They call Bush "Tumbler". Originally they couldn't choose between use "Bumbler", "Dumbler" and "Fumbler" so "Tumbler" was a PC compromise. Nobody suggested "Humbler".

Nobody suggested "Humbler".

Posted by BlueInBushland

Certainly not Limbaugh.
Pompous ass.

Ooh! New info fer Spud!

Sweet. Spud luffs learnin' stuff.

Wotta we got?

Codenames?

Obama is "Renegade"?

Sweet, that's a cool almost sexy codename!

Hill is "Evergreen"

Cos she's a big Streisand fan or wot?

Bill is "Eagle"

Cos he's got an "eye" fer the "birds" or wot?

Kerry is "Minuteman"?

Funny, that's his wife's codename fer him too!

Gore's transition from "Sawhorse" to "Sundance" befits his trans-mogrification from a Wooden pol into a movie star.

Carter as "Deacon" makes nothing but sense.

H Bush as "Timberwolf" is understandable except fer the missing "in sheeps clothing" part.

Dumbya as "Tumbler"?

Spud wonders if when they dropped the S.

Be Well.

PS: We all need secret code names around here not cos their neccessary per se just cos they're fun.

Dibs on Codename "Splink"

Spud called it!

New Code Name for Obama.

"RED ASS"

Because thats what he will be when Bill & Hillary finishes with him.

Sincerely, American

Of course, YouKnew may be suing Obama for treading on his patented "DUMB ASS" trademark.

Hillary/Obama, or Obama/Hillary will be an interesting team. But right now they are at each other's throat without appearing it to be so.

Hillary is too polarising and a huge chunk of women will 'not' vote for her under any circumstances. As for Obama, most White are not that ready to vote for a Black to the highest office --- but thanks to him, a future Black President will COME.

So the Democrats, liberals and moveon.org should not be counting chickens before they are hatched.

God will have the last word on this coming election. SURPRISE!!!!!!!

It was a welcome change from his previous codename, Wippersnapper.

Obama's Code Name: 'Renegade'

I wonder what code name Hillary's campaign gave Obama?

some other secret service code names:

John Edwards: Blow Dry
Rudy Giuliani- Batboy
Dennis Kucinich - Tofu

They call Bush "Tumbler".

Is this true?

Isn't a "tumbler" a glass used to serve various liquors, for example, bourbon?

A huge chunk of beaten down right wing women won't vote for Hillary 'cause their men will beat them up if they do. Most other women, however, who are free, will.

Right wing men who hunker down in their basements whenever Bush says "BOO!" won't vote for Obama or Hillary out of fear of their pastors and hellfire, but other men and women who are already free WILL vote for either one as they choose.

Rightwingnuts who whimper in their beds in fear of terrorists and who are quite willing to give away their constitutional rights to the neocons and send someone else's sons and daughters to war will vote for whoever they're told to vote for but the rest of us will make up our minds

Meanwhile, the neocons will do what ever they can to steal another election.

Rev, they settled for "Tumbler" when the bodyguards on the radios got Bush's original codename "Shotglass" confused with "Shot Ass," which is reserved for Cheney.

Not in the South.

You really think he has a shot of winning in the South? really?

I want Billary to win. Considering, over 50% of the country would never vote for her......

Easy GOP win. Can't wait till they debate eachother, once Billary gets the nomination. We will see exactly why she will lose the election. She sounds horrible, and she voted for the Iraq war, and has stated 100's of times, about the threat to Saddam, and his WMD's. But you all will look past that.....go figure....

She is toast in the general election.

One thing for sure at this point is McCain is done... This is Thompson or Giulani's nomination to lose at this point... everyone else is an "also ran" at this point.

You really think he has a shot of winning in the South? really?


Why wouldn't he?

Why wouldn't he?

Posted by taxman at


Uh... His race?

Uh... His race?


What about it?

What about it?

Posted by taxman


oh I get it... you think this country is at the point where it can look past that...

Come by philadelphia for an afternoon, or a trip to Boston maybe...

oh I get it... you think this country is at the point where it can look past that...

Come by philadelphia for an afternoon, or a trip to Boston maybe...


Yes, I do. I don't think people are as ignorant as you wish they were. There are bigots everywhere, but they aren't a majority and they aren't people who would have voted democrat anyway.

I don't think people are as ignorant as you wish they were.

Wish they were? Its not a question of wishing they were... and its not like I'm saying there are lynch mobs and Klan meetings on every corner of America from sea to racist sea... but that doesn't mean the majority of Americans are ready to vote for a liberal Black senator with very foreign sounding name...

but that doesn't mean the majority of Americans are ready to vote for a liberal Black senator with very foreign sounding name...


As we saw in 1992 and 2000 a majority of Americans don't have to vote for him in order for him to be elected.

Again, I think many people, especially younger voters, could care less about the color of his skin or his name.

Again, I think many people, especially younger voters, could care less about the color of his skin or his name.

Posted by taxman


relying on younger voters has worked so well in the past...

What's the largest voting block in America?

What's the largest voting block in America?

Are you saying an overwhelming majority of white people are racist and wouldn't vote for a black man? I just find it hard to believe that there are so many ignorant people in this country, or at least enough that would sway an election. Like I said there are ignorant people who won't vote for him but again they wouldn't vote democrat anyway.

