How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 pipTalk Lounge
 Obama or Clinton   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Obama or Clinton (Very curious what you think either one's chance might be at becoming President?)

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 01-23-2003
Posts 7179
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass


25 posted 02-12-2007 09:58 AM       View Profile for Ratleader   Email Ratleader   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ratleader's Home Page   View IP for Ratleader

I think it would be a shame if either were elected.

I mean, it would shame America, to show the world that was the best we could do. Crooked lawyer and would-be socialist Commissar, or easy-talking smoothie who's all charisma and no experience.

That's a mighty poor choice, for a country whose very way of life is under attack.

~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


26 posted 02-12-2007 07:10 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Who would you suggest Ed?
Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 01-23-2003
Posts 7179
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass


27 posted 02-12-2007 07:47 PM       View Profile for Ratleader   Email Ratleader   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ratleader's Home Page   View IP for Ratleader

Sorry, I won't bite that cheese....the topic asked for people's thoughts, and those are my thoughts. I lived in Arkansas when the Clintons were running the place, and I was appalled at them even then.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seems mild and inoffensive, and smart enough to learn the ropes in time....but really, if he weren't black, would anybody be paying him the slightest bit of attention? Hardly. There are plenty of rookies in Congress, and we don't hear much about any of them, except him.

I will say though, that none of the Republican candidates stirs my imagination either. We may be doomed to have a second-rate president this time around.

~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________

Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 01-23-2003
Posts 7179
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass


28 posted 02-12-2007 08:54 PM       View Profile for Ratleader   Email Ratleader   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ratleader's Home Page   View IP for Ratleader

"""
"...wondering if Hilary gets in how many will move up to Canada."

You mean like all those Hollywood types who were goig to leave the country 6 years ago if Bush won? Well, we're still waiting (and wishing in some cases) for them to keep their promise.
"""

If she wins, they won't have to move. She'll bring the least desirable aspects of Canada to them!

~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


29 posted 02-13-2007 09:20 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Actually I am really curious who Americans would suggest to run, so I can learn more about them in case they do decide to throw their hats in the ring.  Seems every day someone new pops into the news.

Like I said earlier, I just hope that the voters focus on the issues, and who would be best to run the country right now, and not necessarily the party running.  
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


30 posted 02-14-2007 09:35 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

quote:
Like I said earlier, I just hope that the voters focus on the issues, and who would be best to run the country right now, and not necessarily the party running.

I too as well as at least many if not most of us. Sadly, in the end it ain't likely to happen. But we can still hope.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


31 posted 02-15-2007 01:38 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I haven't been keeping track.  All I know is Hillary scares me. I don't hate her, but she scary.  don't cross that woman O-:... Other than that I am clueless.  

I know I like McCain
I like guillianni
But I haven't checked platforms yet.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 01-23-2003
Posts 7179
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass


32 posted 02-15-2007 09:40 AM       View Profile for Ratleader   Email Ratleader   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ratleader's Home Page   View IP for Ratleader

If you want to know why she scares you, look up her involvement at the Rose law firm. She'd have gone to jail with the rest of them, most likely, except that her billing records magically disappeared, so she couldn't be prosecuted. Then, two days after the statute of limitations expired, Poof!  there they were on the desk in her White House quarters.

Then there's her role in Whitewater, the futures trading scandal where she made something like fifty times as much as even the most experienced trader expects to make, while Bill was doing favors for the guy who was her "broker," the health care debacle she was in charge of, where she made a bundle by having her supposedly-blind trust short-sell a load of medical company stocks just before announcing the plan that would have had the government effectively nationalizing the entire health care industry, and so on, ad nauseum.....

Like I said up there somewhere, crooked lawyer to the core, scary-crooked. Somehow she gets a pass on all of that, and I do have some notions as to why, but I'll save that for another time.

