In other words, Obama doesn't have to put Hillary on the ticket. Those Clintonistas who were expecting that Obama would not get a post-primary bounce will no doubt be disappointed and bitter.

Last night on HardBall they were talking about Obama being behind with suburban women as compared to Hillary who was ahead vis-a-vis McCain. I don't know what the conclusion was because I got sick of the estrogen-fest so I turned to CNN and it turns out Lou Dobbs is on at that time. Guess I'll be watching more Lou Dobss from now on.

Anybody surprised? And really, nobody has even discusssed Mcsame's dumping his faithful, but no longer pretty, wife for a rich trollop. That'd get a whole hell of a lot of middle aged married women to vote for him.

Mcsame is the GOPper throw-away candidate for an election cycle they know they're gonna get toasted in. If none of the other candidates show much interest in the GOP VP slot, you know they're all waiting for 2012.

They're probably hoping, as Mcsame fades out, voters will split their votes and vote GOPer at the House and Senate level.

NG3, I agree 100% with your analysis.

Me too. Women do not take kindly to being dumped for newer models.

Looks like he is going to win the general election and the Dems will have majorities in congress. It will be very interesting to see what they do with this. The Repubs dropped the ball and look at the mess they are in. Time will tell how the Dems respond and whether their ideas will work.

Didn't Carter lead to Reagan?

Look at what happened in '93. The Dems had the WH and the Congress and yet fought each other a lot if I remember right. No wonder they couldn't get a health care bill through.

When parties gain that much control, the different factions want to start getting their pet projects done and as a result you have infighting. It happened with the GOP too.

Didn't Carter lead to Reagan?

No. Nixon led to Carter.

Reagan was a great politician.

What is going to be interesting is seeing the Dems make huge gains in the Senate that allow them to kick Joe Lieberman off of his committee seat allowing Joe to become the Republican that he has always wanted to be.

Mark it!

The Repubs dropped the ball and look at the mess they are in.

Posted by sawdust at 2008-06-12 11:05 AM | Reply

The Republicans nominated the least awful candidate in the election cycle. Kinda like Bob Dole. But the Dems went with a symbolic candidate who has no experience and a bunch of empty rhetoric.

What an awful choice

Look at what happened in '93.

And the prosperous years that followed!!!!!

Until 2000 that is........then everyting took a down turn and has continued on that downward slope ever since.

I can't wait for 2009! Return us to those prosperous years!

"...
Didn't Carter lead to Reagan?

Posted by sawdust at 2008-06-12 11:05 AM "

That's one way to look at it.

Another way: Nixon and the Vietnam War led to Carter.

I don't know if Joe will be kicked out or not. I am sure many Dems still like the guy and might find some use for him in their caucus. Politicians don't tend to be emotional when it comes to strategy and you have to consider that the Dems won't always hold the majority. Majorities come and go.

Majorities come and go.

True, but you and I both now, that if they could kick Joe off of his committee seat without giving the REP. a Majority they would. And once they have the chance, they are going to send Joe packing to the other side of the aisle.

Mark it!

"I can't wait for 2009! Return us to those prosperous years!"

I hate to burst your bubble, but the country is in a different place now, especially economically. If you expect that the 1990s will magically be restored because Dems are in office you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

In 93 the cold war had eneded and we were starting to benefit from the so-called "peace-dividend" . Now on the other hand we are wasting billions in Iraq and we still have not taken care of Afghanistan.

Also, the Internet was taking off in the 1990's which caused a lot of productivity gains. What technology do you see doing the same in the 2010s?

True, Nixon lead to Carter as well. Hey for that matter, isn't Bush leading us to Obama. Cripe right now a large part of his campain is that he is *not* Bush and McCain *is* Bush. These things run in cycles.

I don't think it was so much the Vietnam war as Nixon's imbroglio with the Watergate coverup - notice I didn't say break-in. After Ford pardoned an admitted criminal, the public was not happy and Ford got trounced by someone representing the anti-Nixon - an unknown, likable Southerner who basically ran as an outsider. Which was one reason he had so much trouble as President. Although some may compare Obama to Carter, that's not an apt comparison, as Obama has (for an admittedly short time) worked in Washington with the very folks whose support he will need to advance his policies.
I'd love to see Joe Lieberman so apoplectic after McCane goes down that he just up and quits and moves to Tel Aviv.

Member-I don't think Joe would get any Chairmanships if the Dems get a decent majority. They've got their own guys to reward. But once Obama withdraws the troops, Joe will little in common with the GOPpers and his cuddling up to Mcsame will have burned his bridges to the Dems. The GOPpers will be placing their own guys in Committees too.
If the Dems get a workable majority in the Senate, look for Joe to retire next cycle.

Mcsame is the GOPper throw-away candidate for an election cycle they know they're gonna get toasted in.

Probably some truth to that...

Give them enough rope to hang themselves with and take it all back in 2012, maybe... Sorta like 4 years after the Nixon/Ford nightmare Americans had enough of Carter...

