I've heard so often how the media loves Obama, but Obama is ahead in both popular vote and delegates and they're talking like he's already lost. 

Furthermore, this is the first time I've seen "beer drinkers" and "bowlers" as polling demographics!


What's next?  "Sniveling sh*ts" prefer Clinton 2 to 1 while "holier-than-thou snobs" like Obama by a margin of 10 points...
:-\\

good! it means he scares 'em.

we've already established the media represent the power elite. i'm encouraged that they don't like obama. means maybe he's not a sellout just talking a good game till he can get into office and start doing their bidding.

I spoke too soon.  She's way ahead now!
::)

she won, evidently. but by 6 or 7 points rather than 20, so delegate benefits will be niggling.

propz to clinton for snagging all the big liberal democratic states and leaving obama to garner a formidable lead in popular and delegate votes by getting all the little states and then... accusing him of being an elitist and making it stick. i have to admit there's something sickly admirable in that.

she won, evidently. but by 6 or 7 points rather than 20, so delegate benefits will be niggling.

propz to clinton for snagging all the big liberal democratic states and leaving obama to garner a formidable lead in popular and delegate votes by getting all the little states and then... accusing him of being an elitist and making it stick. i have to admit there's something sickly admirable in that.

Delegate benefits will be...say WHAT sucka!
:D

See.  She won...but won by little enough for the pundits to now talk about her as if she lost!

I predicted she would win PA based on the other states she won, including my own!
::)

Harold Ford, Jr., kept talking about the "poplar vote."  What's that all about?

http://www.the-tree.org.uk/BritishTrees/TreeGallery/PoplarWhite.jpeg
We like Hillary!

Ugh, I hate the fact that she's going to win PA. It's not even because she will win it. It is because she'll act like a total dick about it after it's announced and carry on like she's winning the nomination. Ten to one she'll also mention the "bitter" debacle, Rev. Wright, and whatever else she can pull out of the mud.

Hey, did anyone read Michael Moore's letter about the whole election and supporting Obama? It was pretty interesting, even if I dislike the man. :D

Ugh, I hate the fact that she's going to win PA. It's not even because she will win it. It is because she'll act like a total dick about it after it's announced and carry on like she's winning the nomination. Ten to one she'll also mention the "bitter" debacle, Rev. Wright, and whatever else she can pull out of the mud.

Hey, did anyone read Michael Moore's letter about the whole election and supporting Obama? It was pretty interesting, even if I dislike the man. :D


Don't you mean a total (I_am_a_loser_who_has_no_respect_for_women)?

And I really think that things will be scarier with Hellary as President....Even scarier than Bush's Administration. (IMHO, the war in Iraq is what brought him down.)

i'll probably get hosed down for this, but i'm basically okay with a clinton administration. i think obama will be better but if hillary wins the nomination, whatever, i'm down. her dragging out this primary is irritating and i find it disconcerting she's using so many republican-style smearjobs on her opponent but those are my only two real complaints. she seems like she's got a head on her shoulders which means she'll run the government competently and if she's a little power-hungry, maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. better than mccain, his voodoo economics will finally finish the country off for good.

that said, i still think obama will win.

i'll probably get hosed down for this, but i'm basically okay with a clinton administration. i think obama will be better but if hillary wins the nomination, whatever, i'm down. her dragging out this primary is irritating and i find it disconcerting she's using so many republican-style smearjobs on her opponent but those are my only two real complaints. she seems like she's got a head on her shoulders which means she'll run the government competently and if she's a little power-hungry, maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. better than mccain, his voodoo economics will finally finish the country off for good.

that said, i still think obama will win.


I won't hose you down...unless if it's really hot out.

I won't hose you down...unless if it's really hot out.
thank you. it's the little things, ya know? like not getting hosed down.

i'll probably get hosed down for this, but i'm basically okay with a clinton administration. i think obama will be better but if hillary wins the nomination, whatever, i'm down. her dragging out this primary is irritating and i find it disconcerting she's using so many republican-style smearjobs on her opponent but those are my only two real complaints. she seems like she's got a head on her shoulders which means she'll run the government competently and if she's a little power-hungry, maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. better than mccain, his voodoo economics will finally finish the country off for good.

that said, i still think obama will win.