~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


33 posted 02-25-2007 11:37 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Whew!  Very scary tonight on the Academy Awards, for a second there I thought Al Gore was actually going to announce he was running for President   For what it is worth he is so very highly regarded here in Canada for his presentation on global warming.  He is adding more shows, as he was sold out to standing room only crowds here.  I do have to say, he is absolutely an incredible ambassador from the US in this regard, and I can't tell you how I respected him at his very worthwhile presentation.  It truly opened my eyes.
Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 01-23-2003
Posts 7179
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass


34 posted 02-28-2007 04:03 PM       View Profile for Ratleader   Email Ratleader   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ratleader's Home Page   View IP for Ratleader

I don’t believe in “government by stampede.”

A guy named Benito something-or-other tried that in Italy, and it didn’t work all that well, though for a while the trains did run on time. A while later there weren’t any trains at all, and that’s the part that worries me. I got a direct dose of Al Gore several years ago, when he spoke at my church – it’s the big glass one with all the TV coverage, and he timed his appearance to avoid church-and-state campaign issues by making it just before he announced the candidacy that eventually ended with his becoming Vice President, under the vice President.

That day I got to listen while he stood there in my church, bearing false witness. He was saying things that even as a person who wasn’t particularly active politically, I knew to be directly false. He’s still telling some of those same lies today, and they’ve been repeated often enough that the gullible have started to accept them as truth. I have not.

The Global Warming industry is loudly proclaiming that the scientific debate is over, and Mr. Gore is trying to position himself as a leader in that effort. The fact is, that no debate has taken place, because one side of it deals with facts as they exist, and tries to understand what, if anything is happening, while the other side cherry-picks data to support a pre-defined position, ignoring the rest and making personal attacks to try and discredit anyone who tries to bring them up, rather than addressing the data.

Under those circumstances no conversation is possible, let alone a meaningful scientific debate. The solutions that seem to fit so well with the hand-picked “evidence” that the Global Warming believers present, always seem to match perfectly with their own political goals – to hurt the United States, and to impose a particularly fascistic brand of socialism, wherever they can. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

Now we’re told we simply must adopt anyway, a “treaty” that was turned down by a 100% vote of our Congress, and which we know was intentionally designed to hurt America in the first place. We’re supposed to do that at a time when a country (China) that is openly hostile to us and whose economy is growing at five times the rate of our own, is polluting on a scale that is mind-boggling. Worse, the “treaty” doesn’t require anything at all, of that country -- as if the Chinese would do anything but thumb their noses, if it did.

Now I get to introduce a new number into the non-debate. What’s being proposed now would damage our economy most of all, but the total harm to the world’s economy would be more than half a quadrillion dollars! That’s right; the estimates I’ve seen are around 525 trillion-not-billion, for the damage that would be done. What would we get for doing that to ourselves? Even the environmental extremists admit, the result would be so small as to be meaningless. If anything at all, it would be so deep within the margin of error we would have in measuring it, that even talking about it is pointless.

Mr. Gore is a leader all right. He’s a leader in something that is a power-grab on a scale this world hasn’t seen before, based on a scientific premise that is tenuous at best and very probably false, supported mainly by propaganda and political manipulation, and destined to do so much damage that we need a new number to describe it.

That from a guy who got a C and a D, in the only two environmental science classes he ever took.

No, not everybody down here in the American temperate zone respects him…and I’m one of the ones who doesn’t.


~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________

[This message has been edited by Ratleader (02-28-2007 04:45 PM).]

