DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

i'm talking in the general. not right now.

And regarding her being vetted here's a blurb from a spot-on article I just read...

 

The bottom line, despite Hillary's phantom 35 years of experience, is that the Clintons can never be vetted. They are always knee deep in s***. It may be s*** that will surface after the convention, when and if her tax returns are ever released. It may be s*** lying dormant in sealed White House records. It may be s*** from how they are financing her campaign right now. It may be s*** from the myriad shady deals Bill has cut as a former president. But it is there.

 

And when she is the nominee and the s*** surfaces what then? If she's president and Bill decides he misses spewing his seed in the Oval Office sink, what then? Why then all the forces of progressivism must rally. We must link arms with Lanny Davis and Ann Lewis and fight the Clintons battles yet again. No thanks.

 

LINK

[Reddy]

The ability to fight fire with fire will not come close to offsetting the anti-Clinton vote that will mobilize on behalf of McCain if she gets the nomination.

 

You say everybody already knows Bearing in mind that the Clinton s***, but it's not a question of what McCain could do with that. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the fractuous conservative base – the social conservatives and more specifically the Christian conservatives – are not too keen on the idea of a McCain presidency. The fact that this group turned out in droves to vote for GWB made the difference in the last two elections. If they sit 2008 out and the Dems turned out in the kind if numbers it appears they will, McCain loses by a lot in the general. But all of that potentially falls apart with a Clinton nomination, because the Clinton Penis will again become something the conservative Christians can turn out to vote against if the GOP media machine finds a way to pretend it is an issue.

 

the religious right, if you ask me, is more likely than anything to just sit this one out - regardless of who the dem nom is. i dont know, i could be wrong and the GOP machine may very well do as you say - but i'm not sold on that happening.

 

i dont know, i mean, more and more i am starting to come to the conclusion that Obama is the most electable... but man... i just cant stand the guy and dont want to see him on tv every effing day for the next 4 years.

[southsider2k5]

The ability to fight fire with fire will not come close to offsetting the anti-Clinton vote that will mobilize on behalf of McCain if she gets the nomination.

 

You say everybody already knows Bearing in mind that the Clinton s***, but it's not a question of what McCain could do with that. Keep in mind that 1/3 of the fractuous conservative base ? the social conservatives and more specifically the Christian conservatives ? are not too keen on the idea of a McCain presidency. The fact that this group turned out in droves to vote for GWB made the difference in the last two elections. If they sit 2008 out and the Dems turned out in the kind if numbers it appears they will, McCain loses by a lot in the general. But all of that potentially falls apart with a Clinton nomination, because the Clinton Penis will again become something the conservative Christians can turn out to vote against if the GOP media machine finds a way to pretend it is an issue.

 

It comes down to this. Would they rather have McCain or Hillary/Obama in the White House?

[Reddy]

It comes down to this. Would they rather have McCain or Hillary/Obama in the White House?

 

i dont think thats true. the religious right, if they dont have a candidate to rally behind, just wont vote.

[StrangeSox]

i dont think thats true. the religious right, if they dont have a candidate to rally behind, just wont vote.

 

If they have a candidate to rally AGAINST (Hillary), they will.

[kapkomet]

i dont think thats true. the religious right, if they dont have a candidate to rally behind, just wont vote.

I GUARANTEE you that if Hillary is the nominee, they will hold their nose and pull the McCain lever, because the "religious right" understands very clearly the ramifications of a Hillarity presidency.

[Mplssoxfan]

i dont think thats true. the religious right, if they dont have a candidate to rally behind, just wont vote.

A lot of them will vote for McCain in the General. Book it.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Mplssoxfan

[Reddy]

If they have a candidate to rally AGAINST (Hillary), they will.

 

maybe... but people are never as strong in their convictions when it's AGAINST something. People don't say they're Anti-Choice, they say they're Pro-Life. Say bible thumper X is against Hillary and doesn't really like McCain either. If they've got a busy schedule that day or they're not feeling well or whatever else, they're not going to go out and vote simply to vote AGAINST someone. People rally behind wanting to see their OWN agenda put in place, typically not for keeping another one out.

 

but that said i could be completely wrong if Religious Right leaders really stand up and make waves about it and try and mobilize their constituency.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If they have a candidate to rally AGAINST (Hillary), they will.

 

 

I GUARANTEE you that if Hillary is the nominee, they will hold their nose and pull the McCain lever, because the "religious right" understands very clearly the ramifications of a Hillarity presidency.

 

I agree that the anti-Clinton vote could be the one that mobilizes members of the religious right that would sit it out otherwise. That is a group that is very capable of grassroots mobilization to turn out enough voters to figure very prominently in th election if they get a fire lit under them.

[kapkomet]

I agree that the anti-Clinton vote could be the one that mobilizes members of the religious right that would sit it out otherwise. That is a group that is very capable of grassroots mobilization to turn out enough voters to figure very prominently in th election if they get a fire lit under them.

