|
Obama, for the win. (pg. 48)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by glass
Well Rob, I'll you an anecdote my Prof. at Stanford Law told me in my final year.
"Tony, you need to be responsible. If you didn't have to pay for an abbortion every fifteen minutes, you could afford to take your girl out for nice dinner once in a while."
Does that help? |
I have two questions.
Would waiting an extra 5 minutes help?
And does Taco Bell with store bought salsa and "grade A fancy" sour cream count as a "nice dinner"?
:conf: |
|
|
| glass |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I have two questions.
Would waiting an extra 5 minutes help?
And does Taco Bell with store bought salsa and "grade A fancy" sour cream count as a "nice dinner"?
:conf: |
I thought he meant the sizzler, RIP. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by glass
I thought he meant the sizzler, RIP. |
Mmmmmmmm... fried baby sizzles.
Two birds, one stone maybe?
:conf: |
|
|
| Az |
| clintons massive gaffe about sniper fire when she landed in bosnia has been big news here.... love it :stongue: |
|
|
| glass |
| Did you know that camel adds all natural menthol to their tabacco blend. So there's no shortage of wildly refreshing taste:) |
|
|
| mario999 |
| I'm game. Anybody but Hillary! |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
How is there this little election news being covered by the mass media right now?
:conf:
I swear, the series of spectacles that is the U.S. presidential election cycle every four years gets worse and worse each go round. It's basically a bunch of nonsense bull insults that culminate in some large primary/caucus/election and then nothing until it's time to rally the few troops that will actually head out to the polls.
:mad:
ing suckfest convention going on here. |
(Disclaimer: This is going to be a bit of a rant).
Things that piss me off about this election cycle:
1. The election ended a month and a half ago. Why do people still think Hillary has a chance? Every time I hear the media talk about the tightness of the Democratic race I cringe. It's been mathematical since Obama upset Hillary in Maryland and Virginia. She can't catch him in pledged delegates, and the unpledged superdelegates have largely followed Speaker Pelosi's lead in stating that they will support whichever candidate leads in pledged delegates and popular vote. Hillary can catch Obama in neither even IF Florida and Michigan are allowed re-votes (which they should not be). It's over. Barring Obama going on national television and saying "I am the antichrist" he's going to be the Democratic nominee for President. And it's time for Hillary to get behind him for the good of the party. I can understand that it has to be a terrible feeling seeing something you've put so much effort into fall apart. I still think she would make a fine President (in fact, on some issues I like her more than Obama), but c'mon. This is becoming nothing more than a show of vanity.
I am convinced that Hillary is not such a bad person. She's much more personable than the media seems to give her credit for, she has a decent sense of humor, and seems to genuinely care for the country. But the people around her sicken me. Geraldine Ferraro, who I once admired, is the epitome of hypocrisy, levying the exact criticisms used against her in 1984 against Obama today. How can she deny that she was only on the vice presidential ticket because of her gender and then state unequivocally that Obama is only a serious candidate because of his race? It's absurd! And Mark Penn. My contempt for him cannot even begin to be put into words. Why in God's name is a top democratic strategist placing conference calls to journalists from all across the country for the purpose of stating flatly "Barack Obama is not ready to be President. He has not crossed a 'commander-in-chief' threshold, and frankly, John McCain would be a better choice." W. T. F. Thanks Mark, you've handed the GOP a dozen campaign ads to use from here to November. Courtesy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, et. al. And James Carville. The man who energized the Democratic base and got a relatively obscure Bill Clinton elected President in 1992. Called Bill Richardson "Judas Iscariot" (on Easter weekend!!) for not supporting Hillary. Because the fact that he was once a political appointee of Hillary's husband means that he is more beholden to their family than to the country? Because he waited to cast his support behind the candidate he knew for certain would emerge as the nominee, the better to create a unified front to face John McCain? Seriously James, what good would a Richardson endorsement for Hillary do anyone now other than divide the party even further. Gee, one wonders why Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid can't stand the Clinton campaign, and why superdelegates are jumping ship left and right.
2. Nobody is talking about the issues. God did this election really crap out. People were so excited in February and now everyone has been made bitter by the pedantic accusations being thrown around by campaign staff. Someone really needs to punch Mark Penn (Hillary's campaign chair) in the face for what he's doing to the Democratic Party. Two months ago the focus was on health care plans, what to do in Iraq, the troubled economy, and education. Now it's this "he said, she said" bull. Part of this is the media's fault. But a good deal of the responsibility for this falls on the shoulders of (guess who) Mark Penn and his ilk, who would rather take the focus away from issues (which have clearly favored Obama thus far) and put more effort into swift-boating Obama from within his own party. Thanks.
