2008 Presidential Election - Page 3

I did too. I suspect that his positions on trade are probably more protectionist than mine.

Bill Clinton is dreaming
Funny. I bet a Clinton/McCain would make the Swiftboat ads look tame by comparison. Dirtiest campaign ever.

The first candidate selector I had Gravel 1st, Obama 3rd. 2nd one was Obama, Gravel, Edwards.

I'm glad Obama scored so high on mine, and I thought Edwards would be higher. Interesting.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (90%)
3. Barack Obama (87%)
4. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (86%)
5. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (76%)
6. Hillary Clinton (76%)
7. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (76%)
8. John Edwards (74%)
9. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (74%)
10. Al Gore (not announced) (71%)
11. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (65%)
12. Bill Richardson (withdrawn) (64%)
13. Mike Gravel (64%)
14. Elaine Brown (60%)
15. Ron Paul (48%)

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (87%)
3. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (77%)
4. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (76%)
5. John Edwards (72%)
6. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (72%) Information link
7. Hillary Clinton (71%) Information link
8. Al Gore (not announced) (70%) Information link
9. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (69%) Information link

Apparently, I'm kind of a liberal.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (81%)
3. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (79%)
4. Barack Obama (76%)
5. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (75%)
6. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (74%)
7. Hillary Clinton (72%)
8. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (68%)
9. Al Gore (not announced) (68%)
10. John Edwards (68%)

Yeah, that's about right.

I'm not quite sure if my results make me a commie or not but nonetheless.....

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (78%)
3. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (71%)
4. John Edwards (68%)
5. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (66%)
6. Al Gore (not announced) (64%)
7. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (62%)
8. Bill Richardson (withdrawn) (60%)
9. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (59%)
10. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (58%)

And aside from the few I don't know much about it's pretty close.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (82%)
3. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (82%)
4. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (78%)
5. John Edwards (68%)
6. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (66%)
7. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (66%)
8. Al Gore (not announced) (65%)
9. Hillary Clinton (64%)
10. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (62%)

Interesting, I don't think I'd have ranked Obama that highly, and I would have expected Edwards to come out nearer the top.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (79%)
3. Barack Obama (79%)
4. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (76%)
5. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (73%)
6. Hillary Clinton (71%)
7. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (68%)
8. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (68%)
9. John Edwards (68%)
10. Mike Gravel (68%)


Now all I need is a Green Card...

South Carolina today. Throwing out my early predictions

Clinton
Edwards
Obama

But Clinton and Obama will be within 4% of each other, expect recounts, voter intimidation reports, conspiracy's.. etc...

No way Clinton wins tonight, it will be;

Obama
Clinton
Edwards

The question is how bad Clinton loses, I'm going to guess at least 10 points.

Theoretical Ideal Candidate/Theoretical Ideal Running Mate '08!

Gotta start up my bumper sticker machine!

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (86%)
3. Dennis Kucinich (withdrawn) (81%)
4. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (78%)
5. Al Gore (not announced) (78%)
6. John Edwards (77%)
7. Hillary Clinton (77%)

Looks about right.

NBC says big win for Obama. Bill Clinton playing the race card not such a good idea. You think the Clintons were Republicans.

Told you, Obama is going to destroy the Clinton machine tonight. Awesome.

McCain is going to get the endorsement of FL govr. Charlie Crist.

McCain vs Obama, that would be a fun election. Not even sure who I would vote for in that one!

Wow. It's like psychic powers or something.

This shit just got real.

Plus, I don't think they like each other.

Hillary still has the advantage going into Super Tuesday, but if Obama trounces in Republican states and pulls his share in Democratic states, his delegate count might be awesome indeed.

Wow, Obama pulled nearly double the votes Clinton did, thats unreal.

Obama got 80% of the African-American vote. You figured he'd do well, but damn.

Wow, I honestly thought it would have been a lot closer. The negatives had backfired on Clinton BIG time. I thought those ads and the debate would have made SC a lot closer. This might just be the blowout to put Obama all the way through.

Big fucking numbers for Obama. If Clinton doesn't take New York, she's fucking done. I'm sad Edwards is out and curious to see who his supporters will back.

Edwards isn't out, unless you mean "don't waste your time" done. He should be in a unique position after Feb. 5 to basically play kingmaker. I have to wonder how much we can take from Obamas win, is this really the start of a tide shift or is it just a fluke?

Shit's a yo-yo, yo.

How much can you take from any of these wins? Hillary isn't done after this. Obama isn't done if she wins Florida - which, I imagine, she will. The candidates are certainly looking for one of these things to start a big wave, but it never seems too. America's just too indecisive.

Bill Clinton doesn't know when to stop using the race card
Other than being black how is Jesse and Barack alike? Hopefully the momentum will carry over into Feb 5th. I don't want another night like New Hampshire.

