navwin » Discussion » pipTalk Lounge » Obama or Clinton (Very curious what you think either one's chance might be at becoming President?)
pipTalk Lounge
Post A Reply Post New Topic Obama or Clinton (Very curious what you think either one's chance might be at becoming President?) Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada

0 posted 2006-12-12 09:22 PM


I have to tell you I absolutely love Senator Barack Obama, and in fact, Hillary Clinton is no slouch either.  However, I am wondering is America ready to vote in a woman, or an African American President?

I have followed Senator's Obama's career, and I have to tell you I am darn excited about the possibility of seeing him get elected.  

© Copyright 2006 Mysteria 1997 - All Rights Reserved
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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
1 posted 2006-12-13 12:11 PM


I found this article sort of interesting.  It's one perspective I guess that could be considered too.

Concord Monitor

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
2 posted 2006-12-13 03:12 PM


Well, it's not hard to follow his career, since he has only been in Congress since 2004. He seems  to be an able congressman. Can that convert into an able President? Who can say?

Hillary? I don't see it. Not only don't the republicans like her, many Democrats don't like her, either. She does not give one the impression that she can be trusted. Combine that with a personality matched only by Vlad the Impaler and I don't see her getting the nod.

Hillary would insure  a Republican victory. Obama would make it a race.

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
3 posted 2006-12-14 02:03 AM


Thank you Michael, nice to know your thoughts on the subject.  I sure do hope he does advance in the system down there though, I really happen to like that guy even though he is green.  Who knows maybe next time he may still be around?

I agree with you on Hillary

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
4 posted 2006-12-16 02:59 PM




Barack Obama definitely has a great shot I believe.

He has the charisma that has attracted thousands to his speeches nationally, from his personal reflections on growing up with his Kenyan father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and his Wichita, Kansas mother Ann Durham, and forming an image of his father from stories told to him by his mother and grandparents, to his growing up internationally in Jakarta, to learning of the importance of community through his educational experiences helping with housing projects on Chicago's South Side that is reminiscent of something out of "Slim's Table", to reflecting on the realities of race in America and being serious and conscious of them without being bitter either.

He is a Democrat who holds true to what he believes in in sentimental terms without being overtly partisan and willing to seek a middle ground between what's often described as reactionary conservatism and idealistic liberalism. This is something which I believe most Americans have always desired, but feel is especially urgent now in their blood and bones, following two tumultuous sea changes resulting from an incompetent, partisan Congress until 1994 led by the Democrats to another incompetent, partisan Congress until 2006 led by the GOP.

And finally, his appeal is broad and not only intrigues Democrats; it intrigues moderates, independents and social conservatives as well. Obama is a senator who understands the value of faith and family, who understands we have a duty to reach out in a humanitarian manner to the less-fortunate in the world, like he has done for Africa through his frequent visits there, speaking of the importance of HIV testing, stopping ethnic-based politics and the importance of a diverse education, and leading the humanitarian efforts for Darfur with Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Richard Durbin (D-IL).

The reason to be skeptical of Obama is obvious; he remains a fledgling experience-wise in national politics. But in any case you have to admire his idealism and "audacity of hope", and then again, many presidents of recent times here have had limited experience upon getting elected as well, including Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

*

Hillary Clinton on the other hand, I highly doubt she can win. Like I said in The Alley thread, she epitomizes the personality of a political calculator more than anything to much of the public, and whereas with many candidates, while one can identify their political movements by their voting records, their movements are generally not immediate and more subtle, whereas with both Clinton and McCain, every movement they make is obvious, and thus feels so artificial, so opportunistic.

45% said in one poll there's "no chance" they'd vote for Hillary, almost half the panel, and the "undecided" column in public approval towards Hillary Clinton is in the single-digits, meaning she has barely any opportunity to re-invent herself.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa

ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396
Iowa, USA
5 posted 2006-12-22 04:52 PM


The first thing that I find interesting and absolutly wonderful is that people are debating rather a man of mixed race (who looks black) or a woman will gain the nomination. This shows forward thinking in American politics.

I don't think that Hillary will have much chance because she is so steeped in Washington politics and having already spent 8 years in the White House brings plenty of baggage to the table.

Obama is a ferocious public speaker. He is calm and believable, BUT he has no clear platform as of yet.

