NEWS: Dems Prepare To Pick Loser

Do you come with subtitles? Cuz I'd surely love to know exactly what it is you're trying to say.

Oy vey.

He didn't vote on the issue, and has only stated his version of how he might have voted. You have to decide whether or not you believe him. It's not like it was a 100% vote when it happened, so there's no immediate reason to believe he would have voted for it.

Although January 2005 is, in fact, "way after war shit started," it is roughly six years after his State Senator "shit" started.

I have issues when people use "???" as opposed to the people themselves. You seem quite charming. But triple question marks looks kiddie chat-speak and piffly, not really anything to get emotional about.

While you're close to right about "anything would be better" (since folks like Ron Paul or Huckabee could likely be worse) there's certainly several rational reasons to disbelieve the old saw about "they're all the same."

i'm a registered republican -- but over the past several years, the republican party has made me sick. more so, than what spews from the democrats.

i don't give two shits about the republican candidates, none of them are worth their salt. but i can guarantee, that if clinton gets the democrat nod, i will vote for whatever republican in a monkey suit is put in front of me. not because she's a woman -- i think it'd be great to have a woman president, just not her.

on the other hand -- if obama gets the democrat's nomination, i will vote democrat in november. especially if john edwards ends up as his running mate, i think that would be an amazing matchup.

But he'll still be liked... he doesn't project that image.

Hillary does project the image of being an unlikable liberal bitch, good or bad, true or false. Attack ads work when they aren't asking the audience to believe in something that don't already half believe.

I like him too, but he still lost to Bush Jr, and it shouldn't have come close. Watching videos of Bush from before 2000 is actually kind of funny, he seems even stupider than he does now. It is amazing that he got elected.

Bush didn't get elected.

I lol'd. Also I would like subtitles for eatsyourface, cuz that is not english. It just can't be.

Maybe there is a translation dictionary somewhere.

Oh snap.

What if whichever one wins the primaries picks the other one as their running mate? D'you think they can pull off a victory against McCain together? They're both a little spooky, but is spooky x twice as spooky = less spooky?

I doubt Clinton would take a VP spot at her age. Obama as VP, maybe, but I'm not sure I see it happening.

*sigh* and I was so careful to put "lost to" in the first sentance to avoid such a joke. Then I went and added that last sentance without even thinking.

Whenever I hear Obama speaking, it's like I'm watching a Hollywood movie (probably entitled something like "The Nominee"). The superficial content of his speeches (and his brilliant delivery) remind me of a screenplay. His rise to prominence reminds me of a film plot.

I keep expecting him to save the world from Martian attack or get kidnapped by "a department of the CIA that is so secret that even the CIA don't know it exists".

It's all really exciting, but definitely fictional.

In the real world, we have a rank leftie, very likable, but with no experience, mercifully few concrete policies and a track record that's so non-committal that even a focus group of his own supporters can't name a single Obama accomplishment:



Anyway, it's a moot point. Hated by their parties' rank and file, Hillary & McCain will be battling it out in November.

OK, time for my two cents worth here... The hard-core right hate McCain for (among other reasons) his more centrist "maverick" approach to party politics, including his stance on immigration (more on that here in a minute). Despite their best efforts to hamstring him, he's the one winning the moderate vote while the others continue to feud over who is the better, more conservative, candidate. Ironically, this may be a boon to Republicans since he's also the best choice among independents, like him or not he really is their best candidate in November.

If Clinton wins the nomination (which I pray doesn't happen), she will likely get there with the extra delegates she's helped win with the supportive Latino vote (2:1 or even 3:1 for her over Obama in some districts; old crotchety baby-boomers are also to blame here too). Now consider that McCain is also an extremely popular REPUBLICAN politician among the Hispanic voters (particularly in his state, but he may be able to garner additional national support), possibly splitting the Hispanic vote with Hillary, helping to tip the scales in his favor this November. As for the hard-core Conservatives who'll be left with a bad taste in their mouths over McCain's impending nomination, I believe they will eventually swallow their pride and join the swelling ranks of Independent voters when it comes to voting AGAINST Hillary in the general election. When the time comes, I just hope they realize that Jose & Maria may be voting for the same candidate in the stalls next to them... Oh the sweet irony. Anyone care to discount the "sleeping giant" any further?

