (remember, I'm sitting out the prez race, meself) vote for Clinton, Big Media and the punditocracy will lose. As it is, your stinking votes aren't gonna matter one iota. This so-called "election" is all going to be decided by 800 or so super delegates somewhere in the Poconos. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM (#2257608) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Bobert All so true, GG... For Obama to get the nomination he has to beat Clinton wtice... First with the voters, which he has done... Then with the DNC's tyranic "super delegate" system which he can't do... This means that Obama will have to shup the crud ouut Hillary to get the nod... Reminds me of a few olympic boxing matches I've witnessed over the years where the only way one boxer could get the victory was by TKO... It is an antiquated, un-democratic, rigged deck system that the DNC has ion place... B~ |
|
09 Feb 08 - 09:44 AM (#2257623) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos GG is very, very real, Charley. One might even say "too real".! :D And she certainly has her moments of clarity and insight, which I find very valuable when they can be separated from her "off-med" moments of slander, sarcasm and bitterness. It is an interesting combination. Nation magazine came otu for Obama this morning. A |
|
09 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM (#2257630) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Oh good, at long last The Nation's endorsement. That one really rings--they endorsed Kerry the Loser in 2004. That one makes about as much difference in the scheme of world domination as Joan Baez and the Camelot Kennedys. I note no one here has mentioned any Clinton endorsements. Wonder why? |
|
09 Feb 08 - 11:02 AM (#2257667) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos It should be obvious, Vinegar-Breath. She's the establishment contestant, the default value. The pattern that is interesting is the pattern of Obama's upsetting those expectations. A |
|
09 Feb 08 - 11:07 AM (#2257669) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger Guest-Guest - Both the Democratic Senators from the state of Washington endoresed Hillary. The governor, whose name I can't pronounce, endorsed Obama. I suspect most of these endorsements coming from political players has more to do with what they think they, themselves, can get out of such an endorsement than any overridding principles. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 12:23 PM (#2257731) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Rig-- You've made this allegation more than once about Hispanics themselves being against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants--primarily Hispanic. Would it be too much to ask you to actually think before saying it again? 1) In the US it's often difficult to get around without a car. Hispanics who work would likely want a car. About 12 million are now illegal immigrants. Somehow it's unlikely that legal Hispanics would not sympathize with many other-- illegal-- Hispanics--(some who've been here for years)--and believe they should get drivers licenses. Your theory about this seems to have as much credibility as your allegation that "most of the people I work with" believe all sorts of rumors about Obama--that he's just waiting to declare himself a Moslem, for instance. It's amazing how this rumor, for instance seems to have only your fingerprints on it. So it would be good if you could come up with some actual evidence that Hispanics themselves are against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Please don't forget to give the exact source--and date--for your evidence. Thanks so much 2) Then there's the little matter of logic. If I were hit by another car, I'd actually prefer that the driver be insured--which is strongly promoted by having a drivers license. Interesting to know you're fine with being hit by an uninsured driver. It's patently absurd to believe that if you do not issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, they will not drive. Perhaps you'd like to actually start using logic on this issue. I know it's not against your religion, since you're not religious. So there must be some other reason for your prejudice against logic. Please enlighten us as to what it is. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:05 PM (#2257772) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: artbrooks Drivers license = license to drive = knowledge and ability to drive (one hopes). I find it hard to believe that any substantial percentage of "Hispanics" (whatever that word means) thinks undocumented migrants should be deprived of this. I live in New Mexico, the state with the largest percentage of "Hispanic" citizens and individuals of Spanish heritage, and the documentation requirement for a New Mexico drivers license reads as follows: You will need to provide one (1) proof of identification number; one (1) proof of identity and two (2) proofs or New Mexico residency. If you are eligible for a Social Security number (SSN) your proof of identification number will be your Social Security card or a verification document from Social Security confirming your SSN. If you are not eligible for a Social Security card, you will be required to provide a valid passport issued by your country of citizenship; a Matricula Consular issued after February 1, 2005 by the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque or El Paso; or an individual tax identification number (ITIN) card or the letter from the IRS issuing your ITIN. Any Mexican citizen residing outside of Mexico can obtain a Matricula Consular, regardless of his or her legal status. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM (#2257785) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Riginslinger "Interesting to know you're fine with being hit by an uninsured driver." Ron - Do you have any evidence to back this up? Be specific - time, date etc. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:39 PM (#2257807) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Incoming! |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:49 PM (#2257821) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Yeah, re: the endorsement thing--no mention around here of the YOUNGER Kennedy generation (Bobby's kids especially) who endorsed Hilary. Wonder why? Maybe Caroline & Uncle Teddy own the trademark on the name. Aren't they too part of that political past Obama the Fast Talker and Empty Suit is talking about leaving behind? Oh, I see. Obama is cherry picking his Kennedys from the political past. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM (#2257830) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Charley Noble Geeze! It's getting hot and heavy around here and it's still February. Too bad I can't tap some of the heat for this house. Even my offer of "chocolate chip cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies' is scorned by GG and a few others. As if they were capable of coming up with a more flavorful or healthyl alternative. I'm also bringing a jug of cider as well. I suppose you don't like cider either! Well, we'll just have to hold our caucus gathering this Sunday without you. Actually I'm more concerned that folks in this town will not be able to make it. We're having another big snow storm tonight and there is no more room to get rid of the stuff. And it's supposed to continue snowing all Sunday, inch by inch. Well, we only live a block and a half from the Town Office and can make it by snowshoe if necessary. And if no one else shows up, Judy and I will vote in our current favorites. It will still be too close to call! Charley Noble |
|
09 Feb 08 - 02:07 PM (#2257840) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: GUEST,Guest Charley, you and Amos and Ron are the ONLY people who are hot and bothered, because of your emotional attachment to your candidate. Me, I don't give a rip who gets the nomination. One Clinton is just as bad, IMO, as one Obama. And I'll raise you an Ellen for your Oprah (cue angels and darling little dogs). |
|
09 Feb 08 - 02:14 PM (#2257844) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Rig- Uh, that was sarcasm--which I've just used for the first time in my life. Point remains: your attitude against licenses for illegal immigrants makes it more likely that you will be hit by an uninsured driver. That would be too bad--but worse is that I might be hit by one--because of your certified senseless attitude. There is a bit of self-interest in it, I admit. Hope you don't mind. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM (#2257871) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos How terribly feminine of you, GG. A |
|
09 Feb 08 - 03:15 PM (#2257907) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Ron Davies Janet (AKA GG)-- Thanks for confirming what I pointed out on another thread: that you yourself, in your defense of Hillary, don't believe a word of what you said--that it was totally a hypocritical and pointless exercise. No wonder it was totally devoid of sense, as I noted. Well, I suppose it's a logical outcome of terminal bitter cynicism. Gee, just think of what you could do if you actually did believe in what you said. But at least we now know for the future how seriously to take anything you say. Point taken. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 06:51 PM (#2258057) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Little Hawk I don't believe you've used sarcasm only once, Ron. ;-) Document it. Provide a full statistical breakdown based on at least your last 1700 posts, proving that you have not resorted to sarcasm on any other occasions. Otherwise you cannot really expect anyone to give credence to your very unlikely assertion. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 06:53 PM (#2258060) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Peace I wonder where reason goes When the bullshit gets deeeeeeep. |
|
09 Feb 08 - 07:24 PM (#2258076) Subject: RE: BS: Clinton/Obama too close, McCain surging From: Amos Out the window, and around the world. Anone can do it, even a girl. Buy inso something stupid and watch their toeses curl As reason's out the window, and around the world. Archie "Bunker" Mendality. "Out the Window and Around the World" Pop Hits of 1993 |