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


35 posted 02-28-2007 05:03 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Gore is one of the most educated and knowledgeable candidates we've ever had (in my lifetime.)
But the media and public seem to prefer some 'American Idol' image and perhaps can't be bothered with intelligence or facts.
Global warming is a FACT, not a theory. Proof and evidence of it is worldwide, and only those with blinders on suggest otherwise. What is often in dispute is what the cause is, yet the facts tend to prove that humans have accelerated what would have eventually happened...but probably not 'naturally' in our lifetime.
I'd cast my vote with NO regrets for Al Gore, but I doubt he will run again. It's  shame that this country will probably blow itself apart politically and socially long before the masses ever wake up sufficiently.
Meanwhile, the entire planet is running out of time.
Go smell the roses while they still bloom. Gather wildflowers, watch honeybees at work pollinating while they still exist. Enjoy  sunrises and sunsets, and pray that humans might still enjoy them 100 years from now.
The only one I see addressing national and international issues intelligently is Al Gore.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 02-28-2007 08:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, there certainly is global warming. There has been since the beginning of time and the odds say there will be until the end of time. So? Scientific reports state that humans comprise 4% of the greenhouse emissions that attack the ozone layer, the rest coming from trees, plants and natural resources of the planet. Doesn't anyone here see the irony of Al Gore standing at the Oscars preaching conservation? I think it's hilarious. We have Al Gore, arriving in his private jet and limousine being applauded by a hall filled with movie stars, also having arrived in limousines and planes, all cheering for words advocating energy conservation. You should be laughing your patooties off! That's comedy routine material. His words would carry a litttle more sincerity if he, and the stars that night who gave him an ovation, actually practiced what they preach but right now he's too busy trying to defend himself against the power company in his state who released figures indicating that he uses, in his 20 room mansion, more energy per month than 20 average families use in a year. Is he entitled to? Of course. It's his house and his money - but please don't stand up there and tell America that THEY should be cutting back on energy usage while you are not. If he were sincere in his concern about global warming and energy usage, he would back it up by tailoring his lifestyle to do his part. His "global warming" platform is a schtick, nothing more. If that gets you to vote for him, then his plan is working. Hopefully enough people will not be fooled so easily.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


37 posted 02-28-2007 10:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.chieftain.com/editorial/1172653200/3

Al Gore’s head had barely hit the pillow Tuesday morning after the former vice president won an Academy Award when the Internet spread news of energy use at his 10,000-square-foot family home in Tennessee.

The "green" politician, whose Oscar was presented for his documentary film on global warming and environmental responsibility, is an energy hog.

According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, over the past two years the Gore family mansion in Nashville used about $1,000 worth of natural gas each month and about $1,200 worth of electricity each month Ñ 20 times the national average.

The Gore property, which includes a 20-room, eight-bathroom main house and a guest house and swimming pool, is a power-consumption sponge, according to the family’s energy bills.

A spokesman for Gore, who didn’t dispute the figures compiled by the Tennessee Center, said the family is taking steps to reduce its power usage and is investing in "green power." But despite those efforts, the family’s electric bill actually increased after the release of his documentary film, which encourages Americans to reduce their energy consumption.

Use of electricity at the Gore estate averaged 16,200 kilowatt hours a month during 2005 and jumped to 18,400 during 2006 Ñ an increase of nearly 14 percent.

The U.S. Department of Energy says the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt hours in 2006, but the Gores used 221,000. They paid $29,268 for household energy in 2006.

During the Academy Awards ceremony Monday night, the show was heralded for being the first "green" awards program in Oscar history. But that didn’t prevent stars from arriving in gas-guzzling stretch limos, flying to California from around the world in private jets and burning hundreds of power-hungry spotlights and stage lights during the show Ñ while encouraging Americans to drive hybrid cars and to use low-wattage compact fluorescent bulbs in their lives.


Amen.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


38 posted 02-28-2007 11:47 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

I have a theory as to why his home consumes so much energy. Remember, Al Gor personally invented the internet a few years ago. I think its primary servers must be located in his basement. That much compute power would surely consume a whole lot of electricity.

If that theory proves false then there is still another, greener possibility. Maybe his private jets and fleet of limos and suburbans are all electrically powered. He could be plugging them all in at home every night for recharging. Now that's a very responsible thing to do.

Ok, that's as close as I could get to a self-gagging smilie.


Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


39 posted 03-01-2007 11:41 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

McCain now?  This is getting very interesting. Not to mention you can now catch your favorite candidate on YouTube.     ZD Net  I found this great site too, in case it may interest you about previous election years. American Museum of Moving Image
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 03-01-2007 05:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It really doesn't matter, Pete. Those who consider Gore a good guy who does little wrong aren't interested in even actual facts that might indicate otherwise. It's easier to just ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Maybe he DID arrive at the awards in a Yugo...who can say?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


41 posted 03-03-2007 01:12 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

There's a point I have to make here, based on what I urgently believe in my heart; in that this early election season is damaging democracy by making money, pollsters and pundits the only winners and the underdogs, politically incorrect and independent the losers.

There's two things that are especially detrimental about these election campaigns over a year in advance. Firstly, it's laying the gauntlet for a further centralization of power and a sort of cultural campaign oligarchy as I like to think of it, where the establishment favorites as presented in the 24/7 news media cycle stand like mighty alabaster walls to all the other aspiring candidates, where it would take much more than a pogo stick for the secondary candidates to even peek their heads over that wall so they can get noticed by the press and Americans who desire strongly to have all their options available to them.

Forgive me if I'm sounding especially blunt here, but there's no adjective I see more fitting to this whole circus than "vanity". It seems the Clinton and Obama campaigns are in some ways more interested in competing for the campaign donation pool in Hollywood, and the McCain and Romney campaigns are more interested in dishing out the contributions from the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons, than getting to heart with everyday Americans and talking about the issues openly. I'm not attacking Obama and every candidate who has already launched their campaigns personally, but I AM attacking their naivety in recognizing what the early election season is REALLY about.

Which leads into my second point on what makes this so dangerous, and that is that it's designed as a red herring from talking about the current issues. The 24/7 media cycle was already beginning to talk about the 2008 campaign BEFORE the 2006 mid-term elections occurred, and now whenever I blitz by "Hardball" for instance every now and then, I see three-quarters of the program every day talking about the 2008 presidential campaign, with scant mentionings of issues currently being debated in Congress such as VA funding, renewable energy and the Walter Reed hospital controversy. It's barely any better on most other television programs.

There's a book I highly recommend to everyone here, and that is "The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty" by Thomas E. Patterson. There's a chapter in there dedicated to how Americans surveyed say the long election season disheartens them and believe it's dangerous to democracy.

That's also precisely why many states are being pressured to move up their primary dates into January and February of next year. You have the Iowa Caucus scheduled for January 14th, the Nevada Caucus January 19th, the New Hampshire Primary January 22nd and the South Carolina Primary January 29th as has been the case for decades, yet you also have virtually every other state wrestling for a primary the week following the South Carolina primary for "Super Tuesday", and Super Tuesday is an absolutely cynical and dangerous concept in that in every state where primaries are held later, you have citizens left feeling as though their vote is worthless, that the nomination has already been decided, and because of that many voters stay home and don't participate in the primaries or the caucuses and won't do anything until the two party's conventions come around in the late summer. THAT'S what "Super Tuesday" does; keeping the secondary candidates from having the opportunity to come through and get heard down the stretch when the entire primary season only lasts three weeks rather than five to six months.

We have primaries for a purpose; to test our candidates. Barry Goldwater didn't secure the GOP nomination for president in 1964 until he beat his closest rival Nelson Rockefeller in the California primary that June. (and Goldwater lost in New Hampshire). Edward Muskie was the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination in 1972, yet growing opposition to the Vietnam war affected him, and finally his campaign collapsed in the New Hampshire primary when he cried. And Pat Buchanan in 1992 was heavily successful in the GOP New Hampshire primary, but didn't claim the party's nomination.

Can you imagine what could have happened if all these states had moved up their primary dates to February back then? Barry Goldwater would probably never have been the GOP nomination in 1964. The Democratic nomination could have been anyone in 1972. And Pat Buchanan could have very well pulled an upset in 1992, with those being just several examples.