3. The Clinton campaign has absolutely no respect for the democratic process, yet has the gall to claim that the Obama campaign is disenfranchising voters. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. The consequences of doing so were clearly laid out by the Democratic National Committee well before the states made the decision to break the rules. Therefore, the consequences should be applied. The delegates from Michigan and Florida should not be seated at the national convention. The state parties took a gamble, got called on it, and now have to pay the price. If voters feel disenfranchised, they should look up the phone numbers of their state party headquarters and make a call.
For the Clinton campaign (which campaigned in those states despite promises not to) to claim that the states should count - after all she won both as a result of Barack not even being on their ballots - is ridiculous. But for her to claim that the Obama campaign is actively seeking to disenfranchise the voters who might most likely support her (far-fetched in my opinion) is ludicrous. The Obama campaign is merely standing by the official position of the national party chair, Howard Dean, and the congressional delegations from Florida and Michigan. It's meddling Clinton supporters like Govs. Granholm (MI), Rendell (PA), Corzine (NJ), and the Florida Republicans that are making the most fuss about those states counting. They broke the rules, they knew the consequences, too bad.
And now Hillary's largest fund-raisers are pissed off at Nancy Pelosi. Why? Because Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether super-delegates should follow the will of the people, said yes. But that would preclude Hillary from winning the nomination!!! So here come her big donors, writing a conniving letter that borders on blackmail to the Speaker claiming they will stop all donations to the Democratic Congressional campaign fund if she doesn't publicly say that super-delegates are free to support whomever they choose, regardless of who wins more pledged delegates or votes. Because doggone it, if Hillary can't win, they're going to make DARN sure that NO Democrats can! This scorched earth policy is supposed to be used against enemies, not members of your own party.
I'll let Oliver Willis take it from here:
| quote: | The more I read about the rich donors who told Nancy Pelosi to shut up, the more angry I get. I may not agree with her on quite a few issues, but Speaker Pelosi is second in line to the Presidency, the first woman to hold her position and a figure demanding of respect - especially from people who are supposed to be her fellow Democrats. These guys seriously think that because they went to a fancy fundraiser or maybe played a round of golf with the ex-president that they really are better than the rest of us. They have every right to add their voice to the chorus supporting Sen. Clinton, but they have no place, no standing, no right to order the Speaker around.
These people are symptomatic, quite frankly, of the negative that came along with all the good President Clinton did during his tenure. The moribund liberal wing of the party, defanged after the losses of Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, gave way to the big check writers, the elite crowd whose cash did prop up the party for the short term and helped President Clinton gain his office. But for the Democratic party and the progressive movement they have been a waste. Just look at the congressional seats lost during Clinton’s tenure, look at how unprepared the party was to field a coast-to-coast slate of candidates under Terry McAuliffe’s leadership - a party chairmanship that was all about fundraising to the exclusion of getting majorities and a president elected.
But the Clintons and the moneybags crowd have not learned. That’s why they tried to throw their money around in Michigan and re-do the primary. That’s why the Clinton campaign is now faltering at fundraising, having maxed out these whales she doesn’t have the pool of Average Joe donors (like myself) that Sen. Obama will have in the general who have not come close to the $2,300 limit. That’s why, as their anointed candidate began to fail they just cut another of their fat checks to form a 527 committee whose work product is horrendous compared to the work of groups like MoveOn and the labor unions. Sure, wealthy donors help fund some of those efforts as well, but they are truly nothing without their regular Joe volunteers and members. And none of those groups is so in love with themselves that they believe that they can tell Speaker Pelosi what she can and cannot say.
We poor unwashed masses, lacking mansions and minks and chaueffers, elected Rep. Pelosi to the position of Speaker via our representatives in the House. We may not have tee times at the golf club, a yacht parked on the intra coastal, nor do we feed our pets prime rib — but we know that the Speaker is to be afforded a modicum of respect.
This is the stain that remains on the party even after the events of Crashing The Gate were documented by Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. These are the hangers-on who look down their plastic surgery noses at Governor Dean’s 50-state strategy and his middle class demeanor even as the party begins to regain its role as a truly national party. These are the people who think nothing - nothing - of throwing a tantrum because us people, us regular Joes and Janes, had the gall to not vote and caucus for the candidate they bankrolled and sought to shove down our gullets the way they always do. Instead we chose to vote for a candidate whose donor base is almost 2 million strong. Just like a couple of weeks ago when they were demanding refunds of their donations to the party they thought they owned they are once again trying to tell us they bought the Democratic party the same way they bought a diamond necklace at Tiffany’s for their trophy wife.
Not any more. The Democratic party is once again becoming little-d democratic. A party where the rich guys have a say, but so do the regular guys. Speaker Pelosi speaks for us, from Park Avenue to Georgetown to Skid Row to Baltimore to The Lower 9th Ward and beyond.
