Craig I agree Obama needs to take a big state. I do think there is a strong likelihood that between now and the end of the month Obama could make a clean sweep of the remaining Feb. primaries which would give him a big PR leg up in Ohio and Texas. Not to mention his enormous cash advantage.
Ignore me if you like, but I honestly don't know what you are talking about. You asked me a direct question and I gave you an honest answer. Everyone has positives and negatives. Those assets and liabilities get written into your face. That is why elderly faces are so interesting in photographs because their lives are etched into the lines.
It starts when we are babies and the face just keeps recording events. There is a vast difference between "pain" and "fear" and can be identified when for the most part people just hear crying.
These are a few examples of what I was talking about.
I have to admit that I find the hoopla about McCain at CPAC hilarious - he snubbed them last year, has walked into the Repug nomnation without them this year, has been pilloried by their loudest mouthpieces for the past year and at the convention this year, and will address them after the good little conservatives have been told that they can't express themselves as they wish when he speaks. (How Bushian).
---then proceeded to ask what time GOP front-runner John McCain was going to speak today. "Oh good," he said to the response -- answer: 3 p.m. today-- "I hope they boo him out of the room."
""No, no no no no" came the reply from the person registering him. "We've been instructed to tell participants not to boo McCain."---------
What is behind Mitt's decision to call it quits. Could he being eying the VP slot. Could he and McCain get along well enough. Something seems fishey about this.
Jack, happy to provide a little humor. BTW, you might call RonPaul and suggest a 3rd party run, although there are times I think he'd draw more Ds who want out of Iraq than he would Rs who want a little government.
VaD - I think Romney just sees the writing on the wall - like he said, size coes matter - and as a good businessman doesn't believe in throwing good money after bad. After Tuesday, his mountain got much higher, and even for someone with his wealth, after $25M, pouring more money into a losing effort can't be done lightly.
I thought Huckie was a given after what has been going on but one has to wonder why Mitt called it quits. I just think there is more to this besides saving money, he got tons of it.
Brian - CPAC, shallow? Tell me it isn't so. When the heroes of the conservative movement are both college dropouts, that tells me a lot about the sophistication of their greatest thinkers - or at least their loudest mouthpieces.
"Today Mitt Romney nobly stepped aside for John McCain and will become Vice presidential running mate by so doing. He has also established Iraq as the centerpiece issue for the fall Presidential election. To further this, he asked anti-McCain Republicans and conservatives to join him in unity behind front-runner John McCain.
It's a win win for Romney. If they lose he can be the heir apparent in the traditional Republican way
and if they win then there is the ChucK Norris theory of
McCain's life span.
The problem the CPAC crowd face is they don't have the feet on the ground aka votes. All they have is money. Money isn't working this year in the Republican party, look at Huckabee.
I don't see how they can set this election out they are going to have to back McCain just to maintain a bit of credibility.. Look for CPAC and McCain to kiss and make up both need each other and both are in this for practical reasons.
Jack I disagree, since Reagan the far right has been the boots on the ground for the GOP. Now the party is paying the price (finally) of Reagan's pack with the devil.
I really want all of you to have this information. It would explain so much. But I have a problem. Explaining my problem could create a problem for someone else.
The problem is the far right is no longer a monolith.
Conservative under Reagan became a cafeteria movement. A big chunk has split off in the Christian right. They were major boots on the ground as is the NRA /second amendment crowd. What CPAC could do with its money is to mobilize these groups. Money hasn't been working and in some cases ,like the club for growth, it has had the opposite effect.
Brian, that's entirely possible about Romney -his conservative machismomay have gotten the best of him.CPACersdon'tswing theweight they did as late as '00 & '04.The Repug alchemy is very complicated now that we are in a war the public does not support and the conservatives don't have a religious zealot to back since Huckleberry's run is at an end FAIAP. AS I've said on too many occasions, Huckleberry scares me to death.
A woman describing herself as a Christian conservative just told Limpballs that hell would freeze over before she would vote for McCain- or Huckabee for that matter. (I'm listening to RW talk radio to get their take on the Repug race now that Romney has dropped out so that ou won't have to.)
pogo my feeling the best thing that could happen to the GOP is having McCain in the driver seat for a while. I think the average American has grown weary of the msg coming from the ChristoFascists.
I'd be really curious to see the breakdown of where Obama has raised that 7+ million dollars in the last 36 hours. Average donation siz , demographics of it and all. There's a real story there, it's an amazing figure. Of course it's story that won't be covered here, too pro Obama.
Damn, Brian, now you're really depressing me - I don't want to see anything benefit the Repugs generally.
KC, you're welcome - of course Rush's callers are the nuts from so far right they won't use their left hands except to wipe themselves. Nevertheless, they are suffering substantial angst over whether they could possible vote for McCain. If their disaffection with McCain continues, Repug voting totals could be negatively impacted in Nov., which of course will benefit the Dem nominee.
I don't have your email or I would have written you personally. Being ignored by someone who doesn't respect you or your right to post your thoughts is, in my book, not a bad thing. Consider it an honor :)
Someone was complaining about the conduct of the Hillary supporters being too vitriolic (I think that was the word). I have thought about this and it could be true. Obama supporters should be flying HIGH.. the media coverage for him has been a virtual love fest. WIth all the attacks on Hillary, it could be a board like this is what HRC supporters need to commiserate.
Anyway, the complaints about posts by Patsi, KGC, Jamie, Lush, and myself makes me feel that I am in a group of pretty great people. I suspect I was the one most over-the-top because of what I feel were personal attacks on me by someone who does a very good job of "slash and burn" blogging. I saw that on my first day here. Of course the most mature response would be to ignore and move on.
From WIlliam Kristol's column... an interesting comment made by Shirley Chisholm when running for President:
"Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.
And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up."
I wonder if Carol Moseley Braun would concur. When she dropped out of the Presidential race in 2004, she endorsed Howard Dean. Has anyone ever seen any comments from her regarding her role as a black woman seeking the Presidency?
EuroTom.....
I hope you don't really leave this blog.... I really have enjoyed your posts.....
although I will admit I don't read much of what's taking place here at night anymore..... I am a morning person and am rarely here at night.....
and as a person working at what I love and have a passion for.... I no don't want to take the time to read so many posts.....
vadaryl.... I agree with you that Romney's choice of dropping out now is an interesting one..... I guess we'll just have to wait and see what develops....
To my democratic colleagues… we may be in for a phenomenal letdown at the end of this primary nomination process that has been energizing, exciting, and hopeful as we look to move past the Bush debacle of the past 8 years. I have this sinking feeling in my gut because what I see playing out is an energized democratic electorate that will most likely be split right down the middle… in two separate camps clinging to both of their powerful leaders. If Hillary and Barack do not play this right, the winner of the nomination may well be given the chance to be the loser in the general election because the “losing” camp may not come out to support our candidate in the general election. Example… Barack comes out saying that we cannot afford to return to the President Clinton years of 1992-2000 where Bill hurt the Democratic Party. Hillary’s campaign is allegedly marginalizing Barack. Barack says that Hillary will polarize the electorate. Hillary says that Barack does not have the experience. Then there’s the common judgment that we all know…. Barack is inspirational and idealistic and Hillary is realistic and ready to deliver (which I believe is a true assessment… I want both) Hillary wants to debate and Barack does not. Hillary wants to include Florida and Michigan delegates and Barack does not. Hillary gets the big states and Barack gets the small states. Hillary and Barack have distinct age, gender, and ethnic electorates that are solidly behind each of them. The pledged delegates will be statistically even and it will come down to two camps of Super Delegates.