I think that whoever can split the moderate thinking most successfully will win because Republicans are fed up with what is happening. I don't think the GOP is going to bring anyone to the table that will convince the the GOP voters they can rebound the party. It's time for something new. Question: if you are registered republican can you vote Democrat? Keeping my options open.

cs

kaila
Junior Member
since 2006-12-24
Posts 37
PA
6 posted 2006-12-27 11:03 PM


I have seen nothing substantive from Obama; I would probably vote for Hillary if she were the choice against almost any Republican, but I do not think that enough people support her.

I keep hoping that someone new moves to the front of the Democratic party.



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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
7 posted 2007-02-06 12:08 PM


Wow and now this morning I read Rudi Giuliani is now in the running...the mix thickens.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

8 posted 2007-02-06 03:08 PM


I would vote for Rudi, for me, so far, he is a likely candidate, which I'm certainly going to research further.

I feel the issue shouldn't be should a woman or black man be president.  I really believe the best person should win, defined by experiences, beliefs and issues, and that this time, we should all, including myself, really, really study the issues and research each candidates policies. I don't believe we should vote for someone on one issue, of because I am a certain party so I need to vote for someone of the same??????

Hillary is a VERY intelligent woman, but...there is a lot about her that reaks, dictative....and they have caught her in lies regarding voting for the present war in Iraq.    

I also do not think it should be about which Party, but more so, the ability of the person running and how they stand on all issues, not just one issue....

thanks Sharon for this thread...very interesting.

[This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-07-2007 10:53 AM).]

Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612
Hurricane Alley
9 posted 2007-02-06 07:56 PM


I would never vote for Hillary. (it doesn't matter to me that she's a woman)


I would have to know a lot more about Obama's platform/politics before I'd commit to voting for him (it doesn't matter to me that he's black)

Rudy? Nope. I don't think he could handle the foreign policies. (I loved him in NY after 9/11 though)

Right now, it's anybody's race...

This time I think I'll toss a coin..

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
10 posted 2007-02-06 09:19 PM


Well I have to tell you were I an American citizen I wouldn't vote for Hilary either, and I would just love to see a woman in there, but not her.

I love Obama, but he may be too green, and you are right I am watching this one with great interest, wondering if Hilary gets in how many will move up to Canada.

Anyone's race now.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
11 posted 2007-02-07 09:42 AM


"...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.

Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612
Hurricane Alley
12 posted 2007-02-07 12:44 PM


Yeah...a certain Baldwin sure is doing well with his new TV series...too bad it's not on Canadian TV!!
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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
13 posted 2007-02-08 01:24 AM


If you mean 30 Rock we get it up here Sharon, but I tevo it as it competes with CSI and the world stops in my house for CSI.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
14 posted 2007-02-08 02:59 AM


Bill Richardson is currently my favorite 2008 hopeful, and I'll tell y'all why.

Richardson has served seven terms in Congress, has been an ambassador to the United Nations, has visited many foreign countries on diplomatic aims, and also served as the U.S Secretary of Energy, which makes for an immense credibility on international affairs few can match. I  especially respect him for his recent dedication to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, who last month went to Sudan and tried to broker a 60-day cease-fire with President al-Bashir and rebel group leaders.

With all that considered, I think Richardson is that kind of candidate who would be most effective at improving our image in the eyes of the international community. Moreover, with his experience as a U.S energy secretary, he would encourage a great discussion about energy policy, and also as a governor of New Mexico, he has a strong record on greenhouse gas emissions control, which global warming concerns are certain to be a major 2008 campaign topic, something which not just Bill Richardson, but candidates like Barack Obama and John McCain are talking about also.

Finally, Bill Richardson is popular among both Democrats and Republicans in New Mexico (seventh most popular with 74% job approval according to the most recent monthly SurveyUSA 50 Governor approval tracking poll), who is commended for often reaching across the aisle and was even touted by the libertarian organization known as the CATO Institute for being one of the most fiscally responsible Democratic governors in the nation, where indeed both his experience as a governor and a U.S representative serves him well.

Of course, Bill Richardson is a huge underdog currently and is well behind both Clinton, Obama and Edwards in money and name-recognition. However, I believe, especially when we still have almost an entire year before the 2008 presidential primaries, that there is more than enough time for a come-behind campaign to take the top slot like Bill Clinton did in 1992, where nobody had even heard of him until after October of 1991. And the real reason I believe all kinds of candidates from George W. Bush in 2000, Bill Clinton in 1992, and Ronald Reagan in 1980, pulled it off then was because of their huge likeability factors, and likeability historically is what elects our presidents.