And his speech tonite was again great.

A President Like My Father By Caroline Kennedy
Now if only more older white women would support Obama over Clinton.

That's what everybody said after Iowa. "Man, Obama's got it, doesn't he? The tide is shifting. Hillary is so done." Then New Hampshire happened.

Mr. Matchstick's yo-yo analogy is on point.

Since I can't edit

The updated delagate counts

Obama 63
Clinton 48
Edwards 26

You can cound Edwards to Obama so it's more like 89-48. Doesn't mean much with so many up for grabs next Tuesday but all Obama has to do is stay close and Edwards and the Super Delagates will push him over.

Can't wait till the new polls on Wed/Thur.

Obama takes Sth Carolina!!!

WOOOOOOO!!!!!

Senator Barack Obama has stormed to his second win in the 2008 Democratic primaries, winning Saturday's poll in South Carolina - the first southern state to vote - by a large margin.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...368921560.html

Technically, as of right now. Florida is inconsequential for the Democrats, as it's been stripped of its delegates. So barring any shady machinations, Florida shouldn't matter.

Except now Hillary is making noises about letting the delegates from Michigan and Florida be seated at the convention. She's spouting all the right words -- letting all the voices being heard, wanting to be the president of all 50 states, etc -- but the fact that she was the only name on the ballot in Michigan and has a huge lead in Florida can't have anything to do with it, can it? Oh nooooooooo.

So much for this race not being about race.....

yes and no
Obama got 52% of the non white voters 18-29. It got worse down the line.
He also was 1% point behing Clinton in white men.

Like I said last page, it's dirty pool. I also suspect it won't work.

Teddy to follow Caroline and endorse Obama
Says ABC
Hopefully it will give Obama a big boost in Massachusetts. Now if the rest of the Dems will just get on board. Not sure what they are waiting for.

Come on, Gore. We know you hate Hillary.

He endorsed Dean in '04 and probably won't forget Bill for not supporting him in 2000. What does that tell you?

Actually, Gore distanced himself from the Clintons in 2000 due to the Monica scandal. When he lost, there were reports that he was angry with Clinton for tainting his VP term with the whole mess. I believe there were even reports of him getting into verbal arguments in the white house.

It is.

Only 24% of his base is white IIRC. Do you think the 80% of blacks would've voted for him if he was white? I'd like to think so....that we've gotten past voting for a person based on their gender or color.

But in reality, him and Clinton aren't all that different according to Factcheck.org:

Yeah, I've been saying this all along. There are just enough differences to push me toward Obama, but the vast discrepancies between the two that guys like Anya are citing are pretty illusory. If you don't think race was the critical factor in South Carolina, you're just fooling yourself. And that's the important comparison point between Obama and Jackson. It's not racist for Clinton to note it. I'd say it's "observant," but even that would be to overstate things. It's obvious. It's unfortunate (since it suggests Obama's going to have a long haul in states with smaller black populations), but it's obvious.

And race will be an even bigger deal in the general election when Obama's not just trying to win over Democrats who backed Clinton or Edwards, but also moderates and center-leaning conservatives for whom color just may be a dealbreaker. Of course, a vagina (especially with the Clinton name attached to it) is probably just as much, if not more, of a dealbreaker for those voters.

I'm not saying race isn't a factor. It's just not the only factor. Obama Did win Iowa(38%) and there aren't enough blacks there to make a difference. He got 37% of the vote in NH. No blacks. And 45% in Nevada Caucus.

And if you look at the polls it's more about age with Obama than anything. His numbers go down the older the demographic.

His big problem is middle aged white women.

Other than being black the 2 are nothing alike. Jesse never brought in voters like Obama has, black and white, young and old. Bill Clinton was trying to marginalize Obama's win and put him in the Jesse camp of only attracting the black vote which isn't true.

There was nothing observant about Bill Clinton and his invoking race. This was the South after all and a state that still flies the Confederate flag. Bill knows the black vote is lost so he's driving a wedge to get the white and Latino vote. He's a scumbag and figures the blacks will vote for Hillary in the general anyway. Not in these numbers but 95% will go to her.

If this was a Republican he'd be crucified.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Wayne Allyn Root (78%) Information link
3. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (72%) Information link
4. Ron Paul (68%) Information link
5. Bill Richardson (withdrawn) (66%) Information link
6. Alan Keyes (63%) Information link
7. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (63%) Information link
8. John McCain (61%) Information link
9. Al Gore (not announced) (59%) Information link
10. Chuck Hagel (not running) (59%) Information link
11. Barack Obama (58%) Information link
12. Hillary Clinton (56%) Information link


I don't think that test was very good, but here are my scores

Clinton observing that JJ won big in 1988 is not racist with a capital R but it is reductive, low, hack spin job that does nothing to elevate the relations or the discourse between the races. Which, for a Democrat to engage in, is quite sad. There are many differences between then and now, that any serious observer of politics would be wise to pick up on.