We are heading for two camps and if Barack and Hillary do not find a way to bring the two camps together at whatever point we can have a nominee… we are toast in November as these two distinct camps will not fully support the other because of the points I’ve made. The only way I see this working out is that Barack and Hillary focus their campaign comments on the strong differences with the Republican Party and the President Bush ideology for the remainder of this campaign. The more they focus on each other’s differences… the gulf between the two camps will only become further apart. And if it goes to the credentials committee in the DNC, forget it… it will be a nightmare scenario.
Boy you have a big foot. haha
Hope you are doing well. I just saw your you tube for the first time, that is neat.
As an OHIO Native, I can tell you, Hillary will take the state. She already has all the big democrats on her side and Stickland.
I think she will take Texas also.
Boy I sure hope Howard Dean lets Fl. and Mich in. Then she should be over the top.
It will be interesting.
Go Hillary!
ET, actually that Chisholm quote was from Nicholas Kristoff's column today.
OK, someone needs to send this to Howie Dean to begin prepping the attack against John McCain - thanks to Ann Coulter (yeah, I know, but she just hates McCain)
warren....
yes it does.....
all those Obama supporters who think he is a religion instead of just a flawed human being (as we all are) running for president.....
I agree with a lot of the stuff leveled at Clinton..... she does represent the Democratic Establishment and all it's big donors....
IndyMan - you could be right but I don't think so, particularly now that McCain is going to be the Repug to vote AGAINST even if you aren't crazy about HIllary or Obama. Just about every Dem here has indicated their intent to vote for the Dem nominee - enough Iraq, enough Bush tax cut nonsense, and enough bogus war on terror unites most dems against anyone who would continue the Bush policies.
McCain being booed at CPAC while talking about his immigration stance.
I wouldn't quote her - I have to spit when I mention her name - I'd just steal her research on him, which I'm betting will get very good in the next few months. I believe in learning from the enemy.
"all those Obama supporters who think he is a religion instead of just a flawed human being (as we all are) running for president....."
And RR it's exactly belittling statements like that one which is one so many of the Obama folk no longer wish to be here. And why it's so dull around her today.
This constant insulting tract that we who do not support Hillary are either sexist, dupes of the media, or cult member.
Ran they share a common enemy, Hillary. Anyone who they think has even a remote chance of beating her they will applaud, like trained seals waiting to be fed. Nothing will energize these people more than Hillary, as twisted as it sounds they hate the clintons more than they are racists or anti liberals.
Pogo... I hope you are right!!! I will vote for the dem ticket no matter who the nominee for the reasons you mentioned. I just feel that the line being drawn between the Barack and Hillary camps is being drawn with an "age, gender and race permanent marker" by our own party faithful... and supported by the media biases. McCain, the Repug, will still be tough to beat if we lose any part of our demo colleagues who may be so invested into their own historic candidate.
Brian.....
are you talking to me?..... I thought you gave that up months ago....
yeah.... it is a belittling statement..... born of frustration....
I tried to engage Warren in a discussion about McCain..... I think this will be a hard fought general election..... maybe I'm reading him wrong..... maybe I'm being too touchy with all the crap being thrown around here about Hillary supporters....
I've said several times that I don't think anyone here is a sexist...... including you.... I've also said that I'd proudly support Obama if he wins the Dem nomination....
I want to talk about defeating the Republicans in the fall....
what's wrong with that?
You need to move on from George W. Bush - everyone else has.
The country is moving beyond Bush - we just need to make sure he doesn't wreak anymore some havoc before he goes back to Texas.
Btw, Hillary would have a tough time winning TX in the general with the Bush family backing him. TX is Bush country my friends. And McCain's view on immigration does not drive Latinos over to the Dems
"She's beginning to get insulting if she thinks people are going to swallow this truck load of shit she's trying to peddle. It's stupid for Hillary to question anyone's ambitions! "
I just have to repost this comment I wrote earlier in the day. Please note this is a stab at humor, ok???
Oh whine whine whine... I'm offended again, so I think I will leave in a huff and do a little boo-hoo-hoo while I'm at it. pleeezzzzz .... Personally could I recommend we stop playing the victim role and LIGHTEN UP? Oprah would NOT be pleased at our dysfunctionality. How about we all electronically hold hands, swaying back and forth, singing "Kumbaya"? We could then do a special rendition of "We are the World", and end it all with a tongue-in-cheek "To All the Girls I loved Before" as our special tribute to Bill Clinton.
And my very favourite recommendation... how about we stop with the "whine, whine, whine" and get into the "wine, wine, wine"...
I'll drink red.
Sante'
I think I'm gonna watch The Doris Day Show, That Girl and Mary Tyler Moore. It was a "kinder, gentler" period then.
Many kisses and hugs,
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
If this doesn't work, we could always create an online 12-step dysfunctional bloggers support group.
"I admit i am a chronic internet blog user and my life has become unmanageable"
"I believe that a power blogger greater than me can restore me to so-so sanity. "....
If you want to have frank open discussions try not to referring to us to in belittling terms then. Be referred to in cult like terms doesn't exactly make one want to crack open a bottle of chardonnay with you and hash out the issues.
I don't think people have moved on from George Bush and I think it is very important to hang his policies are the neck of the gop contenders.
Why should McCain get a pass from anyting Bush has done. He may have spoken out as he did on torture but in the end he voted with Bush, He said the Bush plan wouldn't work in Iraw but did nothing to stop it.
The reason the electorate is so energized is their hatred of Bush. We do not want to take that away.
Warren...
I disagree that everyone has moved on from Bush....
I think the Dem nominee.... no matter who it finally is..... needs to hammer every day and in every way that to vote Republican is to vote for continuation of Bush's policies....
warren - I know you're an attorney - as am I. Some folks don't like to put too much ID on the web, understandably. Just trying to be neighborly, particularly after giving you hell about your lengthy post Tuesday.
Lots of folks think McCain is just like Bush on the issues many dems care a lot about, and he's already changing his rhetoric to get Bush voters. We won't have to call him Bush to energize TX repugs to vote for him - they aren't listening to us anyway. Steal some latino Texans and who knows, maybe the deeply red TX will turn a slightly purple shade for a change.
Craig -- Like the videos much better than the hit-and-run blog posts. It gives you much more time to flesh out your points. Hope we can have more of them...
Amen!.... let us pray and break bread together..... ;)
Pogo..... Rick has had some interesting discussions with Texans in bars over the last few years..... when they find out he's a northeastener..... it must be his accent..... they frequently start a conversation on politics..... and a lot of them have told him that they hate the Bushes.....
warren, like I said my email addy is larry dot chafin at steptoe hyphen johnson dot com. feel free to flip me an e-mail - I've gotten several e-mails from a few of the folks here and enjoy the off line communications.
renee, I know a few folks in Texas as well - psychology types up in the Denton area - none of them can stand Bush, but then again we are very sympatico politically.
Looks like Julie Mason is in the tank for Hillary and she's on MSNBC. Of course this is based purely on speculation but she is certainly not part of the Obama love fest.
no, warren, not coming on to you - Mrs. Pogo wouldn't approve. It's certainly not illegal to put up an e-mail address, but we spell the e-mail addresses out to avoid having them picked up by spammers - a good practice BTW no matter what non secure site you're on. No, lawyers are just few and far between here, and when I run across one I sort of try and network - collegiality and all that. (Notice - I didn't ask for a pic). LOL
Hillary was not at her best today. Obama seemed very tired yesterday. This compressed primary schedule is really taking it's toll on all the candidates.
Obama can certainly turn down the debates. Even Wolf on CNN said since when does a frontrunner ask for debates.
Although people will of course try to use it against them but it is just another example of the Clinton campaign attempting to change the rules to suit them.