I think as people get a look at lower-profiled candidates like Richardson, they will begin to like him and gain interest in him. Candidates like Biden and Clinton, on the other hand, sort of stand out in contrast to those like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan because both have reputations for anger and sourness, which historically hurts candidates. The main reason John Kerry struggled much of the 2004 election season was because he wasn't seen as real likeable to the American public. The public saw him as too angry, too serious, too pretentious and too elitist, whereas President Bush, even if you disagreed with his politics heavily, still seemed likeable and at least appeared like a regular guy.

I think Hillary Clinton lacks the intensity of likeability Bill Clinton had, and that's why I believe this contest is far from over, and much of the American public are going to be looking for other candidates out there who resonate with both that personal brand of charm and integrity, which they've already begun finding with Barack Obama, despite his lack of political experience, and can certainly continue to find in candidates like Bill Richardson.

*

On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani is thus far the most appealing candidate to me, who I believe is genuinely interested in seeking more common ground in the political process, although I have reservations of his lack of political experience.

Also, I respect many GOP candidates in their own ways, yet are at odds with them in other ways. I highly respect Sam Brownback for his excellent leadership on the Darfur humanitarian issue, as well as other African issues like fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria and social issues here at home including poverty, and finally admire him in speaking out against the Iraq war surge, but am greatly at odds with him on many domestic issues including his stances on gay rights. I commend Chuck Hagel for having the courage to speak out against the handling of the Iraq war frequently and demanding a change in course, as well as his strong defense of civil liberties, but disagree with him on most other issues. And though I admire John McCain's efforts on campaign finance refrm and environmental conservation in particular, in heart I just don't trust McCain as a commander-in-chief and believe he'll be even more hawkish and stubborn as one.

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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
15 posted 2007-02-08 11:07 AM


Well Noah my friend, this is one of those rare times that we pretty well agree politically. I too like Bill Richardson and expect he would make a good president. I absolutely do not trust Hillary. There have been way too many people over the years who have crossed her and somehow suffered a fatal "accident" or other untimely death. Based on many of his comments in the last dozen or so years, I'm not sure Biden has the brains to run a national campaign, much less be president. I have to wonder about the voters in Delaware.

Obama is an enigma. I can't figure how he has suddenly become so popular. With just two years in the senate and no significant legislation, what has he done to deserve such attention. True, he is a pretty face and apparently a very good speaker. Surely the voters will ask for more than that in a serious candidate for president. His time may come but I think he needs a lot more experience to be credible.

Richardson is by far my choice among the democrats. As for reaching across the aisle as governor, remember, Bush had a similar reputation as governor of Texas. I can't see that he has done much of that in DC. Of course, he got very little cooperation from the opposition though. If a democrat is elected president, I don't expect the republicans to be overly cooperative either.

I like McCain but I don't think he can be elected and I don't think he would make a very good president if he were elected. I'm afraid of some of his "mood swings" for lack of a better description. He needs to stay in the senate. On Brownback and Hagel, I don't like much of their agenda.

On the republican side, I currently lean toward Guiliani but I wonder if he can generate the broad-based appeal necessary to win. I also wonder if he can sway enough of the ultra-conservative wing of the party to even be nominated. It will also be interesting to see if his outstanding record in turning NYC around can overcome the skeletons I suspect he has in the closet.

I think Gov. Romney and former senator George Allen are interesting although Allen has lost some luster after his recent showing in the last senate race. Romney may face some religious hurdle too. Will wait and see on these.

Altogether, I expect it will be an interesting few months, lost of mud slung, unsupported accusations made and other dirty tricks. That is, interesting until we get completely fed up with the whole stinking mess.

Maybe we'll get lucky this time and get some patriots instead of the usual partisans. No, not gonna happen, I'm afraid.



Pete

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
16 posted 2007-02-08 12:50 PM


I am getting the feeling that the citizens of the United States this time are sticking to the issues at hand, rather than voting for any particular party, and that I think is a very good thing.  I just hope the candidates show their true colors during their campaign and keep it clean, and stick to their agenda.  It will sure be an interesting election this year,  that is for darn sure.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
17 posted 2007-02-08 01:25 PM


And the mud-slinging has actually already began, with Joseph Biden's comments last week blasting all three big Democratic hopefuls (Clinton, Obama and Edwards) particularly on the issue of Iraq. Also, media interests have enaged in early mud-slinging, including MoveOn.org running anti-McCain ads already in Iowa, and the Fox News Channel running stories without sources about a Muslim school Obama is thought to have attended once.