I ask myself: Which would you rather, Hillary or McCain?  Yeah, I'm definitely OK with a Clinton Administration.  I would rather have had an Edwards Administration, and I would rather have an Obama Administration, but there's no way in hell our republic can withstand Madman McCain!
::)

Hosedown economics?  Sounds familiar!

I AM NOT A HAPPY CAMPER!!!  All though I knew she was going to win.  I don't like how the PA media is treating Obama.  He won Philly, Pittsburg, and Harrisburg and the black vote and everyone who knows dirty politics when they see it.

Ok this is getting too stupid! Just choose one and start the damn campaign against the reps already >:(

Ok this is getting too stupid! Just choose one and start the damn campaign against the reps already >:(


There's a few Reps in PA that need to be unseated.  Congressman Joe Pitts is one of them.  He's a Bush asskisser.

I AM NOT A HAPPY CAMPER!!!  All though I knew she was going to win.  I don't like how the PA media is treating Obama.  He won Philly, Pittsburg, and Harrisburg and the black vote and everyone who knows dirty politics when they see it.


That's what happened with Ohio too. Cleveland, Cincy, and Columbus went for Obama while the others went for Hellary.

That's what happened with Ohio too. Cleveland, Cincy, and Columbus went for Obama while the others went for Hellary.


Obama carries urban areas quite well.  Hillary has (so I'm told) has the working class and women's vote in the bag.  Basically I hope Hillary doesn't win and I hope we never have to go through this kind of Primary again. :P

The big difference between the two campaign-wise is that if Obama wins the nomination, I wouldn't put it past the Hillary camp to engage in sabotage beneficial to McCain (so she can run against him in '12); however, I don't see Obama doing the same to Hillary.
:o

The big difference between the two campaign-wise is that if Obama wins the nomination, I wouldn't put it past the Hillary camp to engage in sabotage beneficial to McCain (so she can run against him in '12); however, I don't see Obama doing the same to Hillary.
:o


Hillary's camp has a win at all cost mentality.  Obama's campaign is based more on the notion of changing things and running a clean campaign.

Hillary is so power hungry she can't see if McCain gets in there, she might not have a country to preside over.  The idea of McCain getting in there is...unspeakable!
>:(

Hillary is so power hungry she can't see if McCain gets in there, she might not have a country to preside over.  The idea of McCain getting in there is...unspeakable!
>:(


If she ends up going against McCain in the general election how will she beat him?  Last time I check there were more Republicans in the U.S. than Democrats.  She won't be able to get the African American vote which is traditional democrat.  The only votes she may get are the votes of the working class democrats.  The question is what kind of underhanded crap will she pull on McCain to make her win more obtainable?

No matter.  Now they're saying there's not going to be healthcare reform anyway.  No money for it.  We spent it all in Iraq.  It's the Grover Norguist wet dream!  I'm considering reunitiing with my old comrades in the Progressive Labor Party.  Let's just throw all these f***kers out and establish the Soviet Socialist State of America. 

Couldn't be worse!
:D

maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. better than mccain, his voodoo economics will finally finish the country off for good.


"maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. will finally finish the country off for good."

Fixed that for you.

The 'pubbies fell for a con job when they voted for someone who advertised himself as "a uniter, not a divider".  The Dems might be making the same mistake with Obama.  But the only thing I can say to Hillary's credit on the issue is that at least she's honest about her intention to carry the hyperpartisanship even further than her predecessors.

The Demoblican Republicrat Party has its population sufficiently controlled to the point that we hate each other more than we hate ((Pub) them terrists who are tryin' to kill us) and ((Dem) our corporate oppressors) our real enemies.  More so than the war (Hillary, Obama, and McCain have all said they'll be there for the duration of their term), the spending (Hilly and Obama have plans to spend more than McCain), the erosion of civil liberties (been following the FISA/torture/wiretaps kabuki theater of late?  notice how despite all the bluster, the policies never actually change), the inflation/currency devaulation (listen to the crickets chirping from all three candidates) - more so than all of these things, it was the goddamned hyperpartisanship that destroyed America. 