While we are at it, I know you are a repub and wouldn't cross party lines, but could you give me specific reasons why you wouldn't vote for Obama?

Are you saying an overwhelming majority of white people are racist and wouldn't vote for a black man?

No, I was saying that I'm pretty sure the elderly are the largest voting block in America...

While we are at it, I know you are a repub and wouldn't cross party lines

I voted for John Corzine for governor of New Jersey... what party is he in?

but could you give me specific reasons why you wouldn't vote for Obama?


He's going to destroy the healthcare system in this country, he's going to raise taxes, he's going to pull back military action against terrorists...

How is he going to destroy healthcare in this country?

As for taxes, he isn't going to raise taxes he is just going to get rid of the Bush tax breaks that favor the super-wealthy and spread the revenue to lower the burdens of the other 98% of the population that could use the break.

Obama has never ever said he is against the war on terrorism, he merely opposed the invasion of Iraq. Other than Iraq, how much do you know about Obama's views on defense and funding military defense?

"Are you saying an overwhelming majority of white people are racist and wouldn't vote for a black man?"

I don't think that's necessary in order for his race to affect the outcome of the election. With how close the last few have been, even losing a few thousand votes because of it in one state could make the difference. I think it's naive to think that nobody would refrain from voting for someone because they're black. We've made great strides in this country but racism is still a problem, just not as apparent as it used to be.

That said, Hillary is ahead in the polls anyway, and Obama's got some work to do. There's also a chance that Al Gore will enter the race late after they've both beaten each other up.

How is he going to destroy healthcare in this country?


he's a fan of socilist healthcare... its not going to be good for the vast majority who already have it...

and spread the revenue

Redistribution of wealth... another very large, very powerful country tried this... how'd that work out?

Obama has never ever said he is against the war on terrorism

I've never really heard him talk about it much at all either way... I'm sure he has but things like raising taxes and destroying healthcare are more important to him... oh and bashing the war in Iraq.

Joe, again my point is that those ingnorants that would not vote for Obama because he is black are people who would vote republican anyway, so it really wouldn't hurt Obama.

I think it's naive to think that nobody would refrain from voting for someone because they're black.

I never said that. I think the majority of those who would not vote for Obama because he is black comprise of those older, white southerners who have been raised in the ignorant tradition. Eventually they will die off, and maybe we will become a less divided country, racially at least.

There's also a chance that Al Gore will enter the race late after they've both beaten each other up.

I have said from the start that Gore will probably join the race and that eventually Obama will sign on as his running mate. I am not a huge Gore fan however and am not sure how I would vote even if Obama was on the ticket.

he's a fan of socilist healthcare... its not going to be good for the vast majority who already have it...


Really, what is socialist about his program? How does it compare to the programs in Canada, Cuba, or Europe?

Redistribution of wealth... another very large, very powerful country tried this... how'd that work out?


You obviously don't know much about the taxing system in this country pre-'86.

I've never really heard him talk about it much at all either way... I'm sure he has but things like raising taxes and destroying healthcare are more important to him... oh and bashing the war in Iraq.


So you choose to remain ignorant as to the issues rather than actually research any his views on any given issue?

but that doesn't mean the majority of Americans are ready to vote for a liberal Black senator with very foreign sounding name...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole
* * * *

You lost me at "liberal". Ditto for the entire South, from W VA to Arizona.

I have said from the start that Gore will probably join the race and that eventually Obama will sign on as his running mate. I am not a huge Gore fan however and am not sure how I would vote even if Obama was on the ticket.


Posted by taxman


I think if Gore gets in the race he becomes Hillary Clinton's "Ross Perot" splitting the far left vote in two and she takes the rest winning the nomination.

She would never pick Obama as a Veep candidate either, too radical a ticket...

Cmon libs, lets see how you spin this one....

"Once they peered inside it, they discovered it included investments in oil and drug companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, news, msgs), campaign spokesman Phil Singer said."

Rob, Gore wouldn't run with a third party so I don't think there would be any vote splitting.

I didn' say Hillary would pick Obama, I said Gore would ask Obama to come aboard.

Again, I don't know why you think Obama is a radical, he is very middle of the road. Hell even his insurance coverage plan has parts borrowed from republican lawmakers.

Really, what is socialist about his program?

Does the government provide in anyway healthcare to citizens?

So you choose to remain ignorant as to the issues rather than actually research any his views on any given issue?

Posted by taxman


There are 6,000 candidates (roughly) running for the Presidency... I'm not going to vote in the DNC primaries... why would I care to learn the intricacies of his politics now, when odds are he will not be the presidential nominee? I'm getting into the details of the GOP candidates, because I as a member of that party will vote in the Primaries... I'll wait until a clear front runner emerges then look into the DNC guy... I'm still holding out for Wes Clarke or the former governor of Virginia...

What I know right now though is that the war on terror has not been the focal point of his campaign, and that worries me...

Once they peered inside it, they discovered it included investments in oil and drug companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, news, msgs), campaign spokesman Phil Singer said."


That is Hillary not Obama. We are talking about Obama's electability.

Rob, Gore wouldn't run with a third party so I don't think there would be any vote splitting.


Whoops sorry, that was unclear... I meant in the Primaries of the DNC...