Further speculating (and if my hopes prove true), I believe Barack will be able to draw much broader national support among all people, among independents, even across party lines, regardless of sex, race or age, then Hillary will ever be capable of. The progressive change and anti-war message Obama is carrying is perhaps the greatest one among all candidates in the field, one that I believe resonates with many Americans who are despondent over politics in general. I just hope the Democratic party elite (super delegates) realize this and don't fuck it up in the end when it comes down to the final numbers. If so they're certain to find a large portion of disaffected voters staying home this Fall while the motivated ABC group (that's Anybody But Clinton), swell the polls in support of McCain.

When the time comes, I will either be jumping out of my skin for joy or I will be curled in a fetal position sobbing for the next 4 to 8 years (I simply can't endure the political process beyond the previous 8 years of drudgery and disgust we've all had to survive).

OK, fine... Name one good thing George Bush has done. Putting up a clip of a live captive audience on Faux Entertainment "News" isn't going to help your argument one bit (it's kind of like masturbating to a video of yourself masturbating...).

It doesn't matter when you took the quote from. He's been in government for almost ten years. The opinion that "they're all the same" is simply an uninformed one. It's lazy.

Using triple question marks is assuredly kiddie-like. Punch up one of your buds on AIM or something and you'll likely see it. That's where it comes from, sorry.

As hard as it is to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, there are still differences between candidates if only you're willing to look past surface depth.

Your last statement is kind of mind-blowing. So either you're okay with everybody thinking your opinion on politics is irrational, or you need to re-think that. I'll re-state: there are all sorts of very rational reasons to believe that there are actually differences between candidates. You can even prove it to yourself, or you can just keep your head in the sand.

Deposed Saddam.

Hang on....Obama isn't up against Bush!!!

You should ask me to name one good thing that Hillary Clinton has done.

It wasn't Fox journalists being asked for an Obama achievement. Those were Obama supporters sitting there, unable to think of anything.

Can I wear a 1970's German porn mustache and make up a plot line about me being a pool cleaner?

Come on there now Uptight...

He didn't say Fox journalists, he said 'a live captive audience'. Your eyes just read what they want to read, don't they? And he's right, it isn't too hard to pick and choose a group of people in attempt to prove any opinion the content provider is attempting to set in the audiences' mind.

You've been watching quite a bit of Fox 'News', haven't you. Been brushing up on their tactics of attack journalism -- What's next? Running robo-push-polls out of your house?

It isn't surprising to see you using material from a partisan idiot like Sean Hannity.

yeah - right - anyway, the point remains

No, it really doesn't. You provided one extremely biased "proof" of your assertion, and have given nothing else to back it up. So technically the ball is still in your court, unless you'd like to argue logically why we should take footage from Sean Hannity's television program as an unbiased example.

The dems already shot themselves in the foot.

Every poll i saw put edwards ahead of mccain and hillary and obama behind him.
Democrats choose to follow the corporate media like sheep just like they did in 2004.

The corporate media completely ignored edwards. This was intentional. He ran on a populist platform that makes corporate types uncomfortable. In 2004 the "liberal" media ran "the howard dean scream" incessantly. Dean was all attack and he would have eaten boy blunder bush alive in debates. Instead the dems nominated "Mr. Charisma" i campaign like a wimp Kerry.

Now we have hillary and obama, two corporatist candidates pretending to stand for change whose voting record is nearly identical.

But I don't know that hillary is a weaker candidate than obama. Each has pros and cons. Hillary is tracking very strong with women, and latino's (stronger than kerry appeared to). Hillary also has the upside of the bill clinton legacy. People remember clinton as a strong economic president and they are concerned about the economy now. Foreign policy experience? Obama is very very weak compared to clinton and mccain. And hillary can take a punch. After watching obama in the debates, i don't think he'll fair well when the republican attack machine starts.

It'd be better than anything you did on the Newswire.

here ya go harry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYO2QcQIHSc