PeterDavid.net

So, what finally tipped you over to his side?

I voted for Obama too.

I looked at the positions of Obama, Clinton, and Paul, and while I was extremely pissed at some of their positions, Clinton outraged me a bit more, and some aspects of Ron Paul's record just shocked me.

Clinton lost me when she used a bullshit slippery slope argument in which she envisions taxpayers paying for KKK or jihad schools. I was also shocked that whereas they're both for laws against flag-burning, Ron Paul, who I thought was a strict Constitutionalist, actually introduced a friggin' bill for it. McCain's support for staying in Iraq lost him my vote, and there's no way I'm voting for a creationist like Romney into office.

I also liked Obama's open-minded and egalitarian view on religion, which is derived from his anthropologist mother taking him to Christian churches, Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples, and Muslim mosques in his youth, and educating him alongside children of other religions in a public school.

Edwards' slimy actions as a lawyer didn't endear him to me, I don't care how many writers or unions he cozies up to.

Just being pragmatic. For a year I've been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I've seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she'll get slaughtered. I'm not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he's got a better one than Clinton.

PAD

I voted absentee weeks ago. My first write-in vote ever for Albert Gore, Jr. I will, of course hold my nose and vote for Hillary or Barack in November. However, I could not bring myself to do so in the primary.

Odd but perceptive note on CNN just now...

"I wonder how much the Giant's parade affected voting patterns in NYC..."

I'd vote for Obama too, but I have to hope he wins the Democratic nomination first. Ahh, the joys of being an independent.

Ack. To clarify, the comment about Clinton above envisioning wacky schools was in regard to her opposition to school vouchers. That got lost in editing.

I admit, I didn't vote today. I was in meetings/class until 8:40, and had the choice to eat for the first time in 6 hours, or vote. But, I'm fine with this, because I don't really care which Democrat is nominated - they both have huge (very nearly fatal) flaws, as far as I'm concerned... and I'd still vote for either of them over anyone else. So, dinner won.

Look on the bright side, PAD. The democratic primaries aren't all or nothing. Even if Clinton wins the state, your vote will still contribute to how many delegates Obama gets.

That's actually frustrating me a little with CNN's webpage coverage. They're listing wins and losses as if that's what matters. But I can look at the totals and see that a lot of Hillary's second place finishes are very close, while Obama's second places finishes are mostly by bigger margins. We could easily see one candidate "win" more states but end up with less delegates total. What I want is a running delegate count, not a state count.

Pull out the crucifixes and holy water, I voted in the Republican primary.

However,I truly feel that no matter which two candidates make it to November, they'll be far better options than the Bush v. Kerry option we had 4 years ago. So if (and probably, when) a Democrat gets elected into office this November, I'll begrudgingly stand behind him or her knowing there's somebody competent in control.

Okay, I had to check a few news sites, but I found what I wanted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22997326/

A running total of delegates won.

I'll make a prediction now. At the end of the day, the Democratic nomination still won't be remotely clear. We might not see either Obama or Hillary drop at until the last state holds its primary.

And now I'm confused.

Was I wrong about the Democratic primary not being all-or-nothing? MSNBC is calling New York for Hillary and they seem to be giving her all the delegates. I'm missing something.

Clinton gets Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. New York I saw coming. NJ I was 50/50 on but leaning towards Clinton. Massachusetts I didn't see going her way. I guess John Kerry and Teddy & clan don't have the stroke in their home state that they used to have and that the pundits played them up as still having.

The exit polls had people thinking that it was an Obama blowout. Now the actual results are showing Hillary coming out ahead more often than not.

had this been the actual election we'd no doubt be hearing about how this was evidence of a fix. Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?

It's increasingly likely that the Superdelegates will decide the nominee for the Democrats, in which case I would think that Hillary is at an advantage. Momentum seems to be on Obama's side--is there enough time for him to capitalize on it?

” Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?”

I don’t know about that. I’m up and down on the issue of Keith Olbermann’s credibility sometimes, but he’s been doing something lately that actually works and makes sense. After the Iowa fiasco, he started to refer to something that he was calling “The Keith Number” on a poll. This is the combined numbers of the margin of error and the number of undecideds. His reasoning behind the creation of this qualifier was the theory that the polls weren’t as wrong as the reporting of the polls was. He stated that, just as one example, almost every Obama “win” that turned into a Hillary win was right if you added a majority of the poll’s undecided number to Hillary’s.

I went back and looked up a lot of those polls. He was right. Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to deoend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.

MSNBC projects Hil as the winner.

They also made a good point...Hillary is winning all the states that she has no chance to win in November, and McCain is doing likewise. Obama and Romney are doing better in states that are likely to actually go for their parties. Could be a weird general election.

Can we all just admit now that exit polls have become scarcely worth the value of a monkey with a dart board?

Every election, it disgusts me that these 'news channels' are calling a state or race for one candidate or another, and they've barely started counting the ballots yet.

Instead of being so impatient and getting it wrong, I'd rather they hold back and get it right.

But don't suggest that to the news channels. :)

"MSNBC projects Hil as the winner."

Do you mean they're projecting her the winner in New York? I don't see anything where they project her as a general winner.

Official...Obama wins the Minnesota caucus. Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.
or apparently Mitt Romney either though only about 17% reporting in
Man this is going to be one interesting race...

Not sure if its a suprise by many but I think it shows again that the white folks in fly over country do not have a problem voting for a black candidate.

Well, white voter in Minnesota isn't necessarily the same as white voter in Missouri or further south. For example, I distinctly recall a number of people questioning voters in southern Iowa after the vote there went Clinton, Edwards, Obama (and having lived in that part of Iowa, yes, there is a fair share of racism).

Unfortunately, there's a good chance that race will have an impact upon the nomination, and it favors Clinton: whether it's whites who won't vote for Obama, or Hispanics who won't vote for Obama.

Although, the exit polls appear to be showing that perhaps things aren't as bad as some like myself fear: the Hispanics appear to be voting for Obama in greater numbers than expected, and while Obama is getting an overwhelming amount of the black vote, it isn't absolute as well.

Sometimes the actual win was her number and the undecided number added together exactly. Now, that does make polls in close races harder to depend on, but it hardly invalidates the polls. All it does is remind you that there is an unpredictability factor beyond the margin of error and that you should not just look at those top two numbers.

But you'd have to believe that ALL the undecideds actually voted for one candidate...seems unlikely. And what possible use is any poll that, in addition to the margin of error, also can add everyone that's undecided? That would give a 16 point plus or minus in one of the CNN polls I just saw. What good is that?They might as well just come out and say "As far as we can tell, Obama may be about to beat Clinton in a landslide, lose in a landslide, win in a close election, lose in a close election or tie her. Keep watching for further news!"

The polls have been all over the place the last few days. I hope they at least have the integrity to admit that (some) of them just plain got it wrong and not resort to the old "A sudden massive movement toward the eventual winner that showed up in our polls right after our last published one" routine that some have used to explain discrepancies in the past.

It may just be that poll taking has become too difficult to do in our modern world, for reasons I'm not sure of. But at least I hope people will stop seeing exit poll errors as proof of some conspiracy when their candidate doesn't win.

I figured out why the MSNBC delegate totals were confusing me. Even though they're calling winners in a lot of states, they're not counting the delegates until the final results are in. That's why the numbers are still so low.

Clinton is the only candidate who loses to the Republicans no matter what. I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her. If she ends up the Democratic candidate, Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote AGAINST her rather than for their candidate.

I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won't even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).

The Democratic nomination is going to be a dog-fight until the end. I don't think Clinton expected this, but with Edwards out now, it appears a good 2/3 of those people are voting for Obama. Clinton was expecting those 2/3 or more to swing her way. More men are definitely voting for Obama, but, surprisingly, it seems the women are nearly split down the middle.

I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hell of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose... She's far too devisive and she won't even attempt to "play" nice which will turn people off more and more.

Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!

I cannot imagine how people could be so misguided as to vote for her.

She's getting a lot of support. And yet, she's lost a ton of ground to Obama over the last couple of months.

Still, a comment from another board:
"It is pretty damn funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She's everyone target, yet they can't put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America."

I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.