Half of me is irritated, but the other half is remembering political conventions where you didn't know who would end up making the power grab until the convention delegates got up and voiced their votes.  It hasn't been like that since Johnson, I think.  Old fashioned politic, it could be interesting.

No matter.  Now they're saying there's not going to be healthcare reform anyway.  No money for it.  We spent it all in Iraq.  It's the Grover Norguist wet dream!  I'm considering reunitiing with my old comrades in the Progressive Labor Party.  Let's just throw all these f***kers out and establish the Soviet Socialist State of America. 

Couldn't be worse!
:D


I'd say "I'll wait and see". Because after this administration, they'll put stronger limits to who will be our president maybe have them sworn in on New Years Day.

"maybe she'll give back to the repubs the way we've been taking it. will finally finish the country off for good."

Fixed that for you.

The 'pubbies fell for a con job when they voted for someone who advertised himself as "a uniter, not a divider".  The Dems might be making the same mistake with Obama.  But the only thing I can say to Hillary's credit on the issue is that at least she's honest about her intention to carry the hyperpartisanship even further than her predecessors.

The Demoblican Republicrat Party has its population sufficiently controlled to the point that we hate each other more than we hate ((Pub) them terrists who are tryin' to kill us) and ((Dem) our corporate oppressors) our real enemies.  More so than the war (Hillary, Obama, and McCain have all said they'll be there for the duration of their term), the spending (Hilly and Obama have plans to spend more than McCain), the erosion of civil liberties (been following the FISA/torture/wiretaps kabuki theater of late?  notice how despite all the bluster, the policies never actually change), the inflation/currency devaulation (listen to the crickets chirping from all three candidates) - more so than all of these things, it was the goddamned hyperpartisanship that destroyed America. 

Karma +1 for coinage: Hyperpartisanship.

Jerry Brown (not your favorite guy, I know) observed in '92 that we have a one-party state with the media controlled by the government.  I'd like to say he was just paranoid, but it feels more true 16 years later than it did then. 

I have a sinking feeling McCain is going to get sworn in on 1/20/09 no matter how the people vote! 

Bushies to the people in re: outrageous fuel prices: "Tough sh*t!"

Anybody up for a little civil unrest?
???

As for Obama, I'm more concerned about the whiny idealists on the Left feeling betrayed after the honeymoon when they find out BHO is just another politician.

Jerry Brown (not your favorite guy, I know) observed in '92 that we have a one-party state with the media controlled by the government.  I'd like to say he was just paranoid, but it feels more true 16 years later than it did then. 

I have a sinking feeling McCain is going to get sworn in on 1/20/09 no matter how the people vote! 


Eh, I don't really have a beef with Brown.  He's a little nuts, but he's less nuts than anyone else who ran for the job :)

As long as we're sporting our tinfoil here, when it comes to sinking feelings, I have a sinking feeling Clinton is going to get the nomination no matter how the people -- or even how the delegates -- vote.

As for the disillusioned idealists on the Left, well, if Obama wins, I'll at least enjoy that.  As a disillusioned idealist of the Right, I signed up for tax cuts, not global misadventures and a surveillance state more reminiscent of East Germany and the former USSR than Reagan's shining city on the hill.  So, if Obama wins, my taxes'll go up, there'll be all kinds of new spending programmes for which I'll be too rich to be eligible, and the surveillance state will continue to grow and the dollar will continue to fall, but at least there'll be schadenfreude to fall back on!

Eh, I don't really have a beef with Brown.  He's a little nuts, but he's less nuts than anyone else who ran for the job :)

As long as we're sporting our tinfoil here, when it comes to sinking feelings, I have a sinking feeling Clinton is going to get the nomination no matter how the people -- or even how the delegates -- vote.