And the Latino vote. Latinos are the biggest minority. He might pick up the Caribbean/Latino vote but he gets killed with the mexican-/central-/south- american vote.

The only thing that worries me about the Obama camp is that he's talking about a new way of politics (which I really don't care for... I'm for issues), but I'm just imagining once he's president, and one becomes critical of him, will his cabinet or supporters pull the race card (which they did pull effectively in SC)?

In the case with Clinton and Obama, they're very close on the issues, so one could argue that governing style would have a much larger factor in the reality of their leadership than would a hair splitting difference between where they sit on the issues.

Also, I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. Are you saying that, for example, you think Obama supporters would pull the race card if the war doesn't go as planned? The Clinton campaign has been actively trying to paint Obama as the black candidate. That's the narrative they chose to spin because they thought it would give Hillary the best chance of winning the primary.

The two are alike in a significant way. In fact, it's the only way in which Clinton even drew a comparison. He compared his wife's competitor to a guy who lost because of a specific commonality - they both won in South Carolina largely due to a racial divide. It's absolutely an attempt to marginalize him. You don't think Obama doesn't try to marginalize Clinton when he advertises himself as a candidate for change? You don't think Edwards doesn't when he implies he's the mature candidate for not taking the bait in that debate last week?

Is it great sportsmanship? Maybe not, but marginalization is the nature of campaigning. To turn this into a "racist statement" (even lower-case) rather than an observation on how race affected the outcome of South Carolina requires a fair amount of spin.

But carry on. Everything the Clintons have done is underhanded and vile, and Obama is squeaky clean. This is great... unless we're faced with the reality of Hillary Clinton running against John McCain. And, then, hooray, all of the anti-Clinton sentiment is going to bite us left-leaning folks in the ass, as the Republicans get to ride that sentiment to the White House for another four years. Now, right now, some would probably say "Hey, if it comes down to that, I'd rather have a Republican than another Clinton in the office." A lot of people said that when Gore ran, too. Absolute genius thinking in hindsight.

I'm not saying we should whitewash what any of these candidates do, but keep some perspective. Just because you've got your money on one horse in the race doesn't mean that the next horse in line is your mortal enemy. Obama's running a cleaner campaign, thus far, but if he doesn't pull it out, fuck if I'm letting the Right dictate the terms for the next four years just because Bill Clinton made a comment that the media decided to spin as racist. Don't let the media's need to construct a campaign narrative full of anger and drama get the best of you.

Since when do politicians follow up on issues? I was watching Real Time Friday and they commented on all the promises of looking into what got us into Iraq, getting troops out, the justice department-all haven't happened.

What makes you think Hillary will actually do anything about the issues she's talking about?
So all the homophobia was bad when Bush did it to win in 04 but the race baiting is fine when the Clintons do it? Perfect way to keep the same bullshit going. Vote a third Party then.

The only thing a Clinton Presidency will do is what happened in 94 with the Contract for America. 2 years to rile up the Republican base to vote them in to Congress while she fails again at health care.

I hear ya, Dave. I do. It's just tough to keep a lid on it when I'm thinking that part of the reason of gridlock and paralysis is precisely because this kind of politics feeds our worst side, and gives everyone the low moral ground with which to wage a cynical nasty campaign. I was always a supporter of Clinton's too (despite my general distaste for triangulation,) until the AUMF. That's when it suddenly became clear to me how flawed the Clinton way had become.

That said, I do think there's enough good reason to vote for Hillary. She has a fairly impressive set of policy proposals. It's just a matter of her earning my vote for the general election. [/edit]

So in other words, you're afraid of the Republicans.

At this point I want someone that will give these fundis and Neocons hemorrhoids.

I want to select the candidate that will be a nightmare for them, 'cause God knows, they been given us one for the last 8 years. I am not interested in negotiating with religious freaks and Neocons or bringing them to the table.

It's a ridiculous comparison. Every comment that the Clintons have made WRT race is entirely innocuous until the media gets a hold of it and turns it into a "racist" comment to fuel one of the narratives they're selling. Bush didn't care about getting the gay vote. The Clintons absolutely care about getting the black vote - say what you will about them, but they're smart politicians. Even if they were racist (and you've gotta be nuts to buy that - we lived through eight years of a Clinton White House with nary a reference to racism in the ranks), they wouldn't risk offending a powerful Democratic voting bloc with a racially divisive strategy.

Watch the Daily Show. Even without writers, it's been providing the best analysis of campaign media coverage I've seen, and there are clips practically every day that illustrate just how much of the heated battle between the Clinton and Obama camps (and the Romney-McCain camps, etc.) is media-perpetuated. The spin is that this is a death-match, because that's what sells to drama-craving cretins.