what does me not being in government have to do with him casting votes that I don't agree with???

1/31/2007 11:43:49 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: John Edwards is unelectable. The man is simply not what America needs or wants."

And you know this, I guess, because you have some magic crystal ball somewhere?

Two words for you, my friend: John Kerry.

Chosen by Democratic primary voters for all the reasons you mention--everyone thought "[The American People] want the fucking calvary, that's who. They want a tough son of a bitch who has seen harder times, who can present an aura of clear direction despite the bog we're in." So, they chose former Prosecutor and Vietnam Swift Boat Commander Lt. John Kerry as the Democratic nominee for President, over Edwards and over the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (and Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party), Gen. Wesley Clark. How'd that work out exactly?

(Sidenote: One could say that Kerry should be discounted because he never presented "an aura of clear direction," but that'd be true only for the general election, not for the primary.)

I think roguewolf's right...to say that anyone is unelectable at this point is a bit premature, particularly when the country's mood is actually favoring the Democrats. The big issue in 2008 will undoubtedly be Iraq and only two Republicans in the field (Sens. Brownback and Hagel) have voiced any opposition to the President's policies. I think McCain, Guiliani and Romney are going to be on the wrong side of a losing battle--literally and figuratively.


[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : I'd post more, but I have a DR's appt. Entertain yourselves until I return ]

1/31/2007 12:04:48 PM

Support for the war is dropping daily. Yet the two Republican candidates who dont support the war are a guy who voted with the presidents wishes 95% of the time and a guy who sits to the right of everyone except gingrich.

1/31/2007 12:11:12 PM

whats Congress' approval rating? It sure as hell cant be a whole lot higher than Bush's

1/31/2007 3:15:25 PM

Congress' approval rating is always like 33%. But individual's approval rating on their particular state Senator or District Rep is always at 70%+ historically.

Which goes to show nobody knows what the fuck goes on in Congress.

And thanks Kay_Yow. Thats the only time I may be right all year, so bookmark that page for me, will ya?



[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : John Kerry indeed....freaking idiot DNC]

1/31/2007 4:34:33 PM

I've flip-flopped, I'm voting for Romney:

He's FABULOUS!

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 5:41 PM. Reason : not rly]

1/31/2007 5:41:10 PM

you are probably just voting for him since his flyers are Pink and Black

1/31/2007 5:50:46 PM

Most certainly!

1/31/2007 5:51:34 PM

Romney actually makes a lot of (common) sense on a bunch of issues

Because of that, he won't get elected

1/31/2007 5:54:17 PM

Yeah, real conservatives hate him for not shouting down gays and immigrants enough, and not demonizing every breath the gov. takes.

He's easier to mold, I think. I guarantee he'll be pro-life, anit-gay marriage/civil union by election time.

The primaries are going to be a shitstorm with one-issue people like Tancredo bringing up all these hot-button issues that get certain segments of the right in an uproar, causing them to be issues that they'll have to reform their position on to be the most ambiguous, or anti in this case.

The religious right isn't going anywhere.

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 5:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2007 5:55:42 PM

“John Edwards is unelectable.”|

Maybe he should be at the bottom of the ticket, since he has had a lot of time to prepare for the role of VP, but I think he needs to be on the ticket.

Southern male democrat (edwards) & unity guy (obama)who are, who are both anti war candidates & both in the top 3 of the dems candidates, are in my opinion, the best chance the democrats have the next chance around.

1/31/2007 7:54:43 PM

you are dreaming if you think a black will be elected Prez in our lifetime

[Edited on January 31, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : w]

1/31/2007 8:02:58 PM

Quote :

"his father went to Harvard to pursue Ph.D. studies, eventually returning to Kenya"

Quote :

"In Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his experiences growing up in his mother's white, middle class family. His knowledge about his absent black Kenyan father came mainly through family stories and photographs. Of his early childhood, Obama wrote: "That my father looked nothing like the people around me — that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk — barely registered in my mind.""

His mother was white. His father went to Harvard. I think they can get over for it since he's the pro unity guy. Especially if he is on the same ticket as white male southern democrat.