That Gore and Obama would split the vote of what are currently Obama supporters and Hillary would clean up...

I didn' say Hillary would pick Obama, I said Gore would ask Obama to come aboard.

Right I got that and what I was saying was when hillary would win that would be the end of Obama's hopes for the Pres or Vice Pres office in 08/12 because a Clinton/Obama ticket is too radical...

There are 6,000 candidates (roughly) running for the Presidency...

LOL. I can see your point, why worry about the other side when there is so much going on with your side already.

BTW I like Wes Clark as well, but not as much as Obama.

Does the government provide in anyway healthcare to citizens?


His program provides health insurance to citizens. Again a program whose origins lie with republican lawmakers.

Rob sez:

"...oh and bashing the war in Iraq."

Obama's been against the war since the start. At least he's been clear and consistant about that. And, face it, he's been right.

"Redistribution of wealth... another very large, very powerful country tried this... how'd that work out?"

Well, since we're talking about going back to the Clinton tax code, it worked out pretty well, with consistent job growth and nearly balanced budgets.

"he's a fan of socilist healthcare... its not going to be good for the vast majority who already have it..."

Whether we like it or not, socialized medicine is part of our future. We are on the verge of enormous spikes in demand for medical care as the baby boomers age. The resultant price hikes, since we aren't going to see similar jumps in healthcare providers, will cause medical costs to continue to rise faster than inflation. The economic models already look disasterous, and those assume med inflation equals overall inflation. At some point, therefore, medical care will escape too many, and the citizenry will demand the government step in.

His program provides health insurance to citizens. Again a program whose origins lie with republican lawmakers.

Posted by taxman


Its the provides part that I'm concerned about... do they still have to pay for it? As long as they have to pay for it in some way, fine, but just handing out free healthcare to whoever wants it is really going to destroy what really is a great system (granted, if you can afford it, but if you can, its awesome).

LOL. I can see your point, why worry about the other side when there is so much going on with your side already.


I'm still trying to figure out who the hell this Ron Paul guy is and why he's got so much buzz, but like .000000001% of the GOP is going to vote for him... I wish more people would look at Huckabee, I wish for once an election could not revolve around who hates/loves abortion the most, who had an affair, and I really wish Wes Clark and Mark Warner would get into the DNC race because I could easily vote for either of them without issue at all.

What I know right now though is that the war on terror has not been the focal point of his campaign,...

Wrong, the WOT has been the foundation of his campaign and it will remain that way. Obama was one of the few to be correct in viewing the invasion of Iraq as counterproductive to the global WOT, and he still stands for fighting a smarter war than that prosecuted by Bush. At present his stance is to redeploy out of the sectarian violence yet leave troops ready to strike at AQ when viable targets manifest themselves.

I guess you've been ignoring almost every national poll which shows Obama to be the strongest Democratic candidate when matched against every Republican frontrunner. Today shows that he leads in South Carolina overall as black support for Hillary drops to 18%. This is going to happen all across the country as people become more familiar with him and less flattering portraits of Hillary become the norm from the rightwing smear machine.

By the time the key primaries are held, Hillary is not going to receive as much black support as she currently polls, and surprisingly in many states Obama's support among whites is greater than that among blacks, so unless these people are lying, his skin color appears to be less important than his views and policies upon which many Americans agree with.

Alot of the way-clearing actually belongs to Bush because Americans have become use to seeing Colin Powell and Condi Rice in high government positions, so the rise of Obama is nothing but the Democratic reply to the work done by Republicans themselves. It seems hypocritical for a party who openly wished to draft Condi to run as a foil for Hillary to then imply that Americans aren't ready for a person of color to be the POTUS.

wish for once an election could not revolve around who hates/loves abortion the most, who had an affair,

I can concur with that notion.

As for Huckabee, he seems to be gaining some momentum from what I have been reading and watching on television.

I think Wes Clark will make a good VP if someone will bring him aboard. However, I really think that whoever gets the Dem nod will have to ask Richardson to be their running mate strictly for the hispanic vote.

It seems hypocritical for a party who openly wished to draft Condi to run as a foil for Hillary to then imply that Americans aren't ready for a person of color to be the POTUS.


I'd vote for Condi... but I had no hope that she would get through the primaries, and I think that's why she didn't run...

the elderly make up a huge part of the likely voters in this country... most of them are elderly enough that they were drinking out of "White's Only" waterfountains... I could be wrong, but I really don't see them pouring out in droves to vote for a black man... This country will have a Black president sometime soon, but I just don't see it happening until a lot of the elderly population has passed on...

There was this much, maybe even more excitement for Howard Dean last election too...

Rob, I will find some excerpts from Obama's book regarding the WOT and paste them here or send them to you if you want to read them. As Tony points out, his views on the WOT, save Iraq, fall in line with many republican views.

Tony, regarding whites backing Obama, have you heard the new theory that it is just the white voters way for trying to make up for the years of oppression of blacks. Why can't anyone just give the guy credit for his ideas?

Tax, I'll read anything (provided not from Capitol Hill Blue)...

As for Huckabee, he seems to be gaining some momentum from what I have been reading and watching on television.


He's getting a lot of talk as a good VP candidate too...

Tax, I'll read anything (provided not from Capitol Hill Blue)...

I meant to say excerpts from his book. Reading his book, "The Audacity of Hope", is what swayed me into backing him.