"Oh, and I voted for Obama, by the way. I truly believe he will be our next President. Not because I want him to be, but because I think the American public might finally be wising up and begining to vote intelligently!"

Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you're saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President--The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.

I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.

Romney was standing next to Rick Santorum. I wasn't a Romney supporter before, but working with Santorum, even in the slightest, lowers my opinion of him massively.

”It is pretty damn funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She's everyone target, yet they can't put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America."

”I think this guy may be right, sad as that is to say about this country.”

And then again, he may be completely off his rocker. Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters. In every vote so far, whites have been coming out in strong numbers for Obama.

” I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well.”

See, that’s the first problem with the analysis. Watch the TV lately? Been to any local rallies lately? Actually looked around at some of the early yard sign fanatics’ lawns? LOTS OF PEOPLE are very openly saying that they like Hillary. Lots of others are saying that they’re only lukewarm to her, but that they think that she’s the better candidate and the better shot at taking on Mitt or McCain.

I know that ten minutes of exposure to the media will pretty much make you walk away thinking that America feels that Hillary is a witch, the Anti-Christ or the Devil herself, but reality says otherwise. And this is the same media mind you that said that McCain was done for and over with months ago, had Rudy as the inevitable Republican opponent of the inevitable Hillary ticket, knew for a fact that Al Gore was really going to run in 2008 and made lots other predictions that have just gone completely goofy.

The Clinton brand still has legs in this country no matter what Fox News would like to report. Hillary has a whole hell of a lot of very public supporters and endorsements out there. To try and say that most Americans would rather vote for someone they despise then vote for a black man in this day and age is not only inaccurate; it’s down right insulting.

Man I'll tell you, Obama sure knows how to speak.
Im convinced that he's the candidate and probably our next President and Im voting Republican.

Obama’s first big “surprise” win was in “white-bread, corn fed” Iowa. Obama won the vote and won a majority of the white voters.

FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.

And no, I don't think Iowa is nearly as racist (or as ass-backwards) as many people make the state out to be. I should know, I lived most of my life in or a good stone's throw away from Iowa. Yeah, there are the racists as there are anywhere, and, as I mentioned with my previous post, I think there are a few more of them in the southern tier of the state than other places, but I don't see Obama's win there as a shock.

And Clinton and McCain just nabbed California.

No surprise there.

Although don't let that keep the media from talking about how it's a "huge" win for Clinton.

Were there any surprises actually in Clinton's favor tonight?

I don't even think it makes sense for the news agencies to say Clinton "won" California. She'll get 190 delegates, Obama will get 130. She got more, but it's not like crossing a finish line in a foot race, where second place isn't worth anything.

Posted by Linus

I for one, a typical democratic voter, will stay home rather than vote for another 8 years of sniping about the 1960s that won't even win (and even if she wins would not have the ability to pull people together to make change in any way).

Excuse me - what language is this? It *looks* like English, but...

"It is pretty damn funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She's everyone target, yet they can't put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America."

Craig, this guy is full of it. Being white didn't help out John Edwards much. When all is said and done it is very possible that Obama will actually end up with more delegates than Hillary, despite her wins in the big states. And Hillary would probably be losing badly if it weren't for her strength in the Hispanic vote. So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous. Time is moving on, even if some folks can't see it.

But at least that's arguable. The statement that absolutely no one will come forward and say they support Hillary could only come from someone living in a bubble.

I predict that the Democratic Convention is going to be one of the most interesting Convention in decades. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough delegates going into it to garner the nomination, so one will need to give. And neither will. So this is going to be one hell of a fight. One I suspect Clinton is going to lose... She's far too devisive and she won't even attempt to "play" nice which will turn people off more and more.

I think you're right about the convention bt if it comes down to that I would think that Hillary and company would have an advantage over Obama. A brokered convention ends up being a lot of wheeling and dealing in smoke filled rooms. Hillary has a lot of powerful people in her corner who can make a lot of promises.

Now the one result that I had not thought likely is the possibility of them running together. Reportedly they hate each other (take that with a grain of salt, though it seems clear there is no great love lost). But if Obama loses out to Hillary despite being virtually tied (or even slightly ahead in pledged delegates) she would have no choice but to offer it to him. Would he take it? Or respectfully decline, knowing that if she loses he is in excellent position for 2012? (And he'd be running against an aged McCain).

Now if Obama pulls off the victory...somehow I think he would not be under the same pressure to pick her as VP and I'm also not sure she'd take it anyway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...what a great election!

Kevin, I think the rest of your post is spot-on, (re: about this being a potentially historic DNC and nomination) but this above quote really makes no sense. It almost sounds like you're saying that a vote for Obama is a de facto method of making you an intelligent voter. Yet, you state that your primary reason for voting for Obama for President is not because you want him to be President--The whole point of this event! That, my friend, would not (on its face) be seen by some as an act of an intelligent voter.

I mean no offense, but the statement strikes me as counterintuitive in some ways.

Not what I intended when I wrote that out. Basically, I think people are finally beginning to see through all the bullcrap and are using their heads for a change. They're not just voting for the Republican or the Democrat because that's their party or they're not voting for whomever is in the lead, they're thinking about who is right for them. In MY case, it's Obama.

Depending on who is counting it looks like Obama may well have won more delegates last night: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.

Obama. But I can´t vote there.

PAD: "Just being pragmatic. For a year I've been concerned that Hillary Clinton is not electable. I've seen nothing in the intervening months to change my mind. And if it comes down to Clinton v. McCain, I think she'll get slaughtered. I'm not sure Obama stands much more of a chance, but I think he's got a better one than Clinton."

I totally agree with your assessment, Peter.

Well, right now the count is in Clinton's favor.

Clinton: 582
Obama: 485

The other side of this game is looking a lot less like a real race.

McCain: 516
Romney: 207
Huckabee: 142

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

So the the claims that yesterday showed the inevitability of White Power seems ridiculous.

True. It just seems hard, at least for me, to completely discount when you look at *some* of the numbers.

Obviously, many other numbers are pointing in Obama's favor.

Either way, as PAD said, Clinton just continues to come across as unelectable, and it seems like a lot of people agree with that sentiment.

Expect to see some major spinning coming from both campaigns today.

The spin began last night, with Clinton's rep trying to claim that they won some states they didn't expect to... yeah, right.

Well, if this helps PAD's argument any, I'm a third-party voter who typically leans Libertarian.

I'm going to caucus for Obama on Saturday, going to vote for him in the primary on the 19th (even though it doesn't matter if I vote in the primary in terms of delegates), and I'd vote for him in November.

OTOH, if Hillary's the November candidate, you couldn't pay me enough to vote for her. I can't imagine myself voting for a Republican, but I certainly wouldn't vote for her. I sincerely doubt I'm the only person who feels that way.

The thing is, some of you probably don't spend much time on conservative sites. If you did, you'd uo your estimation of Hillary's chances in the fall. McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans--the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.

Just look at the number of votes cast in these primaries--the Democrats vastly outnumber the Republicans. True, it's not nearly as exciting a race but if I were McCain I'd worry about the lack of passion out there.

I doubt that McCain can raise as much money as Hillary and Bill can.

Add it all up and there's no way I see Hillary getting anything like crushed in the election. If anything, she starts out with it being hers to lose. Now, I've been amazed at how poorly she's done with Obama so she may well lose it but if I had to put money down on Hillary vs McCain I'd bet that it's a replay of Clinton vs Dole.

It is pretty damn funny. I have to say it, despite absolutely NO ONE who will come forward and say they like HRC, she does very well. She's everyone target, yet they can't put her away. This shows the true power of being White in America.

Plenty of us like her. If I had been able to vote in the Democratic primary, I would have chosen her. It's not that I don't like Obama; but I prefer her and would be more comfortable with her in charge in a time of war - and let's face it, Bush will be keeping us in Iraq until the end of time.

As for it being solely a "race" race, I couldn't disagree more. We're also looking at gender discrimination.

Just recently a study came out that people prefer male bosses to female. (I'll try to find the web address later) Undoubtedly, that has got to spill over to politics. After all, being the president is the ultimate "boss" position.