And nothing fires up evengelicals like the thought of Hillary Clinton - President. Trust me on that one.

 

It's MORE likely that they would sit out if Obama's the nominee, which is probably why you see some of the Obama will beat McCain stuff you're seeing.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is great...

[Reddy]

This is great...

 

i. hate. fox. news.

 

lol it's getting to the point where it's just comical. i legitimately think that the Daily Show is probably now officially a better news source than Fox.

[HuskyCaucasian]

i legitimately think that the Daily Show is probably now officially a better news source than Fox.

Think? i KNOW it is

[sox4lifeinPA]

i. hate. fox. news.

 

lol it's getting to the point where it's just comical. i legitimately think that the Daily Show is probably now officially a better news source than Fox.

 

 

I don't know if you caught it in that video, but according to a new Fox News study apparently Democrats have small weiners.

[HuskyCaucasian]

according to a new Fox News study apparently Democrats have small weiners.

On my behalf, my wife would like to dispute that

[sox4lifeinPA]

On my behalf, my wife would like to dispute that

 

 

REPUBLICAN!!!!!

[HuskyCaucasian]

REPUBLICAN!!!!!

I could so respond to that, but my explanation wouldn't be umm.... kid friendly, nor appropriate for this discussion. lol

[HuskyCaucasian]

Coultergeist at it again...

[sox4lifeinPA]

I could so respond to that, but my explanation wouldn't be umm.... kid friendly, nor appropriate for this discussion. lol

 

check the mascots

[HuskyCaucasian]

OH! I just got an idea! Ok, on MSNBC they are talking about MI and FL and if their delegates should count. FL wont re-hold their Dem primary because it is too expensive. The DNC is only willing to partially fund it. I propose Obama come out and say "we'll put up money for half. I urge Hillary to do the same".

[HuskyCaucasian]

Just saw Kiki McLean (a clinton advisor) on MSNBC. Great line. Obama has been ahead and we are closing the gap. based on what? Based on RealClearPolitics and Wikipedia, CLinton had a 50-41 lead as recent as a WEEK ago. Cant really claim a "come from behind".. oh, I'm sorry.. "come back kid" when you were leading less than a week ago. The way i see, she is LOSING WI.

[EvilMonkey]

Can one of you Obamaites explain to me why this bill he is sponsoring would be a good thing for the US?

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi...272618845.shtml

This is one part that bugged me.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

 

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends

[FlaSoxxJim]

Can one of you Obamaites explain to me why this bill he is sponsoring would be a good thing for the US?

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi...272618845.shtml

This is one part that bugged me.

 

Well, it would be good because it would recommit the US to providing the amount of world poverty reduction assistance (as a percentage of GDP) we agreed we would provide 35 years ago. It would also push us to ratify the CBD, Kyoto, small arms reduction, and a few other treaties we have not yet ratified, so there's another benefit.

 

The US signed onto the UN's lofty goal of reducing by half the amount of world poverty by 2015. That's not going to happen if member nations don't step up and make it happen.

[Texsox]

Well, it would be good because it would recommit the US to providing the amount of world poverty reduction assistance (as a percentage of GDP) we agreed we would provide 35 years ago. It would also push us to ratify the CBD, Kyoto, small arms reduction, and a few other treaties we have not yet ratified, so there's another benefit.

 

The US signed onto the UN's lofty goal of reducing by half the amount of world poverty by 2015. That's not going to happen if member nations don't step up and make it happen.

 

But if they were stupid enough to believe us, it is their fault

 

BTW, it seems that Hillary will be making a second appearance in my area. I wasn't motivated to drive 20 minutes to see her, but since she will be about 3 minutes away this week, I guess I will wander over and hear what she has to say.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, it would be good because it would recommit the US to providing the amount of world poverty reduction assistance (as a percentage of GDP) we agreed we would provide 35 years ago. It would also push us to ratify the CBD, Kyoto, small arms reduction, and a few other treaties we have not yet ratified, so there's another benefit.

 

The US signed onto the UN's lofty goal of reducing by half the amount of world poverty by 2015. That's not going to happen if member nations don't step up and make it happen.

Most of those other treaties would be a bad thing for us to sign anyway, but aht part I guess could be a different debate. My problem is that this bill gives the money to the UN to distribute. Besides, if you factor in private giving to worldwide causes, the US more than meets that 'goal'. The Gates Foundation, UNICEF, etc all send lots of American dollars opverseas to help fight poverty. I'll bet that even percentage wise the amoun of charity given by Americans to others vastly outweighs what any European nation does. I just don't like any law that puts us in any way under the control of the UN.

 

BTW, nice KISS panda avitar. When do they go on tour?

Edited February 16, 2008 by Alpha Dog