Anyway, good discussion all I am heading off to a meeting. I will try to catch up later.

The Mason-Dixon poll, made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News

CHB was where I found it posted, not where the information came from originally. And by the way, Doug Thompson wrote a rather heated retraction of the Bush comment on the Constitution when his sources backed away from what they'd originally told him. I trust his integrity far more than most people in the media, be it MSM or web-based.

Tony, regarding whites backing Obama, have you heard the new theory that it is just the white voters way for trying to make up for the years of oppression of blacks.

I think that line of thought is always popular though its nearly impossible to quantify. I view Obama's rise as having more to do with America's disdain with choosing our Presidents from such a shallow pool of candidates, such as having both Bush and Kerry being Skull & Bones members from Yale. Obama brings a perspective into the mix that the others can't, and I believe his background in having an Islamic father stands as an asset when its clear that dealing with the Islamic world is going to be an ongoing critical area of governance for the next President.

Most Americans see Obama as a child of this nation's growth and progress: he isn't black and he isn't white, he's both! Hopefully he can bring the strength of his upbringing to the forefront as an asset that any American can feel a part of, because they are a part of it.

""As for Huckabee, he seems to be gaining some momentum from what I have been reading and watching on television.""

Is he still saying that he doesn't believe in evolution??? If he gets the nomination it will be fun watching them try to sell ignorance as a good trait in a VP. ""Vote for Huckabee, he believes in fairy tales.""

Today's edition of USAToday cited Hillary having a double-digit lead over Obama.

Not one response to my post.....go figure...

Not one response to my post.....go figure...

Why do you think its called a blind trust in the first place? Hillary used to sit on WalMart's board, didn't she, so what's the big deal?

Today's edition of USAToday cited Hillary having a double-digit lead over Obama.

And she's fallen behind by double digits in South Carolina. I believe SC has its own primary. Does the USA?

I seriously doubt Obama will win the Dem nomination.

I seriously doubt Obama will win the Dem nomination.

Posted by JeffJ


I think the Democrats are going to end up really regretting having 2 of their top 3 candidates be "Mold Breakers" for Presidential candidates...

its not that I have any problem voting for a woman or a black candidate, I just don't see the rest of the country actually doing it.

Rob,


The Dems have a VERY electable candidate in Richardson.

However, I don't see him getting the nod either.


My money is on Hillary, or Gore, if he runs.

As I have said before, my feeling about Hillary is that the Deep South will only provide a very small amount of support for her, and especially now that she is tainted with being the senator from New York she is not even southern any more. I wish she would drop out.

Hillary is carrying a lot of baggage. I'd hate to see the Dems blow it just to satisfy her monumental ego. I wouldn't even care, I suppose, except that the thought of any of those GOPiggies in the White House is too horrible to contemplate for long. That's my attitude and, as I've said here before, I'm still going to have to believe it'll be a squeaker to bother to vote for Hillary. And that's from a radical and feminist. Sheesh.

Why do you think so many on the right want to declare her the nominee before a single vote has been cast? 51% negative ratings in the last Rasmussen poll, that's why!


You catch on real quick, Tony.

You catch on real quick, Tony.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then....

Tony,


Suffice it to say, I am rooting for Hillary in the Dem primaries.

During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s. Tony Rezko has long been a key backer of Sen. Barack Obama. Obama estimates donations from Rezko and his circle at $50,000 to $60,000. But seven months ago, Obama told the Sun-Times his "best estimate" was that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career.
Obama, who wants to be the nation's next president, has been purging some of those donations -- giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko's federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.
Obama, however, has kept $6,850 from others who also are referenced in Rezko's indictments. Obama also has hung on to contributions from doctors whom Rezko helped appoint to a state-government panel involved in some of Rezko's alleged fraud schemes.
"We've made our best effort to run the most ethical campaign possible in all ways and release donations when appropriate," Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton, said Friday. Sticks by estimateBurton said Obama can only estimate how much money Rezko has raised for him. Obama's staff, he said, only knows of one fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama -- a June 27, 2003, cocktail party at Rezko's mansion. Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama.
Burton said Friday the campaign was sticking by its original estimate that Rezko raised no more than $60,000.

imagine that a politician lying about campaign contributions. my best estimate, i dont recall, the shady property deal. remeber guilt by association is lethal these day and as we all know, there is always more to the story than what is being told. i'm sure the hillary campaign is hard at work with hired investigators digging away. i'm sure this will get very interesting.

Suffice it to say, I am rooting for Hillary in the Dem primaries.

Do you really think that a government led by any of the Republican candidates is preferable to that led by any of the Democratic frontrunners?

(Just want to see how much of your mind you've actually lost....)

-51% negative ratings

Raise your hands, boys and girls, those of you who think those numbers will be the same after a year and a half of campaigning, and compared to the Rethug choice at the time.

Be careful what you wish for, jeffy......

Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates....

With the devil being in the details, has information emerged that Obama had direct knowledge of just who these "associates" were, or are we assessing guilt without direct evidence of wrongdoing?

Obama has collected at least $168,308

Wouldn't even get you a decent seat at an RNC fundraiser....