I think Bill M's got the right of it. There is are a large number of Right Wing pundits who appear to despise McCain. Ann Coulter has said that she prefers Hillary Clinton to John McCain and I think that she was only half-joking. Rush Limbaugh has said that if McCain wins the GOP nomination that he'd rather McCain lose and I sure he was being serious. I'm sure because he expects Hillary Clinton the come out on top on the Dem side, and having her in the Whitehouse would be a godsend for his radio show. He does so much better when he's attacking someone in power instead of acting as an apologist for Bush. He's about to come on right now and I think I may listen to the meltdown he's about to have over McCain's victory, yesterday. OTOH, Rush Limbaugh supporting a Clinton for anthing may be on of the signs of the Apocalypse...

I don't have a strong leaning either way - both Clinton and Obama have aspects I'm less than thrilled with - but I refuse to make any decisions based on anything other than who I want. 2004 had a lot of concern about "electability" and look how that turned out.

The thing is, some of you probably don't spend much time on conservative sites.

Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I've also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don't like McCain.

Then there's the simple factor of people voting the party line, no matter who the candidates are.

In looking at some other info, it looks like the super delegates are probably going to decide the nomination for the Dems, which is a scary thing imo.

[b]FWIW, to win Iowa you have to win a majority of white voters, because whites are still far and away the majority in Iowa.[/b]

I liked one of Leno's lines the night after the Iowa caucus - to the effect that Obama got x% of the white vote, x% of the female vote, "and 100% of the Iowa black vote - a guy named Larry."

I would love to caucus for Obama this weekend, but unfortunately, I have to attend a meeting that's vital for my financial future. Since I can cross party lines in the primary in Washington (just have to sign an oath that I haven't voted or caucused for the other party), I may use this opportunity to vote on the Republican side, against Huckabee. (As long as the nominee isn't Huckabee, I could live with it, although Romney wouldn't be my first choice as President either.)

Mulligan is spot on target here. I do listen to and watch punditry from both sides and I can honestly say that the rightwing hatred of the idea of a McCain candidacy is equal to, if not greater than, the leftwing discomfort of a Clinton candidacy. The constant theme that I keep hearing this last week from the pundits and their callers/writers/bloggers is that "liberal" John McCain is going to screw the country up and cause the go-along-to-get-along Republicans in Congress to fall in line in favor of really bad ideas. Since this means taking a hit, and this is damned near an exact quote of what I've heard several dozen times now, they would rather not vote or even vote Hillary in so that so that it's the Democrats who take the hard political hit by the midterms and 2012 rather then the Republicans.

The long held belief that Hillary will inspire hoards of rabid right-wingers to come streaming out of every nook and cranny to vote against her might be right with some candidates. However, it's very possible that McCain will nullify that effect if not outright reverse it. You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of "conservatism" as it's defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years.

You can't attack someone with that level of venom and bile for eight years and then suddenly forget that. Even in politics. Now, some may swallow their hate and pull the lever for McCain, but many more won't. Many don't even see him as being the legitimate frontrunner. He's only there because of all the moderates, Dems and libs that snuck into their Republican primaries and sabotaged the Republican's nomination process with the help of the eager Liberal Mainstream Media arm of the Clinton Machine.

Is Hillary much beloved by everyone on the Left? Hell no. But McCain is flat out despised by many factions on the Right. If they're both their party's nominee... Well, it's going to be a fun election year.

Wow. Check up that MSNBC link I posted above. The update has added a ton of delegates to the count and flipped it to Obama by a narrow lead of (at the time of this writing) four delegates. The Republican race still looks the same even with the higher numbers though.

Rightwing talk radio and Fox News are gonna be so funny to listen to today.

~8?)

I have to say that I'm amazed that Hillary won NY. She used this state's Senate seat for the sole purpose of running for President all along. I can't believe that people don't realize this. She moved to NY within a month of making the residency requirement, for crying out loud!

McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans--the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.

So what?

See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain...but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That's why I've repeatedly said I think she's unelectable.

I mean, the GOP hasn't even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn't get into the White House. Plus McCain still has plenty of time to actively court the conservatives.

And of course, sad to say, there are the unknowns. God forbid there's another terrorist attack, for instance, which will be spun into "Who do you want protecting you? The experienced soldier who has never once stopped saying we have to present a strong offense? Or the constantly shifting politico who wants to bail out of Iraq?"

PAD

"You also have to remember something about McCain and his relationship with the most rabid rightwing conservatives and the NeoCons. John McCain has been portrayed as (and is still seen as) as traitor to the cause, the party and the very foundations of "conservatism" as it's defined by these people. McCain has been the hated backstabber of Bush, conservative principles, decency and Reaganism for the last eight years."

That's how he's being portrayed right now. It's not how he would be portrayed in October.

There's a very good chance that the Republican candidate will be settled before the Democrat candidate. That will leave a buffer time where McCain can sit back and look like a respectable guy while Clinton and Obama beat on each other. That will act as a bit of a cooling off period among Republicans.

Then, after both sides are settled, the real campaigns will steadily build. More and more of those Republicans who bickered about whether they liked McCain or not will decide that they really don't want a democrat. The Neo-cons who are currently saying they like Clinton better than McCain will just stop talking for awhile, and when their listeners have forgotten those statements they'll start rallying everyone to be good party supporters.

Really, it's easiest to apply a sports team mentality to voting. If someone hates a particular football team, that lasts. It doesn't matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they'll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.

Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.

Actually, that quote I used came from a fairly conservative site. As I've also said, most on that site tend to think that you put Clinton vs McCain, and McCain wins, even if they don't like McCain.

I wasn't referring to your quote but to the idea expressed by some that there's such an enthusiastic cadre of conservative anti-Hillary voters out there that McCain is a shoo-in. Of course, I may not be getting any better of a sense of what the electorate thinks than anyone else. I know that several of the regulars at the National Review site hold a big grudge against McCain and Limbaugh's antipathy is well known. I'm seeing some others saying that he's the one most likely to beat Hillary or Obama. What I don't see very much of is enthusiasm for him, more of a "he's the best we can do" kind of thing.

A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can't quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture's logic; she doesn't like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening...to help Hillary...nope, just can't make any sense of it.

McCain is not beloved by many rank and file republicans--the kind of folks you need for a real get out the vote effort.

So what?

See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain...but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That's why I've repeatedly said I think she's unelectable.

This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election--many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves. But it didn't happen. You may well be right--if anyone can unite Republicans it would take a Clinton. But I think that recent history shows that it isn't easy to beat someone you hate with someone you don't like. Maybe in our little circle most of us end up voting against the other candidate more than we vote for someone but I think that isn't the case nationwide.

And while I disagree with the anti-McCain fanatics I can see a small bit of logic in some of their arguments. The people who regard illegal immigration as the biggest problem we face are unlikely to be happy with any candidate now, but it will probably be easier for McCain to get through a pro-amnesty package than it would be for Hillary. In fact, one aspect of McCain that I rather admire could end up hurting him big time in the election--he's probably a lot more willing than Hillary to expend political capital to fight for something that may not be popular. With someone like Hillary you can always justify supporting her even when you disagree with her position by rationalizing that she won't actually do what she says once she gets into office. With McCain that seems less likely. If you don't like his position on something you'd better be prepared to not like his actions either.

Now if Hillary wins over Obama by pulling a fast one (using the Florida and Michigan delegates for example) all bets are off. She has to make sure victory doesn't require pissing off all of his voters. McCain could, theoretically, siphon off some Latino votes and if Blacks stay home in protest, she's toast.

One interesting factor comes up now--from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly. It could be a while before Hillary gets the chance to win a big state and the constant drip drip of smaller states falling to Obama could create a bad situation for her--already the money is shifting to him. The plan all along was to wrap this thing up on super Tuesday. With that plan down in flames and Bill sidelined what does she do to recapture the Big Mo? A staff shakeup? Are there any endorsements left that don't seem more likely to go to Obama (Edwards, Gore)?

"This reminds me of what Democrats were saying in the last election--many were unenthusiastic about Kerry but they thought it would be ok because so many people hated Bush that they would come out in droves."

The thing is, they weren't wrong.