I used to think Rudy Giuliani had absolutely no chance of earning the 2008 GOP nomination due to his positions on abortion and gay rights which place him at odds with most social conservatives, as well as the fact he's in his third marriage. Now I'm not so sure, for when I look at McCain now falling in the polls (he's below 50% in approval ratings for the first time in polling history) I wonder, especially with how last November it was more moderate Republicans who prevailed, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist, moderate Republicans and Independents may be especially energized going into 2008 and can possibly outpace the other elements of the party.

If John McCain continues to fall, I think that can also provide an opening for a secondary candidate, and it could be anyone. It could be Chuck Hagel, who has already established himself prominently as the anti-war GOP candidate. It could be either Sam Brownback Duncan Hunter, who are attempting to portray themselves as the most definitive conservatives in the race (although I think the Duke Cunningham scandal may prevent Duncan Hunter from being elected). It could be Mike Huckabee (though I'm doubtful he has a chance in that social conservatives will be pointing fingers at him from one side for his increasing of state spending and tax hikes as Governor of Arkansas, while liberals will be pointing fingers from the other side for being too conservative due to his endorsement of creationism in particular.

In fact, despite his still relatively low name recognition, I'd say Mitt Romney is positioned stronger than ever in the 2008 race due to McCain's declining popularity. Of course, he has many obstacles ahead of him, where I think conservatives will still have a hard time trusting him in insisting that he was wrong for supporting gay marriage and abortion rights in the past and that he simply happens to be from the state of Massachusetts (often decried as an elitist, liberal bastion) while liberals will be attacking him for doing just that. His problem will be trying to define himself rather than others defining Romney.

Though I do agree with Sharon overall that 2008 will be more about a candidate's overall take on the issues rather than a party's take on them, I also agree with Pete that, unfortunately, the mud-slinging will inevitably come to a fever pitch months before the election even kicks into high gear, and partisanship will again get in the way of Americans talking about the issues together. I think Balladeer put it marvelously in another thread in that "It'll make "24" look like "Leave It To Beaver!"

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

18 posted 2007-02-08 02:36 PM


I sure hope, the voters ask the candidates to explain in detail their plans this time.  It's easy to stand up and state, I have a plan...but this time, I hope voters ask them to be much more specific about the design of their plans, and demand explainations of what issues they intend to tackle.  What are their priorites and what do they plan to accomplish while being President?

This is a great thread Sharon thanks, and also, thanks for the comment you made on issues rather then parties....You go Girl...whooo hooo


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2007-02-08 05:09 PM


We can ask them, LeeJ, but we won't get an answer. They will never give out details that they might have to live up to. As far as naming their issues, that's simple - health care, taxes, the economy. That has been the standard for the last couple of decades.

I have to smile at Hillary. When Bill was the big cheese she was put in charge of health care and, for eight years, came up with nothing. Now that she is running, she claims health care is an issue she will take care of. Perhaps she thinks everyone has short memories?

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
20 posted 2007-02-09 10:45 AM


OMG, I failed to mention one of my absolute favorites. I think Sen. Lieberman is probably the bravest and most respectable and principled man in DC. I just read the text of his speach against cloture in the Senate here. If only he would run again, I could definately vote for him.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
21 posted 2007-02-10 04:31 PM


I think Joseph Lieberman is certainly much stronger than he has ever been in the U.S Senate, that's for sure, and because he has successfully to a certain degree defined himself from the most recent election season as an indepedently-minded politician that doesn't always stand stubbornly behind party lines, I think he would certainly have a great shot at winning moderate and Independent voters.

However, I think Joseph Lieberman would have a tough time winning over voters from both harder-line Democrats and Republicans. Lieberman's popularity among Democrats in his state has went down significantly ever since liberal blogs like DailyKos and the Huffington Post have gotten frustrated with his support of the Iraq war, reaching a fever pitch with that "Bush Kiss" moment that ignited Ned Lamont's fifteen minutes of fame, who won the Democratic primary but lost big in the main election. So Lieberman is far less popular among Democrats in his state of Connecticut than among Republicans, and as long as the Iraq war continues to drag on, the growing anti-war force in the Democratic Party is going to keep Lieberman from ever winning a primary.