And you respect her, or shut up. |
http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.p...think-they-are/
4. John McCain is breaking the law and nobody is calling him on it in the media. Luckily, activists are, by filing a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission. An excerpt from that complaint:
| quote: | Senator McCain has simply announced his unilateral plan to ignore the spending limits that he agreed to, in writing, in August 2007....
As documented in extensive detail by the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") in its complaint to the FEC on February 25, 2008, Senator McCain did, in fact, obligate matching funds as security for private financing for a $4,000,000 line of credit from Fidelity & Trust Bank. Therefore, even if the FEC could consider Senator McCain's request to withdraw from the matching fund program, that request would not be granted because he pledge the certification of funds as security for a loan to his campaign.
At the time that the DNC filed its complaint, it was not yet clear whether Senator McCain had, in fact, violated the spending limit based upon disclosure reports that covered the period through January 31, 2008. On that report, Senator McCain had already spent approximately $49,600,000.
Now, though, it's clear that the McCain Campaign has violated the spending cap. On March 20, 2008, Senator McCain's campaign filed its March Monthly report covering the period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008. That report disclosed that Senator McCain's campaign has, as of February 29, 2008, in fact, exceeded the $56,757,500 spending limit. As of February 29, 2008, Senator McCain has disclosed spending $56,916,682 in connection with his quest for the Republican Presidential nomination (A copy of the relevant pages of Senator McCain's report is attached to this complaint). Of course, Senator McCain appears poised to spend tens of millions more between now and the Republican National Convention in connection with his primary campaign in direct violation of the spending limits that he agreed to abide by during the primary election period. Ultimately, it is quite conceivable that Senator McCain may spend in excess of $100,000,000 on primary expenses during the period defined by federal law for qualified primary expenses. Thus, it is likely that Senator McCain will exceed the primary spending limit by $40 million dollars or more.
For the reasons stated above, the FEC should (1) find reason to believe that Senator John McCain and the McCain Campaign have committed, a violation of Chapter 96 of Title 26 and of the Commission's rules, and should conduct an investigation; and (2) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9040(c), petition the appropriate U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 96 against Senator McCain and the McCain Campaign.
|
http://firedoglake.com/files/1/file...vs-mccain-1.pdf
But unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath.
| quote: | | As you likely know, the FEC is stymied at the moment due to the Bush Administration trying to shove Hans Von Spakovsky and all of his "caging" and other alleged nefarious campaign activities onto the election commission as a GOP dirty tricks ringer. Because the Democratic-led Congress said "no way" to Hans being voted through in a bloc vote, the Administration and their pal, Mitch McConnell, have balked at any FEC commissioner vote in the Senate. Which means that in this very important 2008 election cycle, the FEC is unable to act promptly to enforce the campaign finance laws. |
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/26/h...nce-violations/
You have to find it ironic and the pinnacle of hypocrisy that while the media is busy trying to determine whether Obama has sufficiently denounced Rev. Farrakhan, McCain gets a free pass on openly embracing the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, whose remarks are equally distasteful and hate-filled. After all, this is the man who said that New Orleans deserved Katrina, that the true path to rapture is a war with Iran, that all Muslims are genetically wired to fulfill a religious mandate to kill Christians, etc. Read this to get really enraged:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...agee/index.html
And is it not also ironic that as the media spends days debating whether Obama can be tied to the views and beliefs of his pastor, words that he never uttered himself, John McCain gets a free pass in violating his own promise, his own code of ethics that he worked so hard to establish, gaining him the nickname of maverick as a result of his efforts on campaign finance reform? Not only did John McCain break a promise, fail to live up to the reform he worked so hard to pass, but he also broke. the. law.
Gah, I could rant on a lot more, but I'm tired of typing due to finishing two papers last night. I'm going to watch some basketball. |
|
|
| mario999 |
| Yo! Anbody but Hillary! I'm hip... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by mario999
Yo! Anbody but Hillary! I'm hip... |
Wrong. |
|
|
| mario999 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Wrong. |
Friggin' Ralph Nader is better than Hillary. Hell, get Ross Perot back on the podium for all I care. We just don't need to revisit the Clinton disaster in office once again. One was enough. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by mario999
Friggin' Ralph Nader is better than Hillary. Hell, get Ross Perot back on the podium for all I care. We just don't need to revisit the Clinton disaster in office once again. One was enough. |
You display a fundamental lack of understanding of the policy positions of the candidates running for President. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. |
|
|
| mario999 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You display a fundamental lack of understanding of the policy positions of the candidates running for President. The presidential election is not a popularity contest. |
You missed my point. One was enough for this country! |
|
|
|
|