What an awful choice[Obama].

If Vernon is wrong then the next eight years will be as good for America as they will be bad for him personally. Based on his calculations, that is. Most people are calculating that Vernon is wrong, will ignore his calculations and will vote based on their own calculations.

"Also, the Internet was taking off in the 1990's which caused a lot of productivity gains. What technology do you see doing the same in the 2010s?"

toyota will be introducing its all electric car production car.

toyota will be introducing its all electric car production car.

Posted by klifferd

Agreed that "Green" Technologies will probably be the big push in the coming years...

"toyota will be introducing its all electric car production car."

I am not sure that will be as radical as the Internet.

A self-driving car could definitely improve productivity and lead to better public safety and new business models, but even if that were to happen, it would probably, probably, not be as radical as the Net.

A self-driving car could definitely improve productivity and lead to better public safety and new business models, but even if that were to happen, it would probably, probably, not be as radical as the Net.

Posted by member2586


God that would rule...

What about a new rail system in cities or across states? Something to improve the hunk of shit public transportation system we have now... would be a large project... probably take a few years to finish too.

Agreed that "Green" Technologies will probably be the big push in the coming years...

It wouldn't be under a Republican Controlled Government.

Hell, we all saw it this week.

The Republican answer to the energy crisis is to simply drill more.

Thank God those Dems aren't letting us plod down that same, no-win path!

Renewabale energy technology is the answer. Not pumping our planet dry.

"What about a new rail system in cities or across states? Something to improve the hunk of shit public transportation system we have now... would be a large project... probably take a few years to finish too."

The benefit of that is that fewer people would need to fly and we could give the crappy airlines the finger and watch as they go bankrupt.

That would probably increase productivity and lead to economic growth, meaning that if we were to invest even part of what we are now wasting in Iraq we would be acquiring "good debt" in other words, debt which raises revenue and allows ut to pay it off in the future with an improved economy.

Something to improve the hunk of shit public transportation system we have now...

Probably cost a bunch too. Too bad we've spent our grandkids' inheritance in iraq.

It wouldn't be under a Republican Controlled Government.

Can't deny that more would get done in this area with a Democratic Controlled government, but to act like nothing has happened "Green"-wise these past 7 years is nonsense...

Too bad we've spent our grandkids' inheritance in iraq.

Posted by northguy3


We've made a ton of stuff since the 80s, even though Reagan spent my father's kids' money on nukes and star wars...

"Probably cost a bunch too. Too bad we've spent our grandkids' inheritance in iraq."

Easily fixed thanks to income tax. We just raise the maximum tax on incomes over 1,000,000 and at the same time offer a write off for investment into mass transit system. It would probably eventually be a very profitable investment. It would create jobs and help the working class at the same time and it would help reduce green house gas by getting thousands of cars off the road.

"toyota will be introducing its all electric car production car."

And buying that lame, retarded giant GM for it's worthless scrap metal.

TaTa of India will buy Ford, to round out their stable.

Chrysler? Ha! Mercedes is about to send them a Dear John letter any day now. Yugo is considering an offer.

We just raise the maximum tax on incomes over 1,000,000 and at the same time offer a write off for investment into mass transit system.

Since all americans would be using such a system, all americans should pay for it... equally.

Since when have you ever been in favor of equality, A-Hole?

I get very nervous when the people talk about the gov getting involved in all this. Look at the whole Ethanol mess. This was not just Bush and the Dems getting it wrong. Europe did the same thing. I beleive the whole energy thing has to be attacked from many directions. Drill (for the near term), build Nuclear generation, invest in clean coal and other alternative energies. Diversification is the key. That is part of the problem we have right now, we rely too heavily on oil.

Rather than the politicians trying to pick which technology they should be behind, I would rather see some sort of fund set up where, you can request $$ to research or develop technologies. Let an independent panel evaluate the proposals and go from there.

Otherwise the "Green lobbyists" will make the Oil lobbyists look like ametures.

mr. fusion

lets do it!

Interesting that women aren't intimidated by Michelle...like some men I know.

All men are created equal; some are just more equal than others.

Since all americans would be using such a system, all americans should pay for it... equally.

They would eventually. One ride at a time.

"build Nuclear generation"

You willing to risk living near one of those, Dusty?

"Otherwise the "Green lobbyists" will make the Oil lobbyists look like ametures."

Riiight. That would be like a little league team competing with a professional team. The oil company lobbyists got subsidies in the billions for companies making more money than any corporations have before in the history of the world. That there is some good lobbyists.

""build Nuclear generation""

simple, we just put all the nuclear facilities in red states, only problem is that blue staters will need to come in to run them.

"build Nuclear generation"

You willing to risk living near one of those, Dusty?

It's safe enough for our Navy. Thousands of soldiers living next to Nuclear generation. When is that technology going to be in our cars?

Chrysler? Ha! Mercedes is about to send them a Dear John letter any day now.

NG, don't you mean a "John Deere" letter?