As for the disillusioned idealists on the Left, well, if Obama wins, I'll at least enjoy that.  As a disillusioned idealist of the Right, I signed up for tax cuts, not global misadventures and a surveillance state more reminiscent of East Germany and the former USSR than Reagan's shining city on the hill.  So, if Obama wins, my taxes'll go up, there'll be all kinds of new spending programmes for which I'll be too rich to be eligible, and the surveillance state will continue to grow and the dollar will continue to fall, but at least there'll be schadenfreude to fall back on!

As opposed to nowadays--spending programs for which you are too poor to be eligable.  Even rich people will do better under Obama, just like they did better under Bill Clinton (but would never admit it).

As opposed to nowadays--spending programs for which you are too poor to be eligable.  Even rich people will do better under Obama, just like they did better under Bill Clinton (but would never admit it).


Then everybody's happy.  Darn it.  So much for the American way of life.  Sounds a bit like a Socialist ideal. :o

Then everybody's happy.  Darn it.  So much for the American way of life.  Sounds a bit like a Socialist ideal. :o


You know what else is scary...we've been in a Socialist state of mind for awhile.

1913, 1993, or 2003 depends on how you see it.

You know what else is scary...we've been in a Socialist state of mind for awhile.

1913, 1993, or 2003 depends on how you see it.


Socialized medicine!!!  Oh God no!!!  Wait, what the heck is medicare and medicaid then?

Yep, we just don't call it what it is.

Socialized medicine!!!  Oh God no!!!  Wait, what the heck is medicare and medicaid then?

Yep, we just don't call it what it is.


I know many people's opinions here is that Bush is the worst president ever, (well that's because we lived through his political corruption) but it was Woodrow Wilson who tried to make us a powerful nation. (Taxes, Leauge of Nations, etc.) And in my opinion, he's the 2nd most overrated president there ever was. (I'd tell you who's in first, but I won't.)

If you say the most overrated is Lincoln, then I'd agree.

If you say the most overrated is Lincoln, then I'd agree.


So I'm not the only one who thinks that!!! :o

If you say the most overrated is Lincoln, then I'd agree.


No, my saying is that during Lincoln's time...many people would be like us today with Bush.

Lincon to many in the 1860's was considered the worst president ever in history. Today isn't much different.

So I'm not the only one who thinks that!!! :o


I think you'll find most of the South doesn't like him very much, for obvious reasons.  Sure, ending slavery was a good thing and needed to happen, but it didn't have to be so bloody beforehand.

I think you'll find most of the South doesn't like him very much, for obvious reasons.  Sure, ending slavery was a good thing and needed to happen, but it didn't have to be so bloody beforehand.



Perhaps I should have said something about being a Northerner.  I've never been much for the Americana myth that has surrounded Lincoln.  He was not a Godlike figure in his day.

No, my saying is that during Lincoln's time...many people would be like us today with Bush.

Lincon to many in the 1860's was considered the worst president ever in history. Today isn't much different.


The problem is that people glorify certain presidents without looking at their dark sides.  Lincoln may have ended slavery, but he also was responsible for initiating America's bloodiest war.  A lot of historians still seem to worship him, but much of this has to do with the Ivy Leaguers' dominance in academia.

Perhaps I should have said something about being a Northerner.  I've never been much for the Americana myth that has surrounded Lincoln.  He was not a Godlike figure in his day.


To be fair, a lot of Southerners deify General Lee as well.  I think Lee was a considerably more respectable man than Lincoln, but he had his flaws as well.

The problem is that people glorify certain presidents without looking at their dark sides.  Lincoln may have ended slavery, but he also was responsible for initiating America's bloodiest war.  A lot of historians still seem to worship him, but much of this has to do with the Ivy Leaguers' dominance in academia.



I agree.  His intentions for the war were not to free the slaves.  He was a Free-Soiler.  Freeing the slaves had more to do with political strategy than a moral judgment on his part.

I agree.  His intentions for the war were not to free the slaves.  He was a Free-Soiler.  Freeing the slaves had more to do with political strategy than a moral judgment on his part.


Absolutely, and I wish more Northerners would admit that.  If anything, Lincoln stood more for Northern industrial interests than any moral pursuits.  Abolition was an excellent cover story though.

Lincoln was definitely a master politician -- so much that he has devotees even today.