Raise your hands, boys and girls, those of you who think those numbers will be the same after a year and a half of campaigning,

I don't know Corky, I think they might be higher by then. Hillary's greatest weakness other than her own history with Bill is her lack of reading the NIE before she voted to give Bush authorization for Iraq. She cannot claim a "responsibility gene" when she showed none whatsoever in committing thousands to death.

In my opinion, this is the kryptonite which will kill her primary bid as it becomes more widely known and understood. Along with the fact that America is tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, and this continues to be shown deeper in all the polling as well.

"her lack of reading the NIE "

"as it becomes more widely known and understood."

Whatever debatable significance that might have to pol hacks like us is, and will continue to be, completely a non-issue to the general public.

Given her latest good performance in the "debate", and her current poll tracking, I think we may well see a nostalgia for the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years by the time this election rolls around.


I have said that I would rather see new blood, but unless Obama really looks like he can beat the Rethug nominee, I'll have no problem voting for the two-fer of Hil and Bill.

"Hillary's greatest weakness other than her own history with Bill is her lack of reading the NIE before she voted to give Bush authorization for Iraq. She cannot claim a "responsibility gene" when she showed none whatsoever in committing thousands to death"

Bingo.

Those who read the final NIE replete with all the previously missing caveats voted against the damn thing.

And the talking heads all say it's an act of enormous political naivete to have expected them to do so because "DC doesn't work that way".

Screw that.

Hillary, despite her commitment to health care, which Spud considers a real issue, comes a little too late to the anti-war side of the party.

Her credentials there are suspect, as is her commitment to Free Trade that dissolves borders to the detriment of both sides and to the benefit of corporate concerns.

Obama's Rezko connection is a long known quantity that concerns Spud far less than let's say Rudy's Singer connection.

Fer starters.

Be Well.

We'll have to agree to disagree Corky. I think that Obama is precisely where he needs to be 6 months out from the first primaries. The NIE disclosure is going to be a knockout blow for Hillary because its the foundation of her campaign. And regardless of how she portrays herself as the experienced candidate, she's still served only 6 years while Obama will have served 4 by Inauguration Day 2009, plus another 6 in Illinois.

Again, when she's built her reputation on being responsible, the ultimate act of irresponsibility is putting troops in harms way without a complete understanding of all the relevant intelligence forecasting what will likely happen. Not only Obama will use this against her, but likely the other candidates as well. Iraq is THE ISSUE for 2008 and the contrast between Hillary and Barack couldn't be more stark, particularly when Hillary should have known better yet a little known state Senator from Illinois got it precisely correct without the benefit of all that Hillary was privy to.

Its going to be impossible for Hillary to keep her stance that her vote wasn't a mistake when her casting it without first assessing the complete intelligence picture, particularly when Sen. Graham and Durbin so passionately begged their colleagues to do just that, is also apart of the record. When the big vote came, Hillary wasn't aware that it was going to blow-up in her and our faces. That isn't responsibility, its the same hubris and arrogance that Bush and his enablers showed and continue to show.

Hillary is still the establishment and she can't run from the truth. She isn't an agent of change, she's a continuation of the status quo.

Tony

A) That Hil has an arrogance equivalent to Bush is just rhetoric. There is no comparison.

B) By the election, 90 percent of the public will still not know what NIE stands for, much less what possible significance it might have.

C)The "Lil' Bush" Repub candidates are the status quo. Hil will get us out of Iraq.

What I would like to see, other than "gotcha" politics on the war vote, is a set of specific differences in Obama and Hil's plans to get out of Iraq.

As with most of the Dem proposals, there really aren't any major differences in the candidates policies, so far.

The crux of the issue then is, who can beat the Repub nominee?

We will have a much better idea about that in a year or so, and I will be happy with either Obama or Hil/Bill, as there will be little difference in their policies on any major issue.

I did hear Bill explain to Larry King one night that his wife's 8 years in the WH left her with a lot of respect for the highly nuanced strategies that a President must undertake when dealing with places like Iran and Iraq.

He said that she hadn't made a big deal out of GW reneging on his promise to wait for inspections before invading Iraq because she wanted a future President to have the credibility to demand inspections, even though Bush had punked out (my term!).

Polls polls. Who in the hell are these people polling anyway? They seem to miss the mark more times than not.

Hil will get us out of Iraq.

Posted by Corky

Somebody hasn't been paying attention. Hillary is NOT going to get us out of Iraq. She's going to bring a few troops home, re-deploy some to Afghanistan, and leave many behind citing a mission change to training. In fact NONE of the candidates other than Kucinich and Paul that I am aware of are guaranteeing total withdrawal from Iraq. You better wake up.

Come by philadelphia for an afternoon, ....
Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

The same place where a black man just won the election by getting a big percentage of white voters?

ome other secret service code names:

John Edwards: Blow Dry
Rudy Giuliani- Batboy
Dennis Kucinich - Tofu



and

Mitt Romney - Magic Underoos
Fred Thompson - Alcoholic Hillbilly

Really, what is socialist about his program? How does it compare to the programs in Canada, Cuba, or Europe?


You mean waiting lists? Or how about selectively deciding who can have surgery or not depending on several factors like smoking, age, etc?

Who cares if you live to be 80 years old if the last 20 years of your life absolutely sucked because you never got high enough on the waiting list to get the treatment you needed?

The medical system does need some work, but adopting systems like Canada and Europe, even Great Britain is a poor choice.