Quote :

"Midway through his campaign for U.S. Senator, Obama wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.[29] After describing his maternal grandfather's experiences as a World War II veteran and a beneficiary of the New Deal's FHA and GI Bill programs, Obama said: No, people don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice. Questioning the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War, Obama spoke of an enlisted Marine, Corporal Seamus Ahern from East Moline, Illinois, asking, "Are we serving Seamus as well as he is serving us?" He continued: When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world. Finally he spoke for national unity: The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. This speech was Obama's introduction to most of America, and it was said that it gave him "instant celebrity"[30] status. "

1/31/2007 8:18:28 PM

YOUR next president? John Edwards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

2/1/2007 3:27:57 PM

Quote :

"The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America"

I'm sure he'll be all about unity as long as you agree to whatever he says

2/1/2007 4:21:42 PM

i'm gonna be pissed if i have to listen to his anoying ass voice for 4 years if he gets elected(which i dont think will happen in a million years...)

2/1/2007 4:24:05 PM

^^omg he was getting his hair done before an interview. Stop the presses

2/1/2007 4:25:32 PM

I just did a quick search for Obamas stance on certain issues


why does it seem like people aren't talking about how far left this man is?


I thought he was more mainstream, but I was dead wrong

2/1/2007 4:30:55 PM

^ I've read some of his proposals, but i didn't think they were far leftist.

Explain por favor.

In all seriousness of information. I'm just curious how you personally see it.

2/1/2007 4:41:24 PM

probably something about guns

2/1/2007 4:42:25 PM

Quote :

"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

that strikes a chord with me




[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2007 4:43:17 PM

^^ yes, guns are part of it, says he "wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons from citizens"
^^^ most of the issues he's pretty far left

did he not get a perfect score on the democrats quiz thing?

or was rated higher by the democrats than hillary

I just google searched, "obama" "issues" "stances"

seems to me that they are avoiding talking about his stances altogether, since when do you have to google search to find a candidates stances?

2/1/2007 4:56:39 PM

not saying i dont believe you, but

Quote :

"wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons from citizens"

is incredibly stupid and i'd just like to see a source

oh and even if that is the case there's no way in hell that would ever happen. that's so fucking laughable

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : m]

2/1/2007 4:58:26 PM

just fucking google his stance on GC

btw, that stance is asanine

and before the "OMG THE NRA PROTECTS YOUR GUN RIGHTS" crap starts... the NRA is just a bunch of limp wristed sportsman trying to keep hunting alive and conceding everything else

but it's all the issues, he seems to be pretty far left

I should be done talking about guns in this thread, I'm not trying to hijack it... it's been a good thread

2/1/2007 5:01:09 PM

Quote :

"just fucking google his stance on GC"

i did, briefly, and i didn't find a credible source. nothing on his senate website about it either.

2/1/2007 5:05:13 PM

Quote :

"the NRA is just a bunch of limp wristed sportsman trying to keep hunting alive and conceding everything else"

ooooookay . I'll definitely take your critique of him being "too far left" seriously.


And he wrote an entire book on his stances. This "omg who is he?!" stuff is crap.

[Edited on February 1, 2007 at 5:17 PM. Reason : 're]

2/1/2007 5:12:07 PM

actually the NRA is working pretty hard to kill hunting. By supporting Republicans without question they have been complicit in the destruction of the environment, and the slow death of all hunting and fishing areas.

2/1/2007 8:21:05 PM

GOOD THANG THOSE LIB'RLS MAKE THEM CLONE ANIMALS FOR US TO SHOOT

2/1/2007 8:25:35 PM

you are on crack. also, how is animal cloning a liberal vs conservative issue???

unless you plan on hunting cloned humans.....

2/1/2007 8:29:05 PM

since the caps lock didnt fill you into the sarcasm i'll tell you...i was being sarcastic

also im sure its mostly atheist liberals who think cloning is immoral and unethical, not bible thumping conservative hillbillies?

2/1/2007 8:33:16 PM

bush declares ban on human cloning. bush cuts off funding for human cloning.