Matthews is one of the top political analysts going.
warren
I could not disagree more. Even when he doesn't have a slobbering man crush, he is very shallow.
He rarely has an original thought and never follows through on questions, And he has a center right bias.
His time in the Peace Corp etc was his rebellion and now he is at home as a Bob Corker Republican.
Hardball that's a joke -more like nerfball or tball or some other game when you don't keep score.
Obama has agreed to do one debate over the next 6 weeks. There is no advantage to him to partake in more than that. Obama is better on the stump then he is at debates. A debate takes him away from the campaign for too long a time without much payoff for him.
unlikely_burrito: I suspect about half of the voters would view it as being pragmatic while another about half would view it as dodging. Those folks don't really matter though since they have already made a decision on who they will support.
I don't think it would look good for Obama with the undecided folks but it probably wouldn't be enough to sway many voters. However if he does agree to a debate and doesn't do well or does poorly that could have a real negative effect.
I would love to see a few more 1 on 1 debates. Keep the candidates busy with the issues, keep their constituency informed and practice for upcoming debates with McCain.
Matthews' problem is that he is in deep hate mode for all thinkgs Clinton, and has been for months. I hear he's less biased on his Sunday show, shich I have watched about twice, but Hardball just gives him a form to attack Bill and Hillary, which he does regularly. I watch occasionally, but have cut back and tend to watch CNN during that hour anymore. Biggest problem with him is his refusal to let guests finish a sentence or explain a comment.
I guess on debates, if a frontrunner thought they made him or her look better against their competition, they would ask for them. Hillary does, Obama doesn't. Best I can tell, neither is the frontrunner at this point, so either can ask for them and either can accept or decline. Of course declining will be used against Obama by the Clinton campaign - this is presidential politics, not a friendly game of penny-ante poker - and if Obama's campaign feels thy'll be hurt less by dealing with the fallout from the denial than by the debates, they'll keep refusing to participate. My question becomes why not, although I've heard the Obama campaign's answers to that question, so I don't expect to see the debates occur. Our loss.
Well, all - off to get the kid, basketball, the routine.later.
actually wrong again OD, they both have received pretty much the same amount of votes so far and the delegate count really is too close to call for any side. The one thing we are certain of is that Barack is raising a lot more money.
Obama should do fine in the debates against McCain. He is not the same type of trickster as Hillary - you saw how he came off badly attacking Romney with some past quote. Plus, Obama will draw such a contrast on stage with McCain - he won't have to say much.
And aren't you Hillary people always telling me that Barack is all talk!
"More debates give BOTH candidates opportunities to make mistakes that can be used against either in the general"
That's a good point. But both candidates have demonstrated they can debate without rancor. They can have issue focused debates.
I think the choice of moderator is important. I think Senator Clinton made a mistake in agreeing to the Fox debate after the boycott. They should just include nbc in the boycott.
Not to pile on you or Chris Matthews, but I'm with KGC on this one. If Chris is among the best analysts going, we have a greater dearth of good analysts than qualified candidates.
I think he was pretty good as a columnist, way back when, but find he has very little credibility in his current role. He's a little better on his weekend show, but his biases tend to creep in there too.
I read what I guess was a transcript of his recent apologia after saying Hillary was only a candidate because her husband got caught fooling around, and found his excuse of shooting from the hip to be a monumental cop-out. He said what he believed, and he got called on it.
The one thing that might make Matthews look good to viewers is his position in the lineup before and after Tucker Carlson.
I do not think Matthew's comments about Hillary are based on a hatred of all things Clinton. I think he call's it like he see's it - but that is not to say he does not take sides.
I think you just bristle at any negative criticism of Hillary Clinton - as a candidate NOT as a person - and choose to dismiss it and even change the channel.
I am sure Obama would be happy to debate McCain every day of the week so why not Clinton.
One thing to think about without debates and with the Republican side settled the media will focus on Obama in an uncontrolled way. They might be better off having the debates and debates as the focus.
How many times can they write about his stump speech.? I was with Obama supporters on election night and even they were saying --another speech please.
$$$$$Money is very important in political races. 35,000 people contributed to Hillary in the last day. I am one of them..But, money isn't the most important thing. Just ask President Romney about that.
I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks. You people are certainly different. I love you guys and Crawford too.
Reading the posts I've come up with personality matches with some cable personalities. Not necessarily their views, but more conversational style.
Jamie - Laura Ingriam
Warren - Alan Colmes
GORDO - Steve Ducey
EuroTom - Bill O'Reilly
LardassLiberal - Keith Oberman
LushisLinda - E.D. Hill
pogo - Dan Abrams
Brian in NYC - Jack Cafferty
spike - Wolf Blitzer
Oregon Democrat - Glen Beck
Katherine Graham Cracker - Ann Coulter
Obama has handled the media just fine during this campaign. And I would be more afraid of attacks from Bill Clinton than those from McCain. If Obama could survive that - he should be good in the general election campaign.
Warren
I took that info off the demographics in the link. It shows how each state compares to the rest of the United States. If you look under those categories you will find the data to back up the post.
I appreciate the sentiment but reject the comparison to Alan Colmes. That guy is a Fox News stereotype of a progressive Democrat. A bleeding heart liberal who does not have a clue, much less a backbone.
He is used as a flak to enable conseratives to make their arguments sound good.
He does - just trying to make a point and I do not watch him often.
Although I did used to listen to Hannity on the radio during the build up to the Iraq War. That guy had a huge part in building up the fear that led to the Bush Doctrine.
Trust me, I was not listening because I agreed with him.
He also has said MANY times that Dems can't relate to blue collar voters (Reagan Democrats). We're just a bunch of Chablis-sipping elitists, and that's why we always lose.
Alan Colmes is the kind of person who comes accross better when his views are read. Put a decent, respectful guy next to a bully like Hannity..you have a problem.
Comments
Woot!! Mitt don't go....
Posted by: zoey
| February 7, 2008 1:03 PM
Craig,
Does your cane fold up like mine does? Mine also has wild flowers all over it...no granny cane for me.
Posted by: zoey
| February 7, 2008 1:08 PM
Great graphic from the NYtimes. gives the details of their delegate allocation, also has the future contests and delegates at stake.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html
last contest
June 7, Puerto Rico -------63 delegates
Se habla that there Espanol, mighty fine place y'all have down here.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 7, 2008 1:10 PM
ah Craig....
great video.....
and as usual..... your sense of humor is a breath of fresh air.....
and as usual..... I bet your analysis is spot on.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 1:26 PM
Good luck with your cane
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Drat, streaming video - can't see it.
But great question, Craig -
To return to VaD's queston from the last thread about who Hannity will attack now - for god's sake, he's the engineer of The Stop HIllary Express.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:31 PM
Craig I agree Obama needs to take a big state. I do think there is a strong likelihood that between now and the end of the month Obama could make a clean sweep of the remaining Feb. primaries which would give him a big PR leg up in Ohio and Texas. Not to mention his enormous cash advantage.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 1:34 PM
That election guide is interesting when you look at the maps and see who one where.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:35 PM
I thought Hannity would switch to Obama for new material.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:36 PM
The small government conservative problem for McCain.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26938.html
Could Ron Paul attract these conservatives as an independent in large enough numbers to make an impact?
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 7, 2008 1:37 PM
Brian,
Ignore me if you like, but I honestly don't know what you are talking about. You asked me a direct question and I gave you an honest answer. Everyone has positives and negatives. Those assets and liabilities get written into your face. That is why elderly faces are so interesting in photographs because their lives are etched into the lines.
It starts when we are babies and the face just keeps recording events. There is a vast difference between "pain" and "fear" and can be identified when for the most part people just hear crying.