Um Axiom, Obama's insurance coverage plan is nothing like that of Canada or any European country.

You mean waiting lists? Or how about selectively deciding who can have surgery or not depending on several factors like smoking, age, etc?


The government won't be regulating the industry, all the government will do is require everyone have health insurance and will help those who can't afford it.

"You better wake up."

Fine. Vote for Dennis or Ron. See where that gets you.

Vote for Dennis or Ron. See where that gets you.


I get really frustrated with this notion that if you are voting for the most popular republican or democrat you are consider as "wasting your vote". That is a bunch of bull shit. Wasting your vote is sitting on your ass and not exercising your right to vote; actually going out and voting for the person who YOU believe is the best choice to fill the open position is NOT a waste of a vote.

Wasting your vote is sitting on your ass and not exercising your right to vote; actually going out and voting for the person who YOU believe is the best choice to fill the open position is NOT a waste of a vote.

This is true, but if one of the favored candidates is truly abhorrent, then voting for an out-party member may facilitate the election of a much worse mainstream candidate.

Let me ask you this: How many Floridians that voted for Nader in 2000 would change their vote if they knew that the election of Bush would be the result? I guarantee you more than 600 would have!

Tax,

Please note that I never said the vote was wasted or that people should not vote for whom they please.

My point was that neither Dennis, unfortunately, nor Ron, will be elected next year.

They are the idealists of their respective Parties. If I really like Dennis' policies, which I do, but I don't think he is electable, which I don't, I will vote for the mainstream candidate that I think will pursue similar policies as best they can while while maintaining their electability.

Just makes sense to me.

Those people had every right to show their disdain with the other two choices presented by voting for Nader. Their votes were not wasted and it is not their responsibility to make sure that enough people go out and vote dem/rep to ensure a victory. There are so many factors that went into Florida 2000 that to lay blame with those who voted Nader is dishonest.

Cork, I can tell you that if the election comes down to Hillary v. Guiliani, I will be voting a different party - if one is available. I do not want to subject myself to the remorse of knowing that I voted for a person who I could not stand for morally or politically.

Tax,

I feel your pain.

I try to focus more on the policy issues than the personality BS, which is fairly unknowable IMO, after the caricatures that most public figures are reduced to in the press.

Not having bought into the "evil Hillary" nonsense gives me an option if I don't think Obama can beat the Rethug nominee when the time comes.

Those people had every right to show their disdain with the other two choices presented by voting for Nader. Their votes were not wasted and it is not their responsibility to make sure that enough people go out and vote dem/rep to ensure a victory. There are so many factors that went into Florida 2000 that to lay blame with those who voted Nader is dishonest.

Re-read my statement, Taxman. I didn't blame Florida Nader voters for anything! I pointed out that if they were polled and KNEW that their votes could decide whether Bush or Gore became the 43rd President, they'd likely choose Gore over Bush or Nader, especially with the benefit of hindsight.

You are confusing one's "rights" with the results that come from exercising those rights. It isn't logical to say that a vote for a hopeless candidate doesn't improve the arithmetic for the election of a reactionary IF there is a lessor evil candidate that would be a marked improvement over the reactionary. No one is saying that people shouldn't vote their conscious, but be willing to take responsibility for what the consequences might be.

I would rather vote for a mainstream candidate that I didn't agree with on every issue but was sane and reasoned, than I would vote for my perfect candidate who doesn't have a chance to win, particularly if the other mainstream candidate repudiates everything I believe in and has the potential of doing grievous harm to our nation in the process.

Always, the choice is yours, but don't buck the responsibility of one's actions and the consequences thereof.

but be willing to take responsibility for what the consequences might be.


I for one - as someone who voted for Nader - am happy to this day with my vote. I don't feel as though I am responsible for the Democrats shortfall in the 2000, if anything that shortfall is on them.

Not having bought into the "evil Hillary" nonsense gives me an option if I don't think Obama can beat the Rethug nominee when the time comes.


I never said Hillary is evil, I just don't agree with her politics and I feel that, like most politicians today, she has been bought and sold too many times. One of my biggest issues when voting for a candidate is what kind of ties they have to special interest groups and who their money is coming from, I would rather vote my conscious and be happy with myself rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils".

What is your take on Obama, Tax?

I look forward to the 2008 election for only ONE reason. It's an excellent opportunity to rid ourselves of the Clintons and Bushes after too many years.

Corky, you are asking for a dissertation but in short I like the fact that Obama is relatively new to the game and hasn't had time to be corrupted by lobby groups; I like his take on taxes; I like his take on re-vamping many entitlement programs to make them more streamlined and to get rid of those that aren't fulfilling their purpose; I like his foreign policy agenda (strong on terror whilst restoring America's reputation across the world); I like his universal health care programs...I could go on but I don't really have the time. I will admit that I do not agree with his stance on gay marriage - i.e., he believes in civil unions, I believe gays should be able to marry. I could go on but I just don't have the time.

Sorry about the repetative sentences, I left off half way and came back without reading.

What is Obama's "take on taxes?"

I for one - as someone who voted for Nader - am happy to this day with my vote. I don't feel as though I am responsible for the Democrats shortfall in the 2000, if anything that shortfall is on them.