2/1/2007 8:48:25 PM

Quote :

" One could say that Kerry should be discounted because he never presented "an aura of clear direction," "

Yea -- since, like, 1970, when he became Mr. "I served in the war before I rallied against it." Yours has to be the understatement of the century. John Kerry was a reflexive, dove liberal for most of his life. His past military service doesn't make him a wartime leader.

There's this little thing called "credibility" that people need before they run for office.

Quote :

"I think roguewolf's right...to say that anyone is unelectable at this point is a bit premature, particularly when the country's mood is actually favoring the Democrats."

People who lack respect for the fickle nature of the American public find themselves buried quickly. Americans aren't just randomly voting Democratic versus Republican. People don't vote for parties, they vote for leaders.

Do people oppose the war? Sure. But they aren't anti-war zombie clones.

I swear, people like you -- the partisan Democrats -- you want to believe that this "national mood" amounts to a collective "ca-ching" as the blue ballots hit the polls. It doesn't. The people going to the polls are just that -- people. The same ones who thought the country was red a few years ago.

My basic point, then, has been that if you honestly compare the candidates, the Democrats severely lack that "credibility" thing I was just talking about. People aren't stupid; the statistical "national mood" wont make people vote for an academic lawyer newbie over a veteran POW senator for the commander-in-chief's job.

2/2/2007 3:25:54 AM

Quote :

" Within the GOP you really have: - Former mayor with a shadier personal past and mayoral term than Bill Clinton. - Senator who still supports the same war 2/3 of Americans want to see end and over 1/2 believe was unjustifible. - A governor that is just as far to the right as the current 28% approved President."

Mitt Romney is an excellent candidate and a great executive. We'd be lucky to have him -- this notion of "right versus left" pales in comparison to individual gusto. The Presidency is inherently a middle-of-the-road position.

I agree that Giuliani's shit stinks. Find me a politician whose shit doesn't stink -- that it matters is a sign that people care about him as a serious contender.

McCain is a force of his own; and as I said above, people are not zombie voters where Iraq is concerned. Leadership matters. If not, then God help us -- the last time we got a President as a visceral reaction to a war-turned-bog, we got Nixon. We can do worse than McCain.

2/2/2007 3:36:09 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Yea -- since, like, 1970, when he became Mr. "I served in the war before I rallied against it." Yours has to be the understatement of the century. John Kerry was a reflexive, dove liberal for most of his life. His past military service doesn't make him a wartime leader."

You should go back and read my post because that's not what I said.

My argument was not for or against John Kerry (if I was making that argument, I would certainly have chosen the latter). I was arguing against people making these assessments about what they think the American people want. I was making the point than in 2004 that's what Democratic primary voters did--looking for someone who had military credentials--and, clearly, that failed miserably.

My point was...I think that we can't waste time making political prognostications and, instead, that we ought to vote based on issues. That's it.

Edit: I'm watching the DNC Winter Meeting on C-Span right now and Barack Obama just made this exact point.

Quote :

"Smoker4: People who lack respect for the fickle nature of the American public find themselves buried quickly. Americans aren't just randomly voting Democratic versus Republican. People don't vote for parties, they vote for leaders."

You're right, they don't. One need only look to North Carolina's history of electing Democrats to the legislature and the governor's mansion, while sending its electoral votes to Republicans (since Carter), as an example.

The question is: what's a leader look like?

Quote :

"Smoker4: I swear, people like you -- the partisan Democrats -- you want to believe that this "national mood" amounts to a collective "ca-ching" as the blue ballots hit the polls. It doesn't. The people going to the polls are just that -- people. The same ones who thought the country was red a few years ago."

"People like you?" Really?

Don't presume to know what I think and who I'm for.

2/2/2007 10:37:07 AM

There are two Americas: One in which men fussily comb their hair while staring into a woman's makeup compact--and then there's the one in which men don't do that. I live happily in the latter America.

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

2/2/2007 11:40:21 AM

so the same people who happily voted for a president who can spend 2 hours "clearing brush" in the middle of texas in the summer without breaking a sweat ( ) are the same people who wont vote for edwards because he is concerned about his hair? fucking idiots.