In 2004 the Democrats actually did get out a massive number of votes. All the hatred for Bush you're referring to did exactly what they said it would, it got tons of Democrats to the polls. As unappealing at Kerry was, he still got a lot of votes from people who didn't want Bush.

The reason Bush won is that tons of Republicans came out to vote, also. His approval rating was still way higher than we'd like to admit and he still inspired the Republicans.

So will hatred of Hillary get Republicans out to vote? The 2004 election says yes. Would she also inspire the Democrats to go to the polls? I think so, but I think Barack would do so just as much. And I think he'd do it without inspiring so much hate from the Republicans.

I'm still not sure it's enough, though.

”See, my perception is that the rank and file may not love McCain...but they despise Clinton. And I think they will turn out in sizable numbers to thwart her return to the White House. That's why I've repeatedly said I think she's unelectable.”

”It doesn't matter if they grumbled about their team not winning in the regular season, once the Superbowl starts they'll root for whoever is against the team they hate. Politics is exactly like sports fandom to a lot of people.”

”Also dont forget some of the hard hard right would rather put McCain in the white house if it would stop BILL Clinton not necessarily Hillary from winning.”

The hardcore football fans out there will do that. The more casual fans will simply not watch the game.

Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain. McCain is the traitor, the RINO, the ultra lib, etc. McCain was the Republican that conservatives were swearing on their very lives was going to be ultra-lib Kerry’s VP pick to run against his own party. He’s been portrayed politically as just the same or no better than Teddy, Hillary and Kerry for the last six years easy with the only exceptions being a few short blips caused by his statements on Iraq. He’s been the subject of more insulting parodies by Rush, Hannity, Coulter and others in the last eight years then Bill & Hill combined have been in that same time period. That’s not going to be forgotten just because Rush and crew don’t mention it for a couple of months.

Besides, the pundit’s egos may get in their way here. Rush relished his early success in the early 90’s. He was “the majority maker” and an honorary member of the Republican Congress. He was a power player. Other pundits rose up and took that mantle to some degree as well. In this election, a number of them have taken early sides in the primaries for Rudy and Mitt and banged those drums as loud and as hard as they could. And even guys like Rush who claim that they won’t endorse or support anyone in primaries have made clear who they support and who they don’t by the comments they make and the attacks they launch. In Rush’s world, Mitt is a real conservative candidate and has been played up heavily on his show as one. McCain is all that stuff I mentioned above. McCain absolutely stomping these other candidates isn’t simply McCain winning the primaries. Oh no, it’s McCain beating them. When you’ve started to believe your own hype, it can be an awful blow when someone comes along and blows it up entirely. I can easily see some of those pathetic, petty bastards relishing the idea of McCain running and failing just so the can be “right” and tell their audience that they told ‘em so all those months back and all those years before. Remember, most of these guys don’t have any real principles or stands. God knows enough of them sold out their “deeply held beliefs and principles” whenever they needed to support some of the Bush plays in the last six years.

On the left side of the playing field, there’s nowhere near that level of hate being focused at Hillary by the Democratic and liberal voices in the media and blogosphere. There’s some, but for the most part there’s just less enthusiasm for Hillary then there is for Obama. Hell, 90% of the negative comments about Hillary not being the ideal candidate isn’t so much about her as much as it’s about how the hypothetical rightwing hatred that she would foment would turn into an unstoppable wave of Republican voters that would crush her under its mass. It’s not anything like the venom being spit by the Right on anything like the level that it’s being spit.

Now throw in the Bush factor. You have the occasional idiots that like to inject themselves into debates just to declare that it doesn’t matter in the least who gets in because they’ll all do the exact same thing. Well, only a blind, deaf and dumb fool would still be singing that song after Bush. Hillary is far, far, far less likely to keep the country running along on the Bush prescribed path then McCain. A lot of the Left wants us off of that course as much as possible. A lot of the Right would like to change course. I think that there’s a stronger incentive for the Left to vote for Hillary and a greater possible shift from that course then there is for the Right to vote for a guy who’s suddenly trying to tell the world that he’s Bush Lite and would supposedly keep all the bad ideas going.

I think we’re even seeing some of that effect now. Look at the primary voter turnouts. Even in “Republican” states, there are more people voting in the Democratic primaries than there are in the Republican primaries. The passion for their candidates and what those candidates stand for isn’t there this go-round. There is a passion for a change of course on the Left if not one for Hillary herself. That will likely bring about a good voter turnout amongst the Left. The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover.

”Personally I can't quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture's logic; she doesn't like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans so she is threatening...to help Hillary...nope, just can't make any sense of it.”

I think rush and a couple of others kinda told a close-to-almost truth in the last week. Their spin has been that they would rather the Liberal Hillary be in office then the Liberal McCain so that when the Liberal Ideas cause all sorts of damage it hurts the Democrats rather then the Republicans.

For the minority of them that have been drinking their own Kool-Aid, they might actually believe that. There’s also the group that might be thinking that Bush has destroyed so much so badly that the country is going to crash badly in the next two years no matter who is in office and they know (hope) that the blame will go to the party in charge. Why set your own team up for a fall? And then there’s the ego thing. Like I said, McCain winning not only the nomination but the Presidency itself after years them painting him as basically just shy of being the male Hillary… Well, that just can’t happen. It’s not only ”wrong”, it’s a personal defeat.

”One interesting factor comes up now--from what I can see a lot of the upcoming states look pretty Obama friendly.”

Yeah, but we’ve all seen how reliable “early indications” have been with this election process. Who knows what’s actually going to happen.

"Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain."

Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?

If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that's not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken' Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven't heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I've heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.

We can be easily led astray if we only listen to the idealogues and pundits, whose stock in trade is hyperbole and sensationalism. Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain? That's about as likely as those who claimed they would move to Canada if Bush won in '04. They're more likely not to vote than to vote for Hillary.

What looks to be happening, at least from my POV, is that the neo-cons are losing power, and making as much noise as possible to sabotage a moderate's chances so that they can try and retain power a little longer.

The mythical beast that is the Anti-Clinton Voting Monster has never been proven to be true and will likely be proven to be as real as your average Jenny Hanover

Oh, that's nice. I had the chance to pick up an absolutely great Jenny Hanover a few years back and passed on it. D'oh! Would look great on the wall.

Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?

Well, although McCain won on Tuesday, he did it with only 41% of the vote. More Republican voters are voting against him than for him. Ok, it's still a 3 man race, what's worse is that the Democrats had 70+% greater turnout.

I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him. If he goes too far he will lose support from independents and those Democrats who would consider him. Usually this is when a Republican candidate would tack toward the middle for the general election. If McCain is still trying to reassure his base at this late date it doesn't bode well.

"Right now, there are far, far more people on the right who are, and have been for the last eight years, expressing absolute loathing for McCain."

”Are there really far, far more people who loath him? Or are there a few people who are just very loud?”

”If you take the entire staff of Fox News and add them up, that's not enough votes to win a Primary in Rhode fricken' Island. But they *sound* like a gigantic army. Among actual people, I haven't heard anywhere near the dislike for McCain that I've heard for Hillary. Nowhere close.”

There are far more people on the Right who hate McCain than there are people on the Left who hate Hillary. And I’m not just counting the pundits and the Rightwing media figures. I’m counting their callers, their letter writers and their bloggers. I’m also looking at the literally hundreds of people I come into contact with on any given day and hear discussing the previous nights news and events. Many Conservatives, rightly or wrongly, rationally or not, dislike McCain greatly.

”Will Limbaugh and Coulter really vote for Clinton over McCain?”

No, but they and others may just decide to not vote at all come November. And I think they odds of people on the Right not coming out to for McCain is a more likely scenario than people on the left not coming out to vote for Hillary. That throws a lot of the outcome to moderates and independents and I think they’ll go with they candidate most likely to not act like a continuation of Bush or, again, not vote at all.

”I think we may know how things will turn out tomorrow when McCain addresses the conservative convention. If it goes badly, I think he will have a very hard time uniting the party behind him.”

McCain: ”My friends, I come before you tonight to…”

The Assembled Crowd (Mob) of Convention Goers: ”Burn the witch!!! Kill the witch!!!”