Yes it is. Buts its also on every Floridian who didn't vote for Bush, yet didn't vote for Gore either. You can't have it both ways Taxman. You were either part of the solution or you were a part of the problem, your choice, and YES, it WAS your choice. But the majority of Americans are left to deal with the repercussions even though 500,000 more voted for Gore than voted for Bush.

Here is another thing I like about Obama:

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. "

The Audacity of Hope

Notwithstanding the fact that nothing in your link indicates that he wants to get rid of tax cuts for the top 2% and "spread the revenue out amongst the other 98%," what does that even mean? Do you think he's going to give that money to everyone else? Cut their taxes? Get real.

Obama's website talks all about the changes he wants to make in America - improving schools, the environment, healthcare, etc - yet there isn't a section that talks about his stance on taxes. This is most likely because it would take a tax increase to pay for what he wants, and don't think for a second that he's going to place the entire burden on the upper class.

Thanks, Tax.

Sounds like you could vote for him in a pinch.

Tony, didn't pin it on those voters in Florida who voted for Nader, the problem was - aside from the SCOTUS interfering in a state issue - that the democratic party did not succeed in getting enough people to get out and vote for Gore.

I would rather vote my conscious and be happy with myself rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils".

Isn't this entire discussion about the fact that "your conscious" today holds responsibility for helping empower the Bush regime along the resultant carnage and class divide that has been left in their wake?

We can't make choices that leave us in dire straits while patting ourselves on the back for standing up to our principles! I doubt whether your principles would have you backing reverse income distribution or the shift in tax burden downward while upper incomes have exploded, or borrowing trillions while wasting them in Iraq. These are real results of the people not realizing that defeating Bush was more important to this nation than making a statement.

We always have choices and these choices have consequences. Don't shirk from those you've chosen for yourself.

I would rather look at the macro picture and figure out who is least likely to do harm to this nation, its people and our hard-won reputation, yet is likely to win. Bush has harmed all three and he isn't done yet.

"We can't make choices that leave us in dire straits while patting ourselves on the back for standing up to our principles!"

That's bullshit. The entire purpose of voting is to select the candidate that most closely represents your stance on the issues important to you.

If a terrible candidate wins the election, it's the fault of the people who voted for him, not the fault of someone who chose not to "vote against" him.

that the democratic party did not succeed in getting enough people to get out and vote for Gore.

Sorry, but they did. Between caging done by Harris, the purging of alleged felons, and all the spoiled ballots, not to mention the butterfly problems, everyone knows that absent these, Gore wins in a walk. But that isn't what happened, so we have what we have.

All I'm saying is that every vote for an out-candidate carries with it responsibility for not having countered the election of whichever mainstream candidate that actually wins. Yes, a statement is made, and the party who's entire existence is predicated on segmenting and polarizing the electorate continues to reap the benefits.

Sorry, forgot the quote:

The experts also said Obama could pay for his plan mostly through steps that the candidate already has said he would take -- allowing President Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains and on those making more than about $250,000 a year to expire in 2010 instead of acting to make them permanent.

The rest of the $65 billion funding could come by raising taxes on inheritances worth more than $7 million. Many Democrats want to repeal Bush's elimination of taxes on estates worth more than $1 million. Obama wants the exemption to be higher but has not yet said exactly where it should be set

That's not semantics. You claimed he's going to "spread the wealth." How so? Do you think he's going to cut taxes for ordinary Americans after repealing the cuts for wealthy ones? I don't, and nothing on his website indicates that he plans to.

Taxman, where are you getting these quotes? Obama's official campaign website says nothing about his stance on taxes. I just find that interesting.

Isn't this entire discussion about the fact that "your conscious" today holds responsibility for helping empower the Bush regime along the resultant carnage and class divide that has been left in their wake?


No, I voted for Nader not Bush, my conscience is fine (LOL at conscious, I am trying to multi-task and not doing a good job at it).

Again, blame corrpution and the Democratic party for Gore's failure, not me.

Joe, that was from the Chicago Sun Times. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc. all have similar articles. I googled "Obama Taxes".

That's bullshit. The entire purpose of voting is to select the candidate that most closely represents your stance on the issues important to you.

You are free to speak your mind, but you are not a constitutional scholar. There are myriad reasons for voting a particular way and none of them are written down as a set of rules! People vote on single issues every day Joe and you should know it. People vote because they like someone's hairstyle or suit choices.

When a "terrible candidate" wins, it becomes the responsibility of everyone that didn't stand against this candidate when it counted. Thats why we have elections.

Personally, I believe the luxury of voting one's conscious is based upon the eventuality that the least unfavorable candidate will likely win. But when the opposite happens, this choice takes a new patena. One had the opportunity to help insure that the worst-case candidate doesn't win, but ends up helping that candidate by not voting for his most viable opponent. Sorry, that choice comes with responsibility for the outcome, as does not voting at all.

That's where we differ Tony. If you want to blame someone for not wasting their vote on a candidate they don't like, just to stop someone else they don't like even more, I think you're crazy. A vote is a selection. You're saying "I select this person because I think they would be best to lead our country." If more people select a person who does a bad job, it's their fault. Period.

When a "terrible candidate" wins, it becomes the responsibility of everyone that didn't stand against this candidate when it counted. Thats why we have elections.