To be fair, a lot of Southerners deify General Lee as well.  I think Lee was a considerably more respectable man than Lincoln, but he had his flaws as well.


Lee's mistakes were because he didn't listen to his Generals, not any real lack of respectability.

Lee's mistakes were because he didn't listen to his Generals, not any real lack of respectability.


Pretty much.  The irony of Lee is that he had his own ideas for ending slavery, and none of them involved war.  A more realistic and less bloody way to end slavery would have involved the gradual replacement of slavery with mechanization.  Technology was slowly making slavery an outdated system (aside from its ethical atrocities).

Absolutely, and I wish more Northerners would admit that.  If anything, Lincoln stood more for Northern industrial interests than any moral pursuits.  Abolition was an excellent cover story though.

Lincoln was definitely a master politician -- so much that he has devotees even today.


Abolitionist didn't care for him much.  Now that I think about it, there is a slight correlation between Lincoln's motives for actions and GW Bush's.

Abolitionist didn't care for him much.  Now that I think about it, there is a slight correlation between Lincoln's motives for actions and GW Bush's.


Interesting...  go on...  :)

Interesting...  go on...  :)


Everyone accuses Bush of using moral issues to draw away from his support of the Military complex and special interest groups (financial)  His war is providing income for contractors and industry.  Lincoln used slavery as an overall moral shield.  The Civil War was a big boom for iron works, banking and farmers who contracted with the Government to feed the GAR.

Everyone accuses Bush of using moral issues to draw away from his support of the Military complex and special interest groups (financial)  His war is providing income for contractors and industry.  Lincoln used slavery as an overall moral shield.  The Civil War was a big boom for iron works, banking and farmers who contracted with the Government to feed the GAR.


Very nice...  I hadn't thought of it this way before.  ...and they both were Republicans...  coincidence?  I think not...  j/k lol

But seriously, this is how a lot of wars work.  WW2 was one of the few legitimate wars we've entered.  In most cases, war is primarily fought for profit of some sort.

Very nice...  I hadn't thought of it this way before.  ...and they both were Republicans...  coincidence?  I think not...  j/k lol

But seriously, this is how a lot of wars work.  WW2 was one of the few legitimate wars we've entered.  In most cases, war is primarily fought for profit of some sort.


Ah, but the Republican party of today has much the same platform as Democrats of the Civil War era.  (It switches from time to time)  Republicans of the 1860's were a bit radical and progressive.  Dems can only be described as sloth-like businessmen.  I think Lincoln was kind of a RINO back then.  (Republican In Name Only)

I don't think a war could be conducted if someone didn't profit. The Military needs supplies provided by industry. 

I would argue that only the social policies switched.  Republicans were essentially Libertarians back in the 1800s.  Democrats were Populists.

Nowadays, the same business types run the Republicans as the ones that did back then, but they've allied with the Religious Right (which used to be a stalwart group for the Democrats).  By the same token, the social welfarists still run the Democratic party, but they often end up arguing with their social liberals.

I would argue that only the social policies switched.  Republicans were essentially Libertarians back in the 1800s.  Democrats were Populists.

Nowadays, the same business types run the Republicans as the ones that did back then, but they've allied with the Religious Right (which used to be a stalwart group for the Democrats).  By the same token, the social welfarists still run the Democratic party, but they often end up arguing with their social liberals.


You do have a point.  Also the Republican party was fairly new back in the 1860's.  It was less than 30 years old.  The Democratic party was more established.  Thing switch but very little changes I suppose. :-\\

Things do change, but some things stay the same -- mostly human nature.

Probably the weirdest change that has occurred in American politics over the last 50 years is the transformation of the Religious Right from being in favor of social programs to being rabid capitalists.

When you consider that Christ seems like a socialist hippie, it makes you wonder how his followers can often be such corporate busybodies.

The Christian Right is not a spiritual movement but a political movement for the advancement of fascist economic and foreign policies.

The Christian Right is not a spiritual movement but a political movement for the advancement of fascist economic and foreign policies.


Vague memories of Pat Robertson running for President.  God, guns, wealth and Israel.