These are a few examples of what I was talking about.
http://www.face-and-emotion.com/dataface/expression/interpretations.html
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 1:39 PM
jamie ----------
I am being cryptic because of earlier blog instructions as to what and what not to post (another clue).
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 1:40 PM
I have to admit that I find the hoopla about McCain at CPAC hilarious - he snubbed them last year, has walked into the Repug nomnation without them this year, has been pilloried by their loudest mouthpieces for the past year and at the convention this year, and will address them after the good little conservatives have been told that they can't express themselves as they wish when he speaks. (How Bushian).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/live-cpac-updates-romney_n_85505.html
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:41 PM
Gordo,
It can't be very earth shaking or important if you can't post a link. There is no restriction on that.
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 1:46 PM
Pogo what I find amazing about the CPAC crowd and their love of Romney it goes a long way in showing what a shallow group they truly are.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 1:48 PM
Pogo
I just read your link
LOL
I love this quote
---then proceeded to ask what time GOP front-runner John McCain was going to speak today. "Oh good," he said to the response -- answer: 3 p.m. today-- "I hope they boo him out of the room."
""No, no no no no" came the reply from the person registering him. "We've been instructed to tell participants not to boo McCain."---------
Gotta love it
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 7, 2008 1:48 PM
What is behind Mitt's decision to call it quits. Could he being eying the VP slot. Could he and McCain get along well enough. Something seems fishey about this.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:53 PM
Jack, happy to provide a little humor. BTW, you might call RonPaul and suggest a 3rd party run, although there are times I think he'd draw more Ds who want out of Iraq than he would Rs who want a little government.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:53 PM
vad I'm banking on huckabee being mccain's VP, is there any other reason for him to be staying in the race.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 1:55 PM
Did I hear the CPAC audience hiss McCain's name after Mitt's speech.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:55 PM
jamie --------
Believe me, I WANT to post a link. But it might cause problems.
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 1:55 PM
VaD - I think Romney just sees the writing on the wall - like he said, size coes matter - and as a good businessman doesn't believe in throwing good money after bad. After Tuesday, his mountain got much higher, and even for someone with his wealth, after $25M, pouring more money into a losing effort can't be done lightly.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:56 PM
I thought Huckie was a given after what has been going on but one has to wonder why Mitt called it quits. I just think there is more to this besides saving money, he got tons of it.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:57 PM
He did look presidental with those flags behind him.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:58 PM
Brian, if there's nothing else that could motivate a Dem to work for the party's nominee, a McBush/Huckleberry ticket should do it.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:58 PM
As a businessman I agree with you it was time to quit, but it's got to be more to it.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Ah, Gordo, go ahead and post it - we're adults (in a sense). You can always post it with whatever caveats you think it needs.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Whoever posted McCain /Romney is on the right track.
Posted by: \Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 2:00 PM
McBush! Nice!
Yes I would love to see Obama/Edwards go up against those two.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:00 PM
He could of cut down his costs, Huckie is running on low money. It's just interesting how all of this has come down in the last week.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:01 PM
Vad as what's her name (damn why does her name escape, the former Reagan speech writer) just said on MSNBC this is part of Romney paying his GOP dues.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:04 PM
Brian - CPAC, shallow? Tell me it isn't so. When the heroes of the conservative movement are both college dropouts, that tells me a lot about the sophistication of their greatest thinkers - or at least their loudest mouthpieces.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:05 PM
Peggy Noonan?
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:06 PM
Peggy Noonan
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:06 PM
I stole McBush from KC - thought it was perfect.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:07 PM
Romney leaving now reminds me of Reagan bowing out to Ford. It served him very well 4 years down the road.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:08 PM
"Today Mitt Romney nobly stepped aside for John McCain and will become Vice presidential running mate by so doing. He has also established Iraq as the centerpiece issue for the fall Presidential election. To further this, he asked anti-McCain Republicans and conservatives to join him in unity behind front-runner John McCain.
It was a non-endorsement endorsement and accomplished four objectives:"
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2008/02/07/mccain-romney-ticket.aspx
It's a win win for Romney. If they lose he can be the heir apparent in the traditional Republican way
and if they win then there is the ChucK Norris theory of
McCain's life span.
Posted by: \Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 2:09 PM
The problem the CPAC crowd face is they don't have the feet on the ground aka votes. All they have is money. Money isn't working this year in the Republican party, look at Huckabee.
I don't see how they can set this election out they are going to have to back McCain just to maintain a bit of credibility.. Look for CPAC and McCain to kiss and make up both need each other and both are in this for practical reasons.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | February 7, 2008 2:12 PM
It could serve him well in 4 years but I think he was thinking of today! Maybe a way of sticking it to Huckie and snap the VP slot away from him.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:13 PM
Jack I disagree, since Reagan the far right has been the boots on the ground for the GOP. Now the party is paying the price (finally) of Reagan's pack with the devil.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:14 PM
McCain's age is a factor. He would be the first in line.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:14 PM
Romney will never be McCain's veep.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:15 PM
How is McCain going to get out of the spending limits imposed by campaign financing?
Posted by: \Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 2:16 PM
This could knock Obama and his movement right off the front page for a day. Also give Hillary a break also
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:16 PM
why not his VP. McCain forgave Bush for what he did to him in 2000. They could bury their differences. Each wants the same thing.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:18 PM
Frankly I think Romney could have won the nomination if he had not swung so far to the right and come off as such an empty (yet very expensive) suit.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:18 PM
pogo --------
I really want all of you to have this information. It would explain so much. But I have a problem. Explaining my problem could create a problem for someone else.
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 2:19 PM
Gordo
webthings at comcast dot net
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Without Huckie in the way we may never know how Mitt would of done. It will be interesting how Hannity and crew will spin this move.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Wow - it's "chilly' today.
What are the "posting rules" here? I see many unhappy posters? please inform. Thank you
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 2:21 PM
The shuttle is go for launch! it's in the planned 9 minute hold.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 7, 2008 2:22 PM
I wonder if terry mcauliffe is one of the Hillary staffers who is going unpaid.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Brian
The problem is the far right is no longer a monolith.
Conservative under Reagan became a cafeteria movement. A big chunk has split off in the Christian right. They were major boots on the ground as is the NRA /second amendment crowd. What CPAC could do with its money is to mobilize these groups. Money hasn't been working and in some cases ,like the club for growth, it has had the opposite effect.
Got to go see everybody this evening.
Jack
who is never wrong, mostly.
Posted by: whskyjack | February 7, 2008 2:29 PM
Brian, that's entirely possible about Romney -his conservative machismomay have gotten the best of him.CPACersdon'tswing theweight they did as late as '00 & '04.The Repug alchemy is very complicated now that we are in a war the public does not support and the conservatives don't have a religious zealot to back since Huckleberry's run is at an end FAIAP. AS I've said on too many occasions, Huckleberry scares me to death.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:32 PM
A woman describing herself as a Christian conservative just told Limpballs that hell would freeze over before she would vote for McCain- or Huckabee for that matter. (I'm listening to RW talk radio to get their take on the Repug race now that Romney has dropped out so that ou won't have to.)
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:37 PM
pogo my feeling the best thing that could happen to the GOP is having McCain in the driver seat for a while. I think the average American has grown weary of the msg coming from the ChristoFascists.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:39 PM
I'm listening to RW talk radio to get their take on the Repug race now that Romney has dropped out so that ou won't have to.)
Pogo
Thanks you so much.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 2:39 PM
I'd be really curious to see the breakdown of where Obama has raised that 7+ million dollars in the last 36 hours. Average donation siz , demographics of it and all. There's a real story there, it's an amazing figure. Of course it's story that won't be covered here, too pro Obama.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 2:43 PM
Damn, Brian, now you're really depressing me - I don't want to see anything benefit the Repugs generally.