Personally, I believe the luxury of voting one's conscious is based upon the eventuality that the least unfavorable candidate will likely win. But when the opposite happens, this choice takes a new patena. One had the opportunity to help insure that the worst-case candidate doesn't win, but ends up helping that candidate by not voting for his most viable opponent. Sorry, that choice comes with responsibility for the outcome, as does not voting at all.


Tony, that is your philosophical/political outlook, and you are free to believe however pleases you.

I will continue to believe that as long as I vote for the candidate whom I feel best represents me, I am fulfilling my civic duty. I don't have to feel guilty about the shortcomings of one political party; maybe that party should have done a better job of swaying me to vote for them. But Joe is right, blame really lies with those who actively voted for that reprehensible person who is causing harm.

But Joe is right, blame really lies with those who actively voted for that reprehensible person who is causing harm.

Sorry guys, we'll have to agree to disagree. While voting is a freedom and a right that we Americans enjoy, it comes with a tacit responsibility. In your eyes, those who don't vote hold no responsibility for what happens. I disagree. The choices we make lead to the realities we live. There can be no other way to view it. We often make decisions that turn out differently than we wanted them to. Voting, or not voting is no different. Eventualities are known before we enter the booth. Our choice becomes a part of the result and it cannot be divorced from its reality either.

We all share responsibility to varying degrees, but we ALL share responsibility one way or another. You cannot commit an act without taking responsibility for its outcome. If we weren't voting for a desired result, why bother in the first place?

In your eyes, those who don't vote hold no responsibility for what happens.

I never said that. I have great disdain for those who do not exercise their right to vote.

Nader later defended himself by reminding us that there were more Dems in FL that voted for Bush than voted for him.

"You cannot commit an act without taking responsibility for its outcome."

What a bunch of crap. I take full responsibility for the outcome of my act - I voted libertarian, and the outcome was that one more vote was added to Badnarik's tally. I contributed to the 3% of votes he eventually got. I did NOT contribute to the number of votes Bush got. I did NOT contribute to the number of votes Kerry got. By your logic, it would be my fault that any other candidate didn't have one more vote, depending on who ends up winning.

Just because you vote with the intention of preventing one person from winning does not mean that everyone else has to do so, and that if they don't, they are somehow at fault for not having the shallow and oppositional motives you do. Blame those that voted for Bush. Don't blame those that voted for a better candidate.

Joe...

You've still continued to miss my point which is more philosophical than it is practical. If a person doesn't vote then their choice, if they have one, doesn't receive support, correct? Thats responsibility. You voted the way you did. Thats responsibility. Unfortunately, voting is still pretty much all or nothing. We know who has a chance of election before we enter the booth. If we choose to vote for a candidate that doesn't have a chance of being elected, we've just abdicated the choice to those who choose between candidates that do. That too is responsibility.

I am not saying that everyone is responsible for the votes that a "terrible candidate" receives, but we are responsible for how we use our own votes or non-votes. We are all in this together, and perhaps the reason we didn't find candidates in the major parties that we like is because we didn't become a part of the process to choose them in the first place. Its our choice and our responsibility.

Why do you keep using the example of someone who doesn't vote at all? It's a deflection to make it appear as though voting for a third party is analogous - it's not. I exercise my right to vote, and those who don't have no right to complain about the state of our nation.

"If we choose to vote for a candidate that doesn't have a chance of being elected, we've just abdicated the choice to those who choose between candidates that do. That too is responsibility."

No it isn't. I didn't abdicate anything to you. Maybe I thought you would vote for my guy. What do I know about who everyone is going to vote for? The Green Party candidate in the Illinois governor's race in 2006 got over 360,000 votes, a total of 10.4%, so let's stop pretending that lesser-evil voting is the only option. It isn't.

You have no response to any of my points. Once again, by your logic, it's my fault that any candidate didn't have an extra vote depending on who wins. That's stupid, since the intentions behind my vote had nothing to do with affecting either of those candidates.

You have no response to any of my points.

I've addressed all of your points but you fail to understand that. Did your candidate win with 10.4% of the vote? No he didn't, which proves my point, not yours.

Voting or not voting are choices which carry responsibilities. This is all I've said. It isn't a deflection when the two are different sides of the same coin, called "choice".

Once again, by your logic, it's my fault that any candidate didn't have an extra vote depending on who wins. That's stupid, since the intentions behind my vote had nothing to do with affecting either of those candidates.

I have never used the word "fault" nor a near synonym of it. Your vote may have gone to elect the popular opposition to your "terrible candidate", but that wasn't the choice you made, was it? Every election has polling which will anticipate the likely outcome. We know this when we vote. If we choose to support a candidate that isn't predicted to be competitive, then that is the choice we make. We choose to live with the decisions of those who do vote for the majority candidates. Its just a statement of fact, not a value judgment. We had a chance to pick from those two but we didn't because we deemed our out-candidate a better choice. That's our responsibility and our choice.

While your intentions obviously weren't based on what others would do, the results are a reflection of what those others DID do, and you chose to stand on the outside looking in, as it were. This is your right to do so, and I don't belittle it at all. But every vote cast and every vote not cast affected who won and who lost. Most every election could be turned if those not voting exercised their franchise. That is their responsibility, and perhaps societies collective loss, though I guess we'll never truly know. We can only speculate.