Quote :

"Mitt Romney is an excellent candidate and a great executive. We'd be lucky to have him -- this notion of "right versus left" pales in comparison to individual gusto. The Presidency is inherently a middle-of-the-road position. I agree that Giuliani's shit stinks. Find me a politician whose shit doesn't stink -- that it matters is a sign that people care about him as a serious contender. McCain is a force of his own; and as I said above, people are not zombie voters where Iraq is concerned. Leadership matters. If not, then God help us -- the last time we got a President as a visceral reaction to a war-turned-bog, we got Nixon. We can do worse than McCain."

Mitt Romney's qualifications include promising to investigate the big dig and then doing jack shit until it killed someone and he actually had to react. More importantly he cant decide where he stands on anything. One day he is to the left of Kerry and one day he is to the right of Bush. Its absurd.
Guliani's problems with his zipper make Clinton look clean and normal.
McCain? Should I start listing all the things that make me call him a hypocrite? The list gets longer every week. Above all of that, what does it say about a man who even though he was a POW and fought a war he still is willing to send another 20,000 to 50,000 troops to a war with no real plan for winning and no clear mission other than to get shot at?

2/2/2007 12:22:02 PM

^Do you think you know more about war than John McCain?

2/2/2007 1:49:05 PM

Glad to see that we're arguing looks in here now.

2/2/2007 2:26:15 PM

^Is it superficial as shit? Of course

Does a candidate's appearance play a major role in who gets elected? Yep...has since JFK/Nixon debate

[Edited on February 2, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : typo.]

2/2/2007 2:51:20 PM

^^^No. But I think my father, who is about as conservative as they come, who was in the military, and who works as a civilian on a base where 75% of the troops are in iraq or afghanistan has a pretty good opinion on such ideas. and you should see him rant about how we are sending guys in there to die with no purpose and no mission.

2/2/2007 6:03:57 PM

Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte to run his web blog. Here is some of her wisdom...

"I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good fucking god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will — not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

She'll be moving to Chapel Hill to work for Edwards. Say hello if you see her.

2/3/2007 10:56:27 AM

Quote :

"I was arguing against people making these assessments about what they think the American people want. I was making the point than in 2004 that's what Democratic primary voters did--looking for someone who had military credentials--and, clearly, that failed miserably."

OK, this isn't a Presidential debate. You don't need to spin this much.

I didn't say "military credentials." I said "tough son-of-a-bitch." The Democratic party has not put any such person on the Presidential ballot for at least thirty years. John Kerry was a piss-poor example of your point; he is the very opposite of what I described. Somehow that basic fact seems irrelevant to you; I have no idea why.

And this rhetoric about "issues": what the fuck? Political campaigns are not about issues. They're primarily about people. Anyone with half a brain votes for individuals over stances -- because ultimately, believing that a politician actually has true convictions on a given issue, means trusting them. Anyone can say anything during a political campaign, just to get their foot in the door.

Barack Obama wants to talk about issues? OK, fine -- but I'm not listening. I still want to know why a blue-blood law professor should run the military during a time of national crisis. I think it's a pretty fucking logical question to ask.

Quote :

"The question is: what's a leader look like?"

Well, I don't know about you, but I occasionally have a say in hiring people. It's part of my job.

What do I look for? Um ... well, I start with their resume. I look for experience. I look for talent. I try to figure out if they have the relevant skill set. If there's a good fit, I'll bring them in for an interview.

Is this approach reasonable to you? It seems to work for the vast majority of people in my position.

The Democratic party's position on "hiring" people for the job of Presidential candidate is -- well, it seems to be awfully random. It's some combination of name-worship, trendy politics, quid pro quo, and who makes the most noise.

Barack Obama has nothing recommending him to the job except his facile defeat of Alan Keyes and his diction.

Hillary Clinton has nothing recommending her to the job except ... well, her Clinton-ness. Her royal highness.

And John Edwards? Are you kidding? First of all, it doesn't hurt that he is a multi-, multi-, multi-millionaire. So much for our egalitarian system of government. Beyond that, he perfectly fits the niche of "southerner at home, liberal abroad" that the Democrats seem to think works. Except, uh, it doesn't -- red America gave up on that gig shortly after Lyndon Johnson left politics. And he's noisy.