Well, PAD, I think the opposite is true. I think that Sen. Clinton is electable, just barely, but I think Sen. Obama has no chance in a general election. Why? Because of his race. Sorry, but that's what I think.

Okay. WHat's a "Jenny Hanover"?

Googling suggests it may be a fake mermaid or somesuch, but i'd like a specific reference.

What’s a Jenny Hanover?!? You poor, poor undereducated man you.

Mostly Jenny Hanovers are skates or rays that have been artfully sliced and trimmed, dried and the dipped in some sort of shellac or something and passed off as some sort of unknown sea creature. The mouth and eyes, when framed by the right “plastic surgery” end up looking almost humanlike. They’ve also been known as Sea Devils. It’s been decades since anyone really successfully passed one off as a “new scientific discovery” for more then twenty seconds.

There used to be a ton of good pictures of them on Google’s image search results, but I’ll be damned if I can find any usable ones now.

Oops. Spoke too soon. Found one.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=221

Should have thought to check these guys first.

And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=220

And this is a better one. The link above looks like a fish version. This one is the more common or classic one. They have other photos under this image.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=220

Yeah, what happened to all the good pictures?

Wait, try spelling it Jenny Haniver. Oh yeah, there we go. Lots of photos.

I've also seen some other fish--sea robins?--surgically altered into good gaffs. And the Fiji mermaids, of course.

There's a small market for custom made chupucabras and such. Look at w*w.customcreaturetaxidermy.com/fantasy/fantasy.html

But give me a break. $450 for a "freak hairless squirrel"??? Give me A- a squirrel and B- an electric razor and I'll give you a freak hairless squirrel for half that price.

Back to politics for a moment--you know one problem Obama has? When your base is young voters you are depending on a group that often ends up being undependable. Witness "Obama Girl". She didn't even bother to vote. Slacker.

Jenny Hanover, Jenny Haniver and Jenny Hanniver all work. I tend to forget that the one in my book of unknown creatures is the oddman out spelling of the three.

As for the Obama base…

The other problem with a youth vote that’s based on “inspirational leadership” is that they tend to drop off like leaves in the fall. If you’re voting for a guy because he speaks of “hope” and “change” and know nothing about the guys platforms, then you’re pretty likely to bail out when the shine gets rubbed off. As a number of Obama supporters being interviewed live back during the Iowa and NH caucuses showed that a lot of them (at least there) knew zilch about what he actually stood for beyond the pretty words; the Democrats better pray like mad that if he ends up with the nomination his shine doesn’t get too damaged by his opponent before election day.

Bill Mulligan: A lot of the anti-McCain stuff is crazy, and this is from the people who are members of his party. Personally I can't quite wrap my head around Ann Coulture's logic; she doesn't like that McCain helps Democrats against Republicans..
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the questionable concept of "Ann Coulter's logic" (wasn't that one of the creature's profiled on the Discovery channel's Monster Quest?), she actually stated on Hannity & Colmes that she made this pledge because McCain led the fight against torture.

Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.

Posted by: Luigi Novi

Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.

Has to. If torture is ever banned, she won't be allowed on teevee or radio any more.

Leave to someone like Coulter to argue openly in favor of torture.

Really? A lot of the pundits on the right do that, quite without a trace of irony.

I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed. My mother, who's logic is worthy of Archie Bunker, waits until she knows who the leader is, and then votes for that person, because, after all, the other person won't win and who wants to vote for a loser? That would be throwing your vote away.

What scares me most is how many of the older voters have this mentality.

It's not just the older voters, Susan. I overheard some of my younger coworkers following the polls as well. They wanted to be able say, "I supported him/her since the beginning!"

Yeah, since the beginning of the poll results...

Posted by: Susan O

I wish they would ban exit polling, and not be allowed to predict winners until ALL polls are closed.

I just like the 24-hour voting day policy - polls open at 8AM Eastern Standard Time Tuesday in all fifty states and the territories, and close at 8AM EST on Wednesday.

That way, it's impossible to report a winner anywhere much more quickly than anywhere else, thus avoiding the "New York win prediction causes California voters to stay home" thing.

I don't know that it's possible to ban polling--free speech, after all--but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in.

Hillary was way ahead in CA up to a few days ago. Early exit polls had Obama ahead. She won handily.

Is it possible that the mail in votes reflected her earlier lead and the exit polls reflected his new momentum?

Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It's always seemed to me they've made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hell, I'm really obnoxious but I've never been referenced for anything and it hasn't made me one red cent.

Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It's always seemed to me they've made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else. Hell, I'm really obnoxious but I've never been referenced for anything and it hasn't made me one red cent.

Posted by: Sean

Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say? It's always seemed to me they've made a career out of being really obnoxious more than anything else.

Because, regrettable as it may seem, they have influence (not so much as they or their hordes of dittoheads would like to think, but influence) on the process.

Yeah, they have influence. But again, why? I'm not trying to poke you with a pointed stick, Mike, I just really have never understood why certain people who aren't, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.

My, that was a really long run-on sentence.

Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He's an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is. I've been trying to get on radio for years, but do I get on? No. Maybe I'm just not self-promoting enough.

I just really have never understood why certain people who aren't, in fact, politicians can be so loud on the political process and those with airwaves put these people ON said airwaves.

Sean--basically it's the fact that they have the proven ability to reach an audience. This allows them to charge advertisers money for access to that audience.

Simple as that. Now why have these particular individuals been able to do it when other, doubtlessly better educated people have failed is another question entirely. Radio looks easy. It isn't, as the legion of failed Stern and Limbaugh imitators have learned.

(probably they would do better to NOT try to be the next Stern or Limbaugh but to be themselves--assuming that there's an audience for it.).

Looks like Romney is out of the race...

Looks like Romney is out of the race...

Yep, looks like. What a terrific birthday present!

Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he's always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates. The President-as-chameleonic-CEO model has been more than amply played out and demonstrated as a Bad Idea, methinks...

Regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination (though I hope it's Obama), I think this promises to be a far more interesting and potentially issue-driven fall campaign than we've seen in a long while.

TWL

Well, that happened sooner then I thought it would. Romney just quit talking (and spinning the hell out of the fact that he was getting hi butt kicked into doing the right and noble thing for the party and the country) and he is now officially gone from the race. Looks like we get to see whether or not the rabid voices on the Right go McCain or not well before the convention gets here as it's now him or Ron Paul.

And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal and the extreme Right have been making him out to be as nutty as a loon. Not that they're totally off base there...

Posted by: Tim Lynch

Sorry for Romney supporters, but after the psycho that is Rudy Giuliani he's always been my least favorite of the GOP candidates.

A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke "the three most beautiful words in the English Language": "Ex-Mayor Giuliani"...

AS to Rush and Sean and their ilk, demagogues have always made their living by appealing to the dissatisfied who feel that they have been done out of what should be rightfully theirs in favour of inferiors who only manage to succeed by chicanery and venality.

I refuse to Godwinise this discussion directly, but consider the attitude of the German people after World War One and what that led to.

Sean: Now, can any of you political types explain to me precisely WHY people like Rush and Ann Coulter and other are always being referenced and why anyone would give a flying fart what they say?
Luigi Novi: I've never been able to figure that out myself. The only thing I can think of is that there are two schools of thought on how commentary should be: One is that it be thoughtful, intelligent, objective, serious, and measured. But there is an aspect of the public, or its psyche, that revels in the Jerry Springer-like abandonment of all decency, that people like Hannity, Rush and Coulter appeal to that. They capitalize on the worst aspects of the human mind's tendency towards bigotry, demagoguery and hatred.

Sean: Look at another loudmouth, Sean Hannity. He's an ex-contractor and an ex-bartender, neither of which occupation is likely to land you on either the radio or a news network. Yet, there he is.
Luigi Novi: I don't think one has to have had formal education or have been a professional politician to articulate an intelligent political viewpoint. That sounds like the ad hominem crap people give Peter when they complain about his expressing his political viewpoints on his blog by arguing that he should "stick to writing comics". Me, I figure Peter could do as good if not a better job than a lot of the Talking Heads out there. My feeling is, if in a representative democracy/republic/whatever like the U.S., citizens are given the power to choose their leaders, directly or indirectly, with the power of the vote, what sense does it make to argue that they need to be professionals to express their political opinions? If part of Americanism is the assumption that we're able to affect our politics by way of vote, what sense does it make to argue that we can't talk about it? It's one more reason why that particular ad hominem argument never made sense to me, which is why I made that point a couple of years back with one paralogist here who tried to compare politics to neurosurgery, as if expressing political opinions required technical expertise like being a surgeon.