It's safe enough for our Navy. Thousands of soldiers living next to Nuclear generation.
Posted by Manypaths

The Navy? That's your argument, MP? Their job is to take risks with their lives... thing is that eventually one of them is going to leak... the risk to one sub in the middle of the ocean may be negligible, but on the scale necessary to build any power plant, that's another story altogether. We don't want or need another Chernobyl...

And many blue states are down wind of red states, Danni.

Maybe blue staters could run the red-neck's education programs instead. Greater gains, in the long run.

Hagbard,

The risk to one sub in the middle of the ocean may be negligible, but every time one of our nuclear aircraft carriers gets underway, it has nearly 6,000 sailors aboard. I spent 3 years on board one of them, the chances of a leak or meltdown were infinitesimally small even if someone detonated a nuclear weapon next to us.

There are over 430 Nuclear Power plants across the world Celine. You had better get used to the idea of Safe Nuclear power, as it is already here!

Now, let's shrink the technology and get it into our cars. It is the future.

Hagbard_Celine, I live on the east side of Lake Michigan. I am 8 miles from the Palisades Nuclear plant and 12 miles from the Cook Nuclear Plant. They are clean, great employers and add greatly to the local economy, not to mention the tax base. The schools in those two communities are great.

And until 9/11 the discharge made for great fishing, now you cannot get close enough.

I have no problem at all with them building more.

Poll: Women Head to Obama

With so many fanatical Obamamamas in this year's campaign, I thought the word "Give" had been left out of this headline.

"Now, let's shrink the technology and get it into our cars. It is the future."

Don't you mean, it's "Back to the Future."

"I have no problem at all with them building more."

I think I am gradually coming around to that point of view myself. With gas at $4.00 and heading higher electricity is the way of the future and nuclear is probably the only way we can produce enough to get off oil. We will have problems dealing with waste but we'll have to figure it out.
Perhaps we could store the waste in the Anwar.

When women want to be treated as equals, they'll quit voting based on emotion or myth's about the black man's penis size.

When women want to be treated as equals, they'll quit voting based on emotion or myth's about the black man's penis size.

When Republicans want to be treated as equals, they'll quit voting based on skin color or myths about the competency of Republicans.

The spent nuclear fuel will be no problem to get rid of if we just keep electing REpublican presidents that invade nations and use depleted uranium shells. Hell, we'll need to build more power plants to keep up with the damand for the bullets, the electricity will just be a by-product.

I've never read a single post or heard a single woman mention Obama's penis but Vernon must be focusing on it. Is he closeted gay or just feeling inadequate???

I've never read a single post or heard a single woman mention Obama's penis
Posted by danni

We know that you have no interest in it.

"
When women want to be treated as equals, they'll quit voting based on emotion or myth's about the black man's penis size."

Posted by wisgod

Here we go. The heart of why white Obama trails in white suburban men.

The nuclear waste is a problem. But one the politicians could solve. I am not an expert, but this is typical of politics, they are so paralized by not offending anyone, that they do nothing. What does France do with their waste?

Here we go. The heart of why white Obama trails in white suburban men.


The GOP has run before on "savin' the white wimmin". Problem is, in 2008,they don't want to be saved by their great-grandfather. They're looking for a stud who'll take them to new heights, not a guy whose Depends they're going to have to change.
Metaphorically speaking.

cause Mcsame has staff to do the Depends stuff.
But the move does allow Obama a wider range of VP options, even as Mcsame's is getting whittled down by the evangelicals and his own age.

My hometown is in Lancaster England, we have the Heysham Nuclear Power Station just down the road. (In fact me old dad helped build it). Last time I checked with me Mum and me Sis their electric bills were about 30 pounds a month ($60.00) compared to mine $250.00 a month (more during the summer due to A/C). I am a tree hugger of the first order but damn people? Build more nuclear power stations for gawds sake.

Do we really want to put women, Obama & head into the same story? Might scare some of the menfolk and excite some of the womenfolk.

My bad, thought it said dem women give obama head...

Poll: Women Head to Obama

With so many fanatical Obamamamas in this year's campaign, I thought the word "Give" had been left out of this headline.

Posted by CalifChris at

WELL DAMN.......it took SOMEONE long enough to get to this.....

and so is this thread saying that because he is good looking and black....( and we KNOW that THAT means) that women are going to vote for him or what?

( and we KNOW that THAT means)

He's a "half-breed"?

so being a halfbreed means what? half as big or does it depend on who passes on the penis gene?????? what?

you called obama a half-breed in reference to his race, bl2.

Might scare some of the menfolk and excite some of the womenfolk.

"It's twoo It's twoo"

/not obscure

Be Well.

"/not obscure"

Not at all.

Lili Von Shtupp.

Lili Von Shtupp

Give dat man a ceegar!

That was a classic Marlene Dietrich piss take/ parody.

Spud rewatched Blzing Saddles the other night after reading of Harvey Korman's death.

Timeless.

"Mongo is pawn in game of life"

Be Well.