KC, you're welcome - of course Rush's callers are the nuts from so far right they won't use their left hands except to wipe themselves. Nevertheless, they are suffering substantial angst over whether they could possible vote for McCain. If their disaffection with McCain continues, Repug voting totals could be negatively impacted in Nov., which of course will benefit the Dem nominee.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 2:49 PM
See where the born again voters are leaning to. Only three candidates get double digits.
Hillary
Obama
Huckabee
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=291
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| February 7, 2008 2:51 PM
Jamie,
I don't have your email or I would have written you personally. Being ignored by someone who doesn't respect you or your right to post your thoughts is, in my book, not a bad thing. Consider it an honor :)
Someone was complaining about the conduct of the Hillary supporters being too vitriolic (I think that was the word). I have thought about this and it could be true. Obama supporters should be flying HIGH.. the media coverage for him has been a virtual love fest. WIth all the attacks on Hillary, it could be a board like this is what HRC supporters need to commiserate.
Anyway, the complaints about posts by Patsi, KGC, Jamie, Lush, and myself makes me feel that I am in a group of pretty great people. I suspect I was the one most over-the-top because of what I feel were personal attacks on me by someone who does a very good job of "slash and burn" blogging. I saw that on my first day here. Of course the most mature response would be to ignore and move on.
Take care,
Tom
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 3:01 PM
ET
webthings at comcast dot net
I'm sure you can figure out the at and dot part. :-)
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 3:12 PM
From WIlliam Kristol's column... an interesting comment made by Shirley Chisholm when running for President:
"Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.
And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up."
I wonder if Carol Moseley Braun would concur. When she dropped out of the Presidential race in 2004, she endorsed Howard Dean. Has anyone ever seen any comments from her regarding her role as a black woman seeking the Presidency?
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 3:15 PM
EuroTom.....
I hope you don't really leave this blog.... I really have enjoyed your posts.....
although I will admit I don't read much of what's taking place here at night anymore..... I am a morning person and am rarely here at night.....
and as a person working at what I love and have a passion for.... I no don't want to take the time to read so many posts.....
vadaryl.... I agree with you that Romney's choice of dropping out now is an interesting one..... I guess we'll just have to wait and see what develops....
GO DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 3:16 PM
John McCain is no George W. Bush.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:16 PM
John McCain earned the nomination - it wasn't just handed over to him.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:17 PM
To my democratic colleagues… we may be in for a phenomenal letdown at the end of this primary nomination process that has been energizing, exciting, and hopeful as we look to move past the Bush debacle of the past 8 years. I have this sinking feeling in my gut because what I see playing out is an energized democratic electorate that will most likely be split right down the middle… in two separate camps clinging to both of their powerful leaders. If Hillary and Barack do not play this right, the winner of the nomination may well be given the chance to be the loser in the general election because the “losing” camp may not come out to support our candidate in the general election. Example… Barack comes out saying that we cannot afford to return to the President Clinton years of 1992-2000 where Bill hurt the Democratic Party. Hillary’s campaign is allegedly marginalizing Barack. Barack says that Hillary will polarize the electorate. Hillary says that Barack does not have the experience. Then there’s the common judgment that we all know…. Barack is inspirational and idealistic and Hillary is realistic and ready to deliver (which I believe is a true assessment… I want both) Hillary wants to debate and Barack does not. Hillary wants to include Florida and Michigan delegates and Barack does not. Hillary gets the big states and Barack gets the small states. Hillary and Barack have distinct age, gender, and ethnic electorates that are solidly behind each of them. The pledged delegates will be statistically even and it will come down to two camps of Super Delegates.
We are heading for two camps and if Barack and Hillary do not find a way to bring the two camps together at whatever point we can have a nominee… we are toast in November as these two distinct camps will not fully support the other because of the points I’ve made. The only way I see this working out is that Barack and Hillary focus their campaign comments on the strong differences with the Republican Party and the President Bush ideology for the remainder of this campaign. The more they focus on each other’s differences… the gulf between the two camps will only become further apart. And if it goes to the credentials committee in the DNC, forget it… it will be a nightmare scenario.
Posted by: Indy Man
| February 7, 2008 3:19 PM
Boy you have a big foot. haha
Hope you are doing well. I just saw your you tube for the first time, that is neat.
As an OHIO Native, I can tell you, Hillary will take the state. She already has all the big democrats on her side and Stickland.
I think she will take Texas also.
Boy I sure hope Howard Dean lets Fl. and Mich in. Then she should be over the top.
It will be interesting.
Go Hillary!
Posted by: Carol | February 7, 2008 3:20 PM
Warren....
exactly!
which is why I think those that think McCain will be an easy opponent in the general election come this November are in denial....
GO DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 3:22 PM
RR:
They are in a state of denial...sound familiar.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:24 PM
ET, actually that Chisholm quote was from Nicholas Kristoff's column today.
OK, someone needs to send this to Howie Dean to begin prepping the attack against John McCain - thanks to Ann Coulter (yeah, I know, but she just hates McCain)
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 3:24 PM
warren - that is exactly right. BTW, just curious - where's you go to law school? where do you practice- and doing what?
my e-mail is larry dot chafin at steptoe hyphen johnson dot com if you'd rather not post that stuff on the web.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 3:29 PM
I certainly would not want to cite to Ann Coulture in making an argument against McCain. He could take the high road in a heartbeat.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:29 PM
warren....
yes it does.....
all those Obama supporters who think he is a religion instead of just a flawed human being (as we all are) running for president.....
I agree with a lot of the stuff leveled at Clinton..... she does represent the Democratic Establishment and all it's big donors....
so what....
GO DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 3:35 PM
IndyMan - you could be right but I don't think so, particularly now that McCain is going to be the Repug to vote AGAINST even if you aren't crazy about HIllary or Obama. Just about every Dem here has indicated their intent to vote for the Dem nominee - enough Iraq, enough Bush tax cut nonsense, and enough bogus war on terror unites most dems against anyone who would continue the Bush policies.
McCain being booed at CPAC while talking about his immigration stance.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 3:36 PM
I wouldn't quote her - I have to spit when I mention her name - I'd just steal her research on him, which I'm betting will get very good in the next few months. I believe in learning from the enemy.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 3:38 PM
"all those Obama supporters who think he is a religion instead of just a flawed human being (as we all are) running for president....."
And RR it's exactly belittling statements like that one which is one so many of the Obama folk no longer wish to be here. And why it's so dull around her today.
This constant insulting tract that we who do not support Hillary are either sexist, dupes of the media, or cult member.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 3:40 PM
after John McCain loses in November maybe he can get a correspondents job on A Daily Show, he sure is adept at irony.
unbelieveable that people are applauding that nonsense
A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of George W Bush
Posted by: ran | February 7, 2008 3:43 PM
I am an attorney at law and was at jury duty today.
I am not saying anything that isn't already out there.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:45 PM
warren
pogo was being friendly and having a lawyer to lawyer chat and just wanted to exchange law data and offered the option of doing it off line.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 3:47 PM
Ran they share a common enemy, Hillary. Anyone who they think has even a remote chance of beating her they will applaud, like trained seals waiting to be fed. Nothing will energize these people more than Hillary, as twisted as it sounds they hate the clintons more than they are racists or anti liberals.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 3:47 PM
Pogo... I hope you are right!!! I will vote for the dem ticket no matter who the nominee for the reasons you mentioned. I just feel that the line being drawn between the Barack and Hillary camps is being drawn with an "age, gender and race permanent marker" by our own party faithful... and supported by the media biases. McCain, the Repug, will still be tough to beat if we lose any part of our demo colleagues who may be so invested into their own historic candidate.