Meanwhile, on the GOP front, even while Lieberman has grown support among Republicans in Connecticut commending him for his unique positioning on the war in Iraq and on foreign policy in general, many Republicans have not forgotten that Lieberman has a liberal voting record on just about everything else, thus are going to keep looking beyond the facade. Many GOP operatives are going to point out his 100% NARAL score (showing he has frequently voted pro-choice), they're going to point out his 0% Christian Coalition score (showing he has a solid "anti-family" voting record), they're going to point out his 15% NTU score (showing he's a "big spender" on tax votes) and will criticize his F grade from the National Rifle Association in particular. Thus, I think while many Republicans will say they respect Joseph Lieberman in many respects, they'll also say they just can't trust him, just as man Republicans are hesitant about trusting Mitt Romney.

I think Joseph Lieberman is that kind of candidate that could ignite excitement from the center, but antagonism from both the left and the right.

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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
22 posted 2007-02-10 05:32 PM


Again, I completely agree. I don't think he could ever win or even be nominated, by either party. I just have to respect him as an independent thinker. I truly believe he is thinking more of his country than his party. Well, at least as much anyway.

I liked him long before the 2000 elections but pretty much wrote him off when he agreed to run with Gore. I have since apparently gotten over that.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
23 posted 2007-02-10 06:09 PM


I realize 'Mr. Sterling' was a fictional Senatoral series, which I kinda liked.  Just like I enjoyed 'West Wing'.  Howsoever, one thing learned from that brief show was consensus, and how one's voting record may not give a true standard on reality, as quid pro quo exists among Reb and Dem, Lib and Con circles.  One Hand Washes The Other. You scratch my back on this bill you do not support, and I'll throw my substantial political backing behind your bill.  It's not about the 'common man', but agendas.  The common man is only trotted out during election cycles, then quietly put back in the closet until needed again.  Howsoever, that also tosses out voting records unless the senator/representative has been consitent over several voting cycles.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
24 posted 2007-02-10 06:32 PM


Joseph Lieberman indeed is an interesting personality. I've seen some speeches on the Senate floor from him, as well as some footage of the debates on C-SPAN from this recent election season, and he is very lucid and intellectual in how he talks about the issues.

I have to admit that I do find his stance on the Iraq war unfortunate, in my opinion, thus am weary of voting for him if he were a presidential nomination in the fear he'd be too hawkish and stubborn as a commander-in-chief. However, I do very much agree with his general concerns regarding foreign policy and how we must remain resolate and serious about the threats out there, and believe some of his own party could certainly learn something from Lieberman about how the Democratic Party establishment as a whole certainly can (and should) remain very critical about this particular war in Iraq, but also a the same time make themselves appear more willing to combat those who truly are threatening us, as while many truly be so at heart, when they are spending much time criticizing the administration, in terms of PR it makes the Democrats appear more forceful toward the president than to the violent militia groups.

I can't fault Lieberman for the latter at all here, which many liberals and Democrats are currently behaving; attacking him and accusing him of being anti-Democratic just because he's at odds with most of the party on that single issue, and absolutely believe the whole Ned Lamont stunt was most unfortunate; stabbing their own party member in the back. What particularly concerns me is that he's been too fearful of questioning the handling of this war, and that leaves me questioning if I could trust him as a commander-in-chief if he was left in that sort of position, where things continue to go not as we desired, and his proposal is to continue "staying the course".

I think that's why I admire Chuck Hagel's recent stance on both foreign policy and the Iraq war. When you look at his voting record over the past eleven years serving in the U.S Senate, he's been absolutely consistent in supporting the troops and has been most reliably pro-military, while also having the courage to criticize the leadership and situation of military policies when he feels something isn't going right. I don't agree with Hagel on most other things, but I think just as the Democrats can learn some things from Lieberman in appearing both critical of the war in Iraq and more willing to fight those directly responsible for attacks on us and our allies, the Republicans can learn some things from Hagel on how they can appear both strong on fighting terrorism globally yet also having the courage to stand up and question the mishandling of such policies when they happen.

I believe most Americans want us to rise above this sort of political correctness; that both parties are not reduced to this partisan lowest denominator. I truly believe both parties want to fight these terrorist groups, and I believe both parties believe sometimes we don't get the desired results we want in our policies and we have to accept "staying the course" won't work. Unfortunately, I believe political correctness has kept Congress largely divided with their toes behind two bold lines, and that's why it's important we look to people like Joseph Lieberman and James Webb in the Democratic Party and  Chuck Hagel and Arlen Specter in the Republican party as certain archetypal figures in how we can govern with both qualities.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa

Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
25 posted 2007-02-12 09:58 AM


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
26 posted 2007-02-12 07:10 PM


Who would you suggest Ed?
Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
27 posted 2007-02-12 07:47 PM


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 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