Hannity isn't a bad commentator because he was a contractor and a bartender. He's a bad commentator because he's a obnoxious bigot who never met a logical fallacy that he didn't like.

Bill Mulligan: Looks like Romney is out of the race...
Luigi Novi: Ahhhh. Thank you. That means no matter who wins, we'll have someone with a sensible view on religion in the White House.

Clinton did well in states that I could win as a Democrat in the general election. The fact that Obama thomped her in several swing states speaks volume.

I think the comparison of Kerry to McCain is apt -- you should never count on hatred of the opponent to carry you into the White House. Hatred isn't enough to get people to go out and vote.

However, I think Clinton's failing is that she only speaks to Democrats who have been voting and will always vote in elections (women of a certain age, seniors, and so on). The way the red/blue state divide works out is that if only the party faithfuls vote, the Republicans generally win.

Democrats win elections when they get young people and independents (the latter is especially critical) to vote for them. That's how Clinton won -- with independents and the "Reagan Democrats." There is one Democratic candidate who appeals to those two groups and it's not Sen. Clinton. The biggest mistake Democrats can make is that thinking that Sen. Clinton's appeal, which is considerable, is the same as Bill Clinton's.

"Yeah, they have influence. But again, why?"

Because they've got a skill and a certain level of charisma that has given them a large group of followers and many of those followers will act on their suggestions. That makes them appear valuable to the power players and the wanna-be power players who'll then prop them up partly to inflate their egos to better curry favors with them and partly to make them appear more important then they are to create the appearance of having power players, movers and shakers on their side. Everybody wants to say that they've got huge support amongst the common man and what better way to show that then by pointing to popular "representatives" of the everyday common man? It's not enough to point to other politicians as being for you and it's a better prop to have to point to than just saying that you've got large crowds of people showing up to support you. So what if you've got fifty to a hundred people showing up for your little events? I've got that and I've got Rush and his twenty million plus listeners on my side. Power is sometimes based on illusion and Rush, Hannity, Fox News and crew do still create a powerful illusion for some.

They're also useful for, to quote Bush, repeating things over and over and over again for the "truth" to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. Rush has three hours a day, five days a week and "Best Of" shows on the weekends that a lot of his listeners tune into from start to finish. In many markets you then go straight to (former Rush fill in host) Sean Hannity who then repeats the same talking points (with only a few differences) for another three hours to most of the same audience. Six hours a day of talking points to fire up a base. Then it's over to Fox News for more fun.

However, while Rush may have had some strong influence before, I think that their actual power is crumbling somewhat. They're still good for creating a talking points echo chamber and for getting, spin, smear and distortion out into the public discourse, but I think that the present style of conservative talk radio is in decline and that when Rush finally slinks off into the sunset that it will be the end of that era. Hannity doesn't have Rush's style and the various Rush clones other then Hannity have never really amounted to much. The big attractions outside of them are guys like Savage and no one really gives him the illusion of clout and respectability or the TV time that they've given Rush and Hannity. And rightly so. Coulter is almost as loony as Savage and, while she's propped up by Rush, Sean and Fox News, her sell by date is fast passing her by and she's seeing less influence herself these days.

I don't think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it's beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns' time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody's guess.

Hillary will win the NY primary.

Why?

Because with Edwards out of the race, I voted for Obama.

Right. Because everything is about you.

Ah... To live life without a sense of humor or the first clue about one.

~8?P

Right. Because everything is about you.

Of course it is. Whose blog is it, anyway?

Posted by: Jerry Chandler

I don't think that this means that people are learning to think for themselves or not follow clowns like these more then past generations though. I just think that it's beginning to become apparent that this group of clowns' time as power players is winding down. Whether that means we get something better or worse for the next wave of clowns is anybody's guess.

Oh, it'll be worse, both because the current crew have lowered the bar for the next generation and because new technology will make it more pervasive.

BTW - Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup - by her own count, she's seen them about 67 times.

For a pic and some remarks by her that will forever sear the retinas of your imagination (Purple Crisco? Eewwww...), go to http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/2006_06.html (Scroll way down, til you come to the picture of the scrawny blonde standing in front of a Grateful Dead poster...)

Luigi--I never meant to say that Hannity's past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there're a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.

A New Yorker who is a friend-of-a-friend once looked at his watch, observed thjat it was one second past midnight and then spoke "the three most beautiful words in the English Language": "Ex-Mayor Giuliani"...

Maybe, but I certainly always thought that "Ex-Senator Santorum" was in the running for that honor as well. "Ex-President Bush" won't be nearly as nice, given how much damage was done. "Convicted Felon Cheney," on the other hand, would be really nice should it ever come to pass ... not that it's likely, mind you.

TWL

It's now (basically) official, McCain will be the Republican nominee. My decision come November can already be foretold...
If Clinton wins, I'll be voting for McCain.
If Obama wins, I'll be voting for Obama.

I'm definitely one of those people that PAD was talking about when it comes to Clinton's eligibility.

Posted by: Mickey
Right. Because everything is about you.

PAD was utilizing the same joke that goes along the lines of "It's going to rain because I just washed my car." Or, you might have actually pointed out a here-to-fore unknown truth.

"Eligibility" = "Electability"

Oops.

"Maybe, but I certainly always thought that "Ex-Senator Santorum" was in the running for that honor as well."

Amen, brother, amen. And happy birthday.

Ann COulter is a Deadhead. Yup - by her own count, she's seen them about 67 times.

Heh. I wonder if that means she came out to support Obama on Monday.

From Politico.com:

Rush weighs a Hillary fundraiser

Rush Limbaugh, one of many conservative talkers deeply hostile toward John McCain, has begun talking about bailing out Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president, suggesting repeatedly on the air yesterday and today that he'd raise money for her — though not exactly because he likes her.

"It is rumored that the Clintons are digging into their own personal wealth to fund Hillary's campaign. I'm thinking of maybe doing a fundraiser," Limbaugh said yesterday.

He's been talking about it all day today, and offered a slogan:

"Keep her in it so we can win it."

I've got only a rough transcript of most of the rest of today's show, on which he asked his listeners repeatedly if he should hold the fundraiser. He's casting his offer in part, at least, as a parody of GOP "strategery," mocking the notion that — in place of a conservative candidate — Republican strategists see Clinton as their savior.

Right. Because everything is about you

It should be.

PAD

I thought everything is about me.

Happy Birthday, Tim.

And yeah, I know Huck is out there too. But I think he and McCain have a deal

That's what scares me. McCain is too old to take a chance on Huckabee as being a heartbeat away...give him secretary of, I don't know, what's the furthest from the line of succession?

Right. Because everything is about you.

Well, for a political discussion this thread had a good run before a really dopey comment showed up.

""the three most beautiful words in the English Language": "Ex-Mayor Giuliani".."

I suppose that person was not around for the wonderful regime of David Dinkins then. Oh how we all should long for the days when we all needed to wear bulletproof vests to walk around Manhattan :)

All the reports I've seen have avoided saying Romney is flatly out of the race, because he's still holding onto his delegates. McCain doesn't seem to be exceeding 40%, even for his biggest wins, so if Huckabee can catch up, Romney's delegates may become valuable.

Yeah, they have influence. But again, why?

Because the republican party typically moves as a pack, because they are more faithful to conformity. Normally, the nominee is the pick of the party bosses, becoming the frontrunner months before the primary.

Bush's best prospect for keeping the books closed on what he's done is a McCain presidency, but he's unpopular enough now that he can't announce a successor and not drive away support. Protesting too much that Bush's obvious successor isn't conservative enough for the far right may help him with moderates. For the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Dobsons, playing into reverse psychology is the only game in town.