Posted by: Indy Man
| February 7, 2008 3:47 PM
A vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of George W Bush
Posted by: ran
Bush's third term
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM
Ohhhhhhhh...I love the video clip of Craig--lookin' all casual and comfy!!
You know what, did anyone see Craig last night on Abrams? I loved the color of the wall behind him!!
Craig, was that in your home? If so, what is the color of that paint???
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 7, 2008 3:49 PM
Brian.....
are you talking to me?..... I thought you gave that up months ago....
yeah.... it is a belittling statement..... born of frustration....
I tried to engage Warren in a discussion about McCain..... I think this will be a hard fought general election..... maybe I'm reading him wrong..... maybe I'm being too touchy with all the crap being thrown around here about Hillary supporters....
I've said several times that I don't think anyone here is a sexist...... including you.... I've also said that I'd proudly support Obama if he wins the Dem nomination....
I want to talk about defeating the Republicans in the fall....
what's wrong with that?
GO DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 3:50 PM
Ran:
You need to move on from George W. Bush - everyone else has.
The country is moving beyond Bush - we just need to make sure he doesn't wreak anymore some havoc before he goes back to Texas.
Btw, Hillary would have a tough time winning TX in the general with the Bush family backing him. TX is Bush country my friends. And McCain's view on immigration does not drive Latinos over to the Dems
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:52 PM
warren: unless Craig tells me not to I will post what I like thsnk you
Posted by: ran | February 7, 2008 3:53 PM
Brian,
So when you post things such as
"She's beginning to get insulting if she thinks people are going to swallow this truck load of shit she's trying to peddle. It's stupid for Hillary to question anyone's ambitions! "
It is constructive, uplifting criticism.
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 3:54 PM
I just have to repost this comment I wrote earlier in the day. Please note this is a stab at humor, ok???
Oh whine whine whine... I'm offended again, so I think I will leave in a huff and do a little boo-hoo-hoo while I'm at it. pleeezzzzz .... Personally could I recommend we stop playing the victim role and LIGHTEN UP? Oprah would NOT be pleased at our dysfunctionality. How about we all electronically hold hands, swaying back and forth, singing "Kumbaya"? We could then do a special rendition of "We are the World", and end it all with a tongue-in-cheek "To All the Girls I loved Before" as our special tribute to Bill Clinton.
And my very favourite recommendation... how about we stop with the "whine, whine, whine" and get into the "wine, wine, wine"...
I'll drink red.
Sante'
I think I'm gonna watch The Doris Day Show, That Girl and Mary Tyler Moore. It was a "kinder, gentler" period then.
Many kisses and hugs,
MEEEEEEEEEEEE
If this doesn't work, we could always create an online 12-step dysfunctional bloggers support group.
"I admit i am a chronic internet blog user and my life has become unmanageable"
"I believe that a power blogger greater than me can restore me to so-so sanity. "....
May the BLOG be with you!!
Posted by: EuroTom | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 3:55 PM
If you want to have frank open discussions try not to referring to us to in belittling terms then. Be referred to in cult like terms doesn't exactly make one want to crack open a bottle of chardonnay with you and hash out the issues.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Thanks KGC. Got it!
I am just not so sure what "law data" is?
Some things still confound me on this blog.
What is ROFL and some of the others? I understand the IMHO and smiley faces ; )
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Warren
I don't think people have moved on from George Bush and I think it is very important to hang his policies are the neck of the gop contenders.
Why should McCain get a pass from anyting Bush has done. He may have spoken out as he did on torture but in the end he voted with Bush, He said the Bush plan wouldn't work in Iraw but did nothing to stop it.
The reason the electorate is so energized is their hatred of Bush. We do not want to take that away.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Warren...
I disagree that everyone has moved on from Bush....
I think the Dem nominee.... no matter who it finally is..... needs to hammer every day and in every way that to vote Republican is to vote for continuation of Bush's policies....
I do think you have a point about Texas....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 3:56 PM
EuroTom
First of all, thanks for mentioning my name...LOL!!! IMHO, I should be your favorite person here, as I am a true Christine Lavin fan!!!
Now, I would also like to say that(IMHO)everyone needs to stop pouting and act like adults!!
EuroTom, you need to keep posting!!
"Lurkers for a More Civil Crawfordlist"...you need to disband and get back here!! BHO needs you!!!
{8>{)
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 7, 2008 3:57 PM
ROFL = Roll on the Floor Laughing
ROTFLMAO = Roll on the Floor Laughing my ass off.
ROTFLMFAO = "Roll on the Floor Laughing my FAT ass off.
TTFN = "Ta Ta for now"
oic = "oh, I see"
PHRC2009 = "President Hillary Rodham Clinton 2009... "
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 3:58 PM
Ran: I believe you should post whatever you want - no matter what Craig or I tell you.
But I must say I would take Craig's words under consideration if he asked politely.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM
"am just not so sure what "law data" is"
warren
is this case where you went to law school and where you practice.
ROFL roll on floor laughing
ROFLMAO roll on floor laugh my as- off
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 3:59 PM
Warren....
ROFL..... rolling on floor laughing....
ROFLMAO...... rolling on floor laughing my ass off.....
Brian..... riiiiiiiight!..... LOL! (laughing out loud)
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 4:00 PM
McCain: Economy - NO
More wars - YES
ohhh boy..makes ya wanna mark that X beside his name dont it?
Posted by: tylenol
| February 7, 2008 4:00 PM
New Mexico
99% Reporting
Hillary +1,123
Source: CNN Election Center
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 4:01 PM
But I must say I would take Craig's words under consideration if he asked politely
what are you talking about??
Posted by: ran | February 7, 2008 4:01 PM
Thanks EuroTom it looks like you got the biggest list.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:04 PM
Ran
I think warren was just agreeing with you that only Craig could ask someone not to post something
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 4:05 PM
warren - I know you're an attorney - as am I. Some folks don't like to put too much ID on the web, understandably. Just trying to be neighborly, particularly after giving you hell about your lengthy post Tuesday.
Lots of folks think McCain is just like Bush on the issues many dems care a lot about, and he's already changing his rhetoric to get Bush voters. We won't have to call him Bush to energize TX repugs to vote for him - they aren't listening to us anyway. Steal some latino Texans and who knows, maybe the deeply red TX will turn a slightly purple shade for a change.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 4:05 PM
And I do thank everyone else as well. I was going crazy trying to figure those letters out.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:07 PM
Thanks Warren... I got a big list and I know how to use it.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Brian,
Wrong target. I can't lay claim to inventing the cult of the second coming. Someone else will have to take credit for that.
Posted by: Jamie | February 7, 2008 4:10 PM
nam myoho renge kyo
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
Jamie there was nothing in my post that was addressed at you. I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking to RR.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
Craig -- Like the videos much better than the hit-and-run blog posts. It gives you much more time to flesh out your points. Hope we can have more of them...
Posted by: spike
| February 7, 2008 4:13 PM
Pogo:
I don't like to put too much personal info on the web. But we'll see after all the smoke clears.
I think we shoud be judged on our posts rather than our bios.
And I do not take offense to the critiques of my posts. If you go somewhere looking to pick a fight - you can't take offense when they fight back.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:14 PM
EuroTom.....
and may the BLOG be with you....
Amen!.... let us pray and break bread together..... ;)
Pogo..... Rick has had some interesting discussions with Texans in bars over the last few years..... when they find out he's a northeastener..... it must be his accent..... they frequently start a conversation on politics..... and a lot of them have told him that they hate the Bushes.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee | February 7, 2008 4:16 PM
Craig - hate the videos - can't watch them from my desk 8-)
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 4:17 PM
warren, like I said my email addy is larry dot chafin at steptoe hyphen johnson dot com. feel free to flip me an e-mail - I've gotten several e-mails from a few of the folks here and enjoy the off line communications.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 4:20 PM
renee, I know a few folks in Texas as well - psychology types up in the Denton area - none of them can stand Bush, but then again we are very sympatico politically.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 4:22 PM
Pogo:
Are you coming on to me? I have heard scary stories about these chat rooms on Fox News.
And is it illegal to just put a real email address on here or do you always spell it out.
KGC:
Do I have anything to worry about with these so-called "off line communications?"
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:24 PM
Warren, got a pic?
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Warren it's not "Illegal" to type out an email address, but if you do spam bots could pick it up and you end up on a spam list.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:27 PM
KGC:
Do I have anything to worry about with these so-called "off line communications?"
Posted by: warren
not with pogo ..
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 4:28 PM
warren
http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/
{8>{)
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 7, 2008 4:28 PM
Looks like Julie Mason is in the tank for Hillary and she's on MSNBC. Of course this is based purely on speculation but she is certainly not part of the Obama love fest.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:28 PM
Hillary Live On MSNBC
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 4:29 PM
No pics.
Trust me, I'm good looking.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:30 PM
I'm off to bed... goodnight.
Posted by: EuroTom
| February 7, 2008 4:31 PM
no, warren, not coming on to you - Mrs. Pogo wouldn't approve. It's certainly not illegal to put up an e-mail address, but we spell the e-mail addresses out to avoid having them picked up by spammers - a good practice BTW no matter what non secure site you're on. No, lawyers are just few and far between here, and when I run across one I sort of try and network - collegiality and all that. (Notice - I didn't ask for a pic). LOL
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 4:31 PM
The Tweety Effect Lives! Women's Group Using Chris Matthews' Buffoonery As Fundraising Tool For Hillary
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Jamie- You better RSVP for Key Arena tomorrow. It gonna be a good one. :-)
Posted by: Rezdog
| February 7, 2008 4:38 PM
Hillary was not at her best today. Obama seemed very tired yesterday. This compressed primary schedule is really taking it's toll on all the candidates.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:39 PM
GORDO:
Despite some heated insensitive remarks, for which he apologized for, Chris Matthews is one of the top political analysts going.
He even has a Sunday show...even if its only a half hour.
Demonizing him does Clinton no favors.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Pogo - no offense and give my regards to Mrs. Pogo.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:41 PM
I think Ohioans would like to see debates in this state.
Do you think Obama can turn them down without looking like his is afraid? Or- without that choice being used against him?
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15241046/detail.html
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 4:41 PM
I think one debate in Ohio makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:43 PM
Gordo it's a bad tact to take scapegoating anyone one person or org. It makes a campaign look desperate.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:45 PM
Debates offer free TV coverage, maybe that's why HRC wants so many.
Financially they are a bargain.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Obama can certainly turn down the debates. Even Wolf on CNN said since when does a frontrunner ask for debates.
Although people will of course try to use it against them but it is just another example of the Clinton campaign attempting to change the rules to suit them.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:46 PM
Matthews is one of the top political analysts going.
warren
I could not disagree more. Even when he doesn't have a slobbering man crush, he is very shallow.
He rarely has an original thought and never follows through on questions, And he has a center right bias.
His time in the Peace Corp etc was his rebellion and now he is at home as a Bob Corker Republican.
Hardball that's a joke -more like nerfball or tball or some other game when you don't keep score.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 4:47 PM
Obama has agreed to do one debate over the next 6 weeks. There is no advantage to him to partake in more than that. Obama is better on the stump then he is at debates. A debate takes him away from the campaign for too long a time without much payoff for him.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:49 PM
Personally I prefer to see the candidates unscripted, as in debates, (okay less scripted) -you never know what you might learn about them.
Keeps this whole process more fresh.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 4:49 PM
I agree that conventional wisdom would have him turning down the debates. But I think he will change his mind,.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 4:50 PM
unlikely_burrito: I suspect about half of the voters would view it as being pragmatic while another about half would view it as dodging. Those folks don't really matter though since they have already made a decision on who they will support.
I don't think it would look good for Obama with the undecided folks but it probably wouldn't be enough to sway many voters. However if he does agree to a debate and doesn't do well or does poorly that could have a real negative effect.
Posted by: ran | February 7, 2008 4:52 PM
Wolf just said that Obama has agreed to two debates, one in Ohio..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 4:53 PM
If wolf's report is correct 2 is more than ample.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 4:55 PM
Someone should ask Obama how often he would like to debate McCain?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 4:56 PM
I would love to see a few more 1 on 1 debates. Keep the candidates busy with the issues, keep their constituency informed and practice for upcoming debates with McCain.
Posted by: ran | February 7, 2008 4:57 PM
I think HRC wants the debates because Barack gets bigger crowds than her.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:57 PM
I think McCain would be horrible against either Democratic candidate in debates.
The Democrats are smart and articulate..Advantage Democrats..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 4:59 PM
KGC:
I prefer Charlie Rose myself - but Matthews lives and breathes politics. If you discount his opinion you are missing a lot.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 4:59 PM
Ohio is in the pits financially. I think that Ohioans are hopeful these debates will happen for the revenue produced by them.
Ohio would like some of the political spotlight.......with its 141 delegates.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 4:59 PM
McCain is one scary dude in debates, they better make sure he is not packing any heat.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:01 PM
Tweety's amusing and gets good guests.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:01 PM
warren, no offense taken.
Matthews' problem is that he is in deep hate mode for all thinkgs Clinton, and has been for months. I hear he's less biased on his Sunday show, shich I have watched about twice, but Hardball just gives him a form to attack Bill and Hillary, which he does regularly. I watch occasionally, but have cut back and tend to watch CNN during that hour anymore. Biggest problem with him is his refusal to let guests finish a sentence or explain a comment.
I guess on debates, if a frontrunner thought they made him or her look better against their competition, they would ask for them. Hillary does, Obama doesn't. Best I can tell, neither is the frontrunner at this point, so either can ask for them and either can accept or decline. Of course declining will be used against Obama by the Clinton campaign - this is presidential politics, not a friendly game of penny-ante poker - and if Obama's campaign feels thy'll be hurt less by dealing with the fallout from the denial than by the debates, they'll keep refusing to participate. My question becomes why not, although I've heard the Obama campaign's answers to that question, so I don't expect to see the debates occur. Our loss.
Well, all - off to get the kid, basketball, the routine.later.
Posted by: pogo
| February 7, 2008 5:02 PM
I agree there should be some more debates - so we can hold these candidates up against McCain if we were not already.
But too many debates is not in the Democrats' interest.
More debates give BOTH candidates opportunities to make mistakes that can be used against either in the general.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Barack may get bigger crowds but Hillary gets more delegates and more votes.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Craig, you should do the videos more often. Also, the shirt (or was it your bathrobe?) you have on in the current one is very Kung Fu Master. Love it.
Posted by: Julia | February 7, 2008 5:04 PM
without debates - the late shows will suffer
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:05 PM
actually wrong again OD, they both have received pretty much the same amount of votes so far and the delegate count really is too close to call for any side. The one thing we are certain of is that Barack is raising a lot more money.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:05 PM
KGC:
Obama should do fine in the debates against McCain. He is not the same type of trickster as Hillary - you saw how he came off badly attacking Romney with some past quote. Plus, Obama will draw such a contrast on stage with McCain - he won't have to say much.