Heck, Bill Clinton himself was behind in the Democratic primaries until making a comeback in the very end. Paul Tsongas had won New Hampshire, and would have gotten away with the nomination had all the primaries been lumped together as states are trying to do now.

I think it's frightening that since 1984, the candidate who has raised the most money prior to the opening primaries and caucuses has won every single nominating race. I remain optimistic that the 24/7 media cycle is underestimating the American public and they desire to see what the underdogs have to say, but as Jim Morrison said, "Whoever controls the media controls the mind." and they have literally decided virtually every party nomination for the past two decades.

I never thought I'd say this, but I absolutely agree with Newt Gingrich on something, where he said the early election campaign is "stupid" and says he won't make his decision about running until mid-to-late summer. Though I'd never vote for him because I have too many disagreements with him, I applaud him for having the courage to speak that truth, and wish other candidates could have the integrity to begin their campaigns around the time they usually begin.

Last week we saw Tom Vilsack collapse because of insufficient funds, NOT because of Democratic Party unity. And believe me, this will NOT be the first casualty in this early election campaign season, where we're bound to see at least half a dozen more candidates collapse by July or so, including all but certainly Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Christopher Dodd and George Pataki.

This stategy is a colossal victory for corporate fundraisers and the 800-pound gorillas of politics, and a defeat to democracy. Yet, John McCain and Hillary Clinton can breathe easily that they are luckily among that razor-thin former.

Again, I'm sorry if I sounded forced and tough here, but I believe we're making a huge mistake here that we'll live to regret later I believe, and although I encourage everyone to discuss all the candidates 110%, I also believe there are so many urgent issues that we must presently deal with now well before the 2008 election season, and if we're just going to leap right into the next election season every time one election season is over, then we're just never going to engage and resolve these issues in a cooperative fashion in earnest because, whether nostalgically or pensively, our sights are always set on the horizon line rather than the earth itself.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


42 posted 03-03-2007 12:10 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

But Hillary has been running for 6 years, Obama for over 2 and McCain probably since shortly after leaving Vietnam.

And the media is certainly not blameless. To the near exclusion of other important events, the only thing to interrupt the monotonous dinn that is coverage of politicians running for president has been "Where will Anna Nicole be buried and Where will Britney go for rehab." It is getting absolutely sickening. I think I'll just switch over to the Food Channel instead.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


43 posted 03-03-2007 03:42 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I usually just switch over to Cartoon Network or "Gardening With Ciscoe" myself! (giggles)

There's a serious fact to note out in addition here, and that is according to the Tyndall Report, in one measure of news interest, campaign stories have consumed 95 minutes of attention this year through Feb. 27 on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts; more time than in the comparable periods for the previous four presidential election cycles combined. In comparison, presidential politics in January and February of 1991 only got less than a minute of run-time on all three newscasts then, according to the same study.

Bob Schieffer couldn't say it better I believe: "It used to be that campaigning was the interval between governing. Now governing is the interval between campaigning."

Compare those above results with coverage of the Darfur genocide, for example. Though some newspapers have done a decent job covering the crisis, particularly Christianity Today and Emily Wax of the Washington Post.......yet with television it's virtually absent there. Throughout all of 2006 in fact, according to the Tyndall Report again, ABC News had a total of 18 minutes of the Darfur genocide in its nightly newscasts all last year. NBC was even more silent at only 5 minutes of coverage all last year, and CBS 3 minutes: which putting into perspective means about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths there. In contrast, Martha Stewart received 130 minutes of coverage by the three networks following coverage of her scandal and house arrest.

This early election season is much more about money than anything else, period, and if the media is following the election season now as though the Democratic and Republican conventions have just wrapped up, a wave of fatigue is bound to set through that will only hurt the democratic process even more.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


44 posted 03-07-2007 02:22 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

*
Boston Globe: March 6, 2007

States may force megaprimary, winnow the 2008 field early

19 states look to have early say in '08 race

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff  |  March 6, 2007



WASHINGTON -- States with more than half the nation's population are zeroing in on Feb. 5 next year to stage their presidential primaries, creating a single day that could determine the major party nominees at a historically early point in the process.