Sean: Luigi--I never meant to say that Hannity's past was in some way indicative of his intelligence. Hey, the fact that anybody responds to anything I write proves that. All I was trying to say was it just seems that there're a lot of talking heads out there whose only qualification is that they can talk. And they have a head.
Luigi Novi: I hear ya. Sorry if my post came across wrong.

"but I wonder how the mail-in early votes are factored in."

Sadly, most aren't factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren't even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.

Just to add my two cents in what has been an incredible campaign so far:
It looks like both parties may have been hampered by their own rules beforehand.

1.) You have the Democrats, out of power for 8 years yet riding a wave. A worthy challenger - Obama - challenges the Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. But wait. Because of "proportional representation" there is no clear winner early. And because so many states have instituted "early voting" - in the name of giving more people the "opportunity" to vote, as if Election "day" is some unbearable, unconquerable chore, those who may have voted for OBama voted for Hillary a month ago, in which their vote went against who they eventually wanted or went for somebody like John Edwards, in which it was literally wasted. Could we please do away with "early voting".

2.) You have the Republicans, playing to their evangelical base but not doing much and taking it for granted, now confrontec with a lot of votes who feel betrayed. They were enough to help derail the 'economic conservative" Romney. They May be enough to derail the "defense" conservative as well.

Like I said. fascinating.

Sadly, most aren't factored in at all, at least in the general election. Here in NC, and I imagine in most other areas, I believe that early voting ballots aren't even counted unless the vote is close or there is a challenge for some reason.

But if the state isn't winner take all how will the dole out the delegates?

Being from Brazil, I have been watching the whole political process over there with some reserve. Sincerely, the newspapers here don't go much in detail about John McCain. The only thing I know about the man is that he was POW during part of the Vietnan War and he's a senator... Also that for Republican he has some left center positions regarding some issues. Is that correct?

The dispute in the Democrats looks very interesting. Personally, considering the last four presidents... We're talking about a woman and african-american... Correct if I'm wrong, but that's not historic, regardless who wins the nomination? Ok... I'm not exactly a specialist here and I don't prentend to know exactly who's the best. I know Hilary has more experience than Obama, but that's it. What else?

Thanks,

Mau

Mau,

It would be pretty historic for us. Even just one of them getting the nomination is significant.

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

I think it would be ironic if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which does not get to vote in the presidential elections (do not pay federal taxes but contribute to social security and has a constitution that is superseded by the U.S. constitution and has many people in the U.S. armed forces and the MLB :) ) be the deciding factor in the presidential candidate race. I know the race may be decided before June but still I think is food for thought.

Also that for Republican he has some left center positions regarding some issues. Is that correct?

On a handful of issues, perhaps. But he votes pretty much the party ticket; his record is quite conservative.

He plays the maverick quite well, but submits to party discipline when needed to.

The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting.

Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it's all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding -- that's only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.

TWL

Another thing that, while not a milestone, is certainly a rarity, is that at this point it's all but guaranteed that our next President will come out of the Senate. The last time that happened was JFK, and before that Harding -- that's only twice in nearly a century. Kinda interesting, I think.

Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.

Also note that both those men were assassinated in office.

All the more reason for an Obama/Clinton ticket. That'd make ANY assasin think twice...no matter how wingnuttery....

Harding wasn't assassinated, unless you buy the story about his wife poisoning him. He died in office, yes.

TWL

Mau, you can get a detailed sense of John McCain's positions by going to www.wikipedia.org, and searching for the article "Political positions of John McCain". All of the candidates have such articles, in addition to the main articles on themselves.

Tim Lynch: "The fact that the Democratic nominee will almost certainly not be a white male is definitely interesting."

You have a gift for understatement, Mr. Lynch. Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.

In 1972,
an African American woman named Shirley Chisholm ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. She won only 152 delegates, and took a lot of abuse along the way. The mere fact that she "dared" to run was a step forward.

Now we have a woman and an African American man vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. Given the Republican party's vulnerabilities, whoever gets the Democratic nod will have a realistic shot at the White House. Society has made a great deal of progress in the last 36 years.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for the "McCain Doomsday Scenario" -- which involves the unlikely tossing of support from Romney to Huckabee, for a Huckabee/Romney ticket.

a Huckabee/Romney ticket.

They'd be slaughtered! It would be an electoral massacre! George McGovern would feel sorry for them!

Not that long ago, societal barriers all but guaranteed that neither women nor minorities could have a realistic shot at the White House.

Also consider that Nancy Pelosi's current position as Majority Leader of the House puts her 3rd in line for the White House, and that's the the closest a woman has gotten to the top job to date.

I don't get to choose, since I'm not an American, but I'm happy that the only social conservative in the race has little chance of winning and has a goofy name to boot. Eight years of a guy playing for the hardcore evangelicals was enough.

Still, my view of America is indirect, through the Internet, the news, the popular culture. Did 8 years of Bush really made America more socially conservative? Sometimes I think Bush and co. merely fired up people that already were conservative and gave them a sort of... dunno how to describe it - pride?

I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The "silent majority" Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton's and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren't ashamed of being conservative anymore.

Posted by Rene at February 8, 2008 11:05 PM
I do remember a time until the mid-1990s when it seemed like expousing socially conservative ideas was seem as very uncool. The "silent majority" Nixon spoke of was really mostly silent. Then in the couple of last years of Clinton's and in the Bush years it all changed, and suddenly it seemed like young conservative people weren't ashamed of being conservative anymore.

Thank you for noticing. Seriously
Im not absolutly happy with everything Bush has done, Im not ashamed to be conservative.
Im also not that young either so please dont card me.

I think that part of it is an overall social change in how people see themselves--it isn't all that "cool" to try not to be "uncool" any more.

One of the things I like most about working in a high school now is seeing how easier it is for kids to express themselves in their own unique ways. It isn't so much that there aren't people who won't disapprove--there are. It's just that it isn't so important to fit in with the so-called "popular crowd". (Said "popular crowd" NOT being the crypto-fascists portrayed on endless TV detective shows as ruling the roost but simply another sub group. Just watch the graduation ceremonies--the "popular" kids get polite scattered applause while an "ordinary" kid in the marching band might get practically a standing ovation.)

Of course, the marching band IS practically a cult. Seriously. If your kid is lonely teach them how to use the triangle (it's easy) and have them join. Instant friends. And they look out for each other too. "Lay off the triangle kid" a crudely scrawled note will read, affixed to your door, a pile of your dry erase markers neatly snapped in two on the floor.

So...anyhoo...the point is, whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places, though if you want a job as a college professor you might not want to be on the record as having thrown a fundraiser for Republicans.

Bill Mulligan: "...whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places..."

Is that entirely a good thing, though? I mean, I abhor the idea of "peer pressuring" people into silence because their political beliefs aren't "cool." But I also abhor the way so many people are "in your face" about politics today.

Case in point: I noticed that the woman in the cube across the aisle from mine had some Hillary Clinton buttons hanging up. I joking said I was having trouble figuring out her political affiliation. She began talking about how she had been campaigning for Clinton. I casually mentioned my preference for Obama. I made no attempt to persaude her that he was the right choice for her -- I simply said I'd decided he was the right choice for *me.*

She harangued me for five minutes about why Clinton was the best candidate. I finally had to bark "ENOUGH!" so I could extricate myself and get back to work. Her reply? "YOU started it."

Yeah. Because I mentioned a preference for Obama, that was an invitation to spouting campaign slogans like a parrot and try to browbeat me into changing my mind. That's like saying if I invite you into my house, I've given you urinate on my living room carpet. Sorry -- doesn't work that way.

Having a belief, or hearing a belief contrary to your own, doesn't give you license to ignore common courtesy. Unfortunately, so few people seem to recongize that anymore that I've decided to no longer engage in any political discussions at work, period. These days I'm content to get informed, to support organizations with which I am aligned philosophically, and to get out and vote. Perish the thought.

I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.

An unfortunate development has been the collapse of many people's ability to have reasonable disagreements. I blame the internet, although I love it so. It's too easy to engage in anonymous attacks on people without any fear of punishment--for some it becomes their only way to argue. Plus, you can surround yourself with an echo chamber of people who parrot the same political lines over and over again, until you become convinced that it's the only way to think--when people like that are faced with an actual disagreement they are reduced to sputtering rage.