And aren't you Hillary people always telling me that Barack is all talk!
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:06 PM
"More debates give BOTH candidates opportunities to make mistakes that can be used against either in the general"
That's a good point. But both candidates have demonstrated they can debate without rancor. They can have issue focused debates.
I think the choice of moderator is important. I think Senator Clinton made a mistake in agreeing to the Fox debate after the boycott. They should just include nbc in the boycott.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 5:06 PM
Warren,
Not to pile on you or Chris Matthews, but I'm with KGC on this one. If Chris is among the best analysts going, we have a greater dearth of good analysts than qualified candidates.
I think he was pretty good as a columnist, way back when, but find he has very little credibility in his current role. He's a little better on his weekend show, but his biases tend to creep in there too.
I read what I guess was a transcript of his recent apologia after saying Hillary was only a candidate because her husband got caught fooling around, and found his excuse of shooting from the hip to be a monumental cop-out. He said what he believed, and he got called on it.
The one thing that might make Matthews look good to viewers is his position in the lineup before and after Tucker Carlson.
Posted by: EdVB
| February 7, 2008 5:06 PM
warren -------
There is much, much more to the Matthews "story". He is not just a political analyst. I can't say more. (It's part of the problem.)
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 5:08 PM
Brian..I will respond to your post since it deals with facts.
Votes- "pretty much the same" translates to Hillary has move votes than Obama..
Delegate Count "too close to call" translates to Hillary has more delegates than Obama..
Have a nice day Brian.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:12 PM
Interesting political demographic broken down for any state
example below OHIO: unemployed , polluted, mostly white, old
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/state.php?state=OH
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:12 PM
The Mathews "story", oh brother.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:12 PM
Pogo:
I do not think Matthew's comments about Hillary are based on a hatred of all things Clinton. I think he call's it like he see's it - but that is not to say he does not take sides.
I think you just bristle at any negative criticism of Hillary Clinton - as a candidate NOT as a person - and choose to dismiss it and even change the channel.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:13 PM
warren
I am sure Obama would be happy to debate McCain every day of the week so why not Clinton.
One thing to think about without debates and with the Republican side settled the media will focus on Obama in an uncontrolled way. They might be better off having the debates and debates as the focus.
How many times can they write about his stump speech.? I was with Obama supporters on election night and even they were saying --another speech please.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 7, 2008 5:13 PM
OD I'm impressed with the caliber of your rebuttal.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:15 PM
unlikely_burrito:
I am sure Ohioans will appreciate your description of them:
"unemployed , polluted, mostly white, old"
I guess your point it that this is made for Clinton.
Well Obama is enlisting Americans who are ready for a change in Washington - and they live all over the country.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:17 PM
$$$$$Money is very important in political races. 35,000 people contributed to Hillary in the last day. I am one of them..But, money isn't the most important thing. Just ask President Romney about that.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:17 PM
I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks. You people are certainly different. I love you guys and Crawford too.
Reading the posts I've come up with personality matches with some cable personalities. Not necessarily their views, but more conversational style.
Jamie - Laura Ingriam
Warren - Alan Colmes
GORDO - Steve Ducey
EuroTom - Bill O'Reilly
LardassLiberal - Keith Oberman
LushisLinda - E.D. Hill
pogo - Dan Abrams
Brian in NYC - Jack Cafferty
spike - Wolf Blitzer
Oregon Democrat - Glen Beck
Katherine Graham Cracker - Ann Coulter
Please keep it up. I love reading these posts!
Posted by: cable anne | February 7, 2008 5:18 PM
Thank you Brian.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:19 PM
Weekly debates take to much time away from campaign trail KC, aint going to happen. You know it just as well I do, but spin away if you like.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:19 PM
KGC:
Obama has handled the media just fine during this campaign. And I would be more afraid of attacks from Bill Clinton than those from McCain. If Obama could survive that - he should be good in the general election campaign.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:20 PM
"Brian in NYC - Jack Cafferty"
Haha that's cool, Jack reminds me a lot both physically and in temperament to my dad.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:21 PM
No kidding about the stump speeches getting stale. That is a huge problem when your message pretty simple to begin with.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:21 PM
obama's speeches are wearing kid of thin'' qoute'' a house divded cannot stand''' i guess they have plagarized all the1960;s speeches '''' now 1860;s
Posted by: larry | February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Live debates are a way for Hillary to get past the anti-Hillary "Gatekeepers" in the MSM. No editing!
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Ohians aren't bad. Well , just the ones who live in Columbus are. LOL!
Posted by: Corey
| February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Matthews LOVES McCain. Its funny seeing him pretending to be objective.
Posted by: nash
| February 7, 2008 5:23 PM
burrito the stump speeches grow stale to us because we've seen them hundred of times by now. We are a small minority.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:24 PM
Warren
I took that info off the demographics in the link. It shows how each state compares to the rest of the United States. If you look under those categories you will find the data to back up the post.
So sorry any Ohioans here, if the truth hurts.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:24 PM
Cable Ann:
I appreciate the sentiment but reject the comparison to Alan Colmes. That guy is a Fox News stereotype of a progressive Democrat. A bleeding heart liberal who does not have a clue, much less a backbone.
He is used as a flak to enable conseratives to make their arguments sound good.
(I hope I used the term flak correctly...)
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:24 PM
All I know about Ohio is that there are four dead there.
Posted by: nash
| February 7, 2008 5:25 PM
unlikely_burrito:
It is not enough to just have some facts that support your words - style matters.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:27 PM
Michael Moore trashes HRC...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/moore-i-am-morally-proh_n_85481.html
Posted by: nash
| February 7, 2008 5:27 PM
Warren ,
No doubt, your style is exquisite.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:29 PM
Warren,
Sorry. I love Alan Colmes. He seems like a decent reasonable man.
Oh, and I forgot that nash guy (I assume he's a guy). I think he's Jon Stewart.
Posted by: cable anne | February 7, 2008 5:29 PM
Nash:
Are you serious:
"Matthews LOVES McCain."
Anyone who knows Matthews' stance on the war would disagree.
But you may have been sarcastic. This is a tough room.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:30 PM
Alan Colmes big time enabler!
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:31 PM
Cable Ann:
He does - just trying to make a point and I do not watch him often.
Although I did used to listen to Hannity on the radio during the build up to the Iraq War. That guy had a huge part in building up the fear that led to the Bush Doctrine.
Trust me, I was not listening because I agreed with him.
Posted by: warren | February 7, 2008 5:33 PM
Thanks cable ann. I like Jon, but I'm MUCH better looking. Think of a young Brad Pitt.
Posted by: nash
| February 7, 2008 5:33 PM
Wolf confirmed that two debates have been agreed to including the CNN sponsored Ohio debate..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:35 PM
Brian ---------
The Matthews "story" is sinister!
Posted by: GORDO | February 7, 2008 5:35 PM
Oh please gordo, either post it or stop talking about.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:38 PM
Brian: Matthews thinks McCain is a "regular guy."
He also has said MANY times that Dems can't relate to blue collar voters (Reagan Democrats). We're just a bunch of Chablis-sipping elitists, and that's why we always lose.
Have some more Chablis, and try the smoke Gouda.
Posted by: nash
| February 7, 2008 5:38 PM
Don't get your point nash? I said he amuses me, I didn't say I agree with him on much.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 7, 2008 5:39 PM
Alan Colmes is the kind of person who comes accross better when his views are read. Put a decent, respectful guy next to a bully like Hannity..you have a problem.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | February 7, 2008 5:39 PM
Thanks, OD
2 debates in 24 days
Did he say were they were going to be? I recall one in Columbus?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 7, 2008 5:39 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nati