These three people are nothing but lawyers and politicians. They are elitists of the highest caliber. They are not "good fits" for the American people. Just as there is a cultural element to hiring -- corporate culture -- there is a cultural element to elections. Namely the American culture. Good luck selling us on the obviously elite, again -- it didn't work for Kerry, it won't work for these clowns.

So far in this election cycle, it's clear the Democrats did a lot of soul searching and came up empty.

Quote :

" Don't presume to know what I think and who I'm for."

I'm not presuming. I've been reading your posts on here for years. If you're not a partisan Democrat, then you're grossly misrepresenting yourself on TWW.

Oh, and getting all giddy over the "Netroots vs DCCC" debate doesn't make you any less of a partisan Democrat.

2/5/2007 4:10:00 AM

thank god we have the republicans and their perfect presidential nomination process to save us from the scary and evil democrats.

2/5/2007 11:29:25 AM

the republicans invented the electorcal college just to fuck over the dems!

2/5/2007 12:47:18 PM

i thought originally the federalists created the electorial college to fuck over the dems?

2/5/2007 12:49:09 PM

regardless, the purpose was to fuck over the modern day dems, specifically al gore

2/5/2007 12:53:17 PM

here's a link to his speech from the DNC winter meeting this weekend, according to the blogs, it was pretty well-received and only got a lesser response than Obama and Hillary b/c those two groups turned out more supporters in the DNC.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/dnc-winter-meeting/

2/5/2007 1:02:47 PM

^ Only Clinton had more supporters at the DNC Winter meeting than Edwards. Both Edwards and Clinton had invited local supporters to their speeches, clad them in shirts and handed them signs. Obama did none of that.

Everything I've read says he won the day at the DNC Winter meeting. I admit it was a great speech, the best of weekend. Accordling to Hotline, he got more standing applause than Obama and Clinton.

http://www.politicstv.com/ has all the speeches.

2/5/2007 1:50:38 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: I didn't say "military credentials." I said "tough son-of-a-bitch." The Democratic party has not put any such person on the Presidential ballot for at least thirty years. John Kerry was a piss-poor example of your point; he is the very opposite of what I described. Somehow that basic fact seems irrelevant to you; I have no idea why"

Actually, you're missing my point all together. You should actually go back and read what I said more closely.

I'm not saying that you're making the same prognostications about "what voters want" that folks made in 2004. My argument is about the fact that prognostications about "what voters want" are being made at all...that's why the John Kerry story is relevant because it's just another example of political prognostications about electability gone horribly awry.

Quote :

"Smoker4: Well, I don't know about you, but I occasionally have a say in hiring people. It's part of my job. What do I look for? Um ... well, I start with their resume. I look for experience. I look for talent. I try to figure out if they have the relevant skill set. If there's a good fit, I'll bring them in for an interview."

Well, first I can guarantee that I hire more people in my job than you do in yours, so the while the reminder of the hiring process is appreciated, it's really not needed. That said, if given the same pool of candidates, I imagine that whoever you find to be a "good fit" and who I find to be a "good fit" might lead us to selected two different people. I think voters should be allowed to make the same decision--one that's entirely subjective.

Quote :

"Smoker4: The Democratic party's position on "hiring" people for the job of Presidential candidate is -- well, it seems to be awfully random. It's some combination of name-worship, trendy politics, quid pro quo, and who makes the most noise."

If that were the case, Howard Dean would've been the Democratic nominee in 2004.

2/5/2007 2:24:46 PM

Quote :

"Only Clinton had more supporters at the DNC Winter meeting than Edwards. Both Edwards and Clinton had invited local supporters to their speeches, clad them in shirts and handed them signs. Obama did none of that. Everything I've read says he won the day at the DNC Winter meeting. I admit it was a great speech, the best of weekend. Accordling to Hotline, he got more standing applause than Obama and Clinton."

According to the board I got the report from, Clinton stacked the house. Obama got great cheers, but had NO campaign presence whatsoever. His table had no signs, stickers, or anything. Clinton was prepared, but also got some catcalls about war support. Wes Clark was terrible, Dodd impressed, Kucinich was good, the others were decent. Edwards looks like the real challenger now.

2/5/2007 2:28:34 PM