I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there--this hasn't been a fun few months. I have a co-worker who I disagree with on most politics but we both shared the belief that Hillary had a great chance of winning it all. The rise of Obama and, frankly, Hillary's piss poor response to it, has hit this person hard. And it isn't just the disappointment of having your candidate losing that hurts--Hillary's biggest fans felt like they were doing something revolutionary, that this was an incredibly groundbreaking run, that they were on the cutting edge. Then along comes Obama and suddenly they look like the establishment fighting a guy who is even more groundbreaking. It's Kennedy vs Nixon all over again and who wants to be on Nixon's side?

So there's a lot of anger on the Hillary side toward this upstart who has dared to steal their thunder (I'm waiting for some idiot to call him "uppity").

And yet, I still think it's her race to lose. Talk to the Hillary folks you get--well, you saw what you get. Talk to the Obama people you get how much they like him. The enthusiasm is definitely his...but my sense is that the Hillary people are more likely to actually get out and vote. Time and time again, the people who rely on the youth vote get let down on election day.

(then again, if the polls show Obama would do better against McCain and the delegate and popular vote is close enough and Obama wins way more states than Hillary...it's possible that a brokered convention might get caught up in the wave. If I were him I'd be getting ready a rip roaring bring the house down "Cross of Gold" speech)

So...anyhoo...the point is, whatever social pressure there was to keep political beliefs to yourself has largely vanished in many places, though if you want a job as a college professor you might not want to be on the record as having thrown a fundraiser for Republicans.

Actually, if you're a biz school prof, that's almost a job requirement these days...

Bill Mulligan: "I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves."

Smart-ass. :P

Bill Mulligan: "I have some sympathy for the hard core Hillary fans out there--this hasn't been a fun few months."

No, but if you can't stand the heat, etc.

Anyway, I think ultimately I think this race will leave the Democratic Party stronger -- if Clinton and Obama mind their p's and q's. You know, delineate the differences between each other but smile and keep their dislike of each other from showing too much.

While there is much to admire about McCain, I believe he is easily beatable. On a personal level, his vulnerabilities include his temper and his lapses into mean-spiritedness. On a policy level, his position on Iraq is absurd, and completely unsupported by the facts as we knew them before the war *and* what we known now. And on a larger level, he is representing a party that has damaged our national security, has irresponsibly weakened our defense forces, ballooned our deficit, and generally took a bad situation and made it unbelievably worse.

I believe Obama to be the best candidate to exploit those vulnerabilities, if he can learn to capitalize on the better angels of his nature. Maureen Dowd of all people said Obama can and should learn to "flick away" personal attacks with a smile and a joke, the way the Gipper used to do.

Actually, if you're a biz school prof, that's almost a job requirement these days...

I think it's actually about even. There's a study at
69.104/search?q=cache:ISCMNncWRlAJ:www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf+political+affiliations+college+disciplines&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

that breaks it down--I don't know how legit this particular study is or how it compares to others and I literally am about to run out the door for a shoot so if anyone knows a better one please let me know. It seems to suggest that if you are an outed Republican you might want to focus on business, military studies and finance, the only places where you might be on semi-equal footing (in military studies you might even be in the majority!). Skip sociology and ethnic studies entirely, unless you want to be very very lonely.

One last thing--mulling it over it occurs to me that I may be underestimating the likelihood of Obama's supporters to show up at the polls--he's doing great in the caucus states and it takes a lot more effort to caucus than to just vote.

I mean, the GOP hasn't even BEGUN its attack politics. Matters are not going to remain static. The GOP attack dogs can, and will, turn up the heat, and as much as the right wing pundits may be underwhelmed by McCain, I think they will move heaven and earth to make sure Clinton doesn't get into the White House.

What else is new? She's already taken their best shots for more than 15 years. They have nothing new to throw at her.

Whereas if Obama gets nominated, they will quickly dig up every unsubstantiated rumor and define him for the voting public. We've gone down this road before.

I'd rather stick with a candidate who's proven she can stand up to the right-wing attack machine then go searching every four years for a candidate the Republicans won't smear. Because such a thing doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, such a thing doesn't exsist for either party. Someone will always dig something up on someone and spread it around like a six-year old who just caught someone picking their nose. The truth behind it can be shakier than something holding salt, but still it'll spread.

"I blame the internet"
Yeah, so do I. When you're sitting there typing it's a lot easier to be really sure of yourself, that you're so much more right than whoever you're arguing with, and social graces don't seem to extend to many keyboards. You poopyhead.

There is that. People today are more eager to show off their individual oppinions, even when they diverge from their friends' oppinions (particularly when they diverge, maybe).

But I think that in politics, specifically, there is something else going on too. The 1960s started the trend among young people that the left was cool, the right was uncool. It remained more or less like that until the 1980s, I suppose. Then in the 1990s it started to seem as if believing in ANYTHING was uncool.

And then, in the tail end of the 1990s, and then in the 2000s, I started to see, for the first time, many people who had right-wing oppinions and weren't embarassed of them. While formerly it seemed like only the usual suspects dared defend Conservative values (like, the Churchgoing Christian Housewife, the Older Businessman, etc.), today we have a good portion of the comic book readership defending those values, for instance.

This is most obvious when you see the reaction to certain storylines. In the 1960s-1980s period, stories with left-wing leanings usually were unanimously accepted and praised. Nowadays it doesn't happen like that anymore. A left-leaning story draws loud disapproval from some fans.

Regarding the Internet and its effect on political and other forms of discourse: I believe a forum like this is a perfectly good place to air out views. Hell, I've come away from some debates here with newly expanded knowledge, and in some cases have even changed my mind on an issue based on someone else's argument. While I seriously doubt anyone could sway me away from voting Democrat in this year's presidential election, there are regular posters here with contrary views that I take seriously.

But when you're at work, you're there to work. It's just not the time and place to be trying to harass people into changing their votes.

Then again, this "office neighbor" of mine who was running off at the mouth about her preferred candidate is also running a side business and using company time and equipment to do it. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that she fails to respect boundaries.

Bill brings up an interesting point, one that I think the majority of people I currently work with could pay attention to, and not just involving political topics. (If occasionally the discussions could GET to anything as serious as politics, well, I'd be happier.) But, moreso than that, a lot of politcal or civically active people act like anyone who isn't in their rank and file needs to be shown The True Way. Too many people are doing too much preaching.

She harangued me for five minutes about why Clinton was the best candidate. I finally had to bark "ENOUGH!" so I could extricate myself and get back to work. Her reply? "YOU started it."

I suspect your co-worker longs for the days when she could have brow beat people into keeping their preferences to themselves.

An unfortunate development has been the collapse of many people's ability to have reasonable disagreements.

Going by Bill's account, his disagreement with his co-worker was completely at his discretion, and therefore, by definition, unreasonable. As far as his coworker's arguments were unchallenged she was, by definition, being completely reasonable. Reasonable ≠ Right

that breaks it down--I don't know how legit this particular study is or how it compares to others and I literally am about to run out the door for a shoot so if anyone knows a better one please let me know. It seems to suggest that if you are an outed Republican you might want to focus on business, military studies and finance, the only places where you might be on semi-equal footing (in military studies you might even be in the majority!). Skip sociology and ethnic studies entirely, unless you want to be very very lonely.

Well, I also note that a lot of medical and engineering professors tend to run more conservative than you think (there's a lot of exposure to businessmen and entrepreneurs, and many professors are on boards of start up businesses, even today). Getting down and dirty with businesses does tend to move you over to more pro-business (and, hence, Republican) attitudes.

I was looking at this old posting a noticed a comment about Ron Paul's position on flag burning. Sadly, Luigi bought into one of the many smears that were leveled against Paul to try and shut him up about the war, the economy and everything else that the powers in Washington don't want anyone to talk about. This link from Salon.com explains his true position on flag burning:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

Here's a statement he made to Congress about this subject as well: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

While the media has done a good job of burying Ron Paul as far as the nomination goes, he's got a large following who aren't going to disappear so quickly or quietly.