At least 19 states have moved or are considering moving their primaries to the first Tuesday in February -- contests that would follow earlier ones in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. If only the 10 largest of the 19 states move their primaries to Feb. 5, more than half the American population will have a chance to go to the polls on the same day, creating a one-day election that would become the prime focus of the campaign.

The trend would mark the biggest change in the presidential nominating process in decades. It would mean that presidential candidates would need to raise massive amounts of money -- at least $100 million before the first vote is cast, according to analysts in both parties -- and may see their chances of success evaporate at a stage when the contenders in past presidential contests were still introducing themselves to American voters.


"It's insane. It's going to be a de facto national primary," said Rich Bond , a GOP consultant and former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It's going to mean that the candidates with the highest name recognition and the most cash on hand are going to have a huge advantage over the rest of the field."

Both political parties are trying to keep the states from front loading the primary schedule. Republicans in 2004 approved rules to penalize states that hold primaries before Feb. 5 or after July 28, 2008. Democrats have both incentives and punishments to keep states in line.

But state legislatures don't want to be what California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger deemed an "afterthought" in the presidential campaigns, with their primaries held long after the nominees are determined for both parties.

"For the larger states, particularly California and Texas, the primary process has been pretty much over by the time they held their primaries -- it really has made them much less of a player," said Bruce Merrill , a pollster at Arizona State University. "Now, all of a sudden, other states are saying, 'Why shouldn't we get a piece of the action?' "

Political scientists said the revisions to the primary calendar would represent another sea change in electoral politics. National political conventions, which at one time were key to selection of the nominees, have been strictly ceremonial for three decades, with the nominees determined long before delegates gathered.

Campaigns became decreasingly competitive as states began clustering their primaries earlier in the process. Since 1988, a single nominee has emerged quickly after the "Super Tuesday" series of March primaries in the South, noted Dennis W. Johnson , professor of political management at George Washington University.

Speeding up the process even more will make it harder for second-tier candidates to make a successful run for the White House, Johnson said. "When you front load everything, it wipes away every chance for a dark horse or somebody who emerges after three or four months," Johnson said. "You have to have an extraordinary amount of money and an extraordinary amount of popularity" to attract so many supporters so quickly, he said.

Bill Clinton, for example, was virtually unknown outside his state of Arkansas at this stage in 1991, but slowly built momentum that carried him all the way to the White House.

Such a candidate would have a hard time trying to compete early in large states where television advertising is essential and expected, said John Zogby , a pollster in upstate New York. But Clinton's wife, Senator Hillary Clinton , is well-positioned to compete in the current campaign, because she is an adept fund-raiser and enjoys near-universal name recognition, political analysts said.

"It means ultimately the primaries are in 2007," Zogby said. "It's about fund-raising and scaring the bejesus out of as many candidates as you can." Even if a long-shot contender were to win an early contest in New Hampshire or Iowa, "You can't possibly raise enough money in a week or 10 days to take you through the final countdown" that could occur Feb. 5, he said.

The best chance for such a candidate would be to focus on a few prime targets, hoping that better-funded contenders divide the votes elsewhere. Such an outcome at least would allow the race to extend beyond Feb. 5, said Bill Carrick, a Democratic political consultant based in California.

Many candidates could be running in their home states on Feb. 5, which might diminish the chances of one contender running away with the nomination.

New York, which used to have its primary in April, is mulling a jump to Feb. 5, a move Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer said could boost the chances of two New Yorkers, Senator Clinton and Republican Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York . Illinois is eyeing the date as well, a switch that could help Senator Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.

North Carolina is considering legislation to move its primary to Feb. 5, a proposal that could help John Edwards, a former US senator from the Tarheel State. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee could benefit from his state's move from a May primary to Feb. 5. Kansas may also change its primary date, giving some hope to its native son, Senator Sam Brownback , who is trailing in polls for the GOP nomination. A possible Feb. 5 primary in New Mexico could do the same favor for the state's governor and Democratic presidential candidate, Bill Richardson .

Other states that have moved, or are considering moving, to Feb. 5 are literally all over the map: Arizona, Alabama, California, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and Delaware.

New Hampshire officials have bemoaned what they see as efforts to crowd their state's primary, diminishing its traditional role as a bellwether; Secretary of State William M. Gardner has said he will decide in the fall when to schedule the state's first-in-the-nation primary.

The Iowa caucuses will precede the New Hampshire primary, and South Carolina's primary will immediately follow it. Democratic caucuses in Nevada are currently scheduled between Iowa and New Hampshire. After those four contests will come Feb. 5, a possible juggernaut.

While some analysts believe that well-funded candidates can now afford to suffer setbacks in the early states while marshaling their superior resources for Feb. 5, Carrick , for one, said the glut of primaries could actually heighten the importance of the early contests.

"The only way you're going to generate any momentum is in those first states," he said. "Iowa and New Hampshire have become even bigger deals."


*

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
A Romantic Heart
Member Ascendant
since 09-03-99
Posts 5497
Forever In Your Heart


45 posted 03-07-2007 09:47 AM       View Profile for A Romantic Heart   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for A Romantic Heart

JOHN McCAIN Has my vote!

J. M. Barrie, the playwright, may have said it best when he wrote, “God gave us memories so that we might have roses in December.”
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


46 posted 03-08-2007 09:59 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

"Actually I am really curious who Americans would suggest to run".

I'd vote for Martha Stewart before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton, just for the headlines. Clinton Gets Cuisinarted!

I'd vote for Oprah Winfrey before I'd vote for Martha Stewart. Martha Gets Harpo'd

I'd vote for Al Gore before I'd vote for Oprah. Oprah Gets Inconvenienced!

(Joking)

Okay, here's the gist of what's "run" through my mind with regards to the p-c's.

I'd vote for Obama before Gore. Which surprises me, because I like Gore, not because of his star status of late, or the fact that he is a home boy. His home is under attack and Global Warming is hard to address in high-powered limelight. While all of these things are taken into account, I'm takin' a closer look at Obama.

He's in the democratic boat for the vote, but  there's a hole: ""Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to ... help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share that vision," Obama said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200668.html

With what? So while I'm listening to him, I'm checking out Giuliani.

Not much there in the list of creds, and I'm paying as much attention to pre as I am post Sept. 11th. His methodology before and after leaves me with some heavy questions about bullies, and how major cities are stereotyped into needing that type of control, and how they're targeted by the same. What about America as a whole?

McCain, I liked him. I really did. I really thought, Wow! This man has credentials. But something in his list of creds caught my eye. Something that just doesn't sit right with me.

He's a member of the Alfalfa Club.

http://www.nndb.com/org/692/000051539/

there are several other well known names on the list.

So be it. It's a free country, but he'll not get my vote.


  
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


47 posted 03-16-2007 11:25 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Kit sent this to me and it's great a President can laugh at himself - what the heck!  
Google Whitehouse Correspondence Dinner  
This is about 10 mins. long so grab a coffee and enjoy!
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


48 posted 02-13-2008 04:13 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

I liked him back in Dec. 2006, and have to tell you I am liking this man a lot more as time goes on.  This is the most interesting election I have witnessed that is for sure!  I for one have been paying attention to the results as they come in this time.  

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


49 posted 06-04-2008 02:10 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

I always could tell a good man when I saw one     I am very excited about this election, and have not been this interested in the elections in the USA for years.  Well let's see where this goes after today shall we?  You all know who I bet my money on in 2006, and nothing has changed.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> pipTalk Lounge >> Obama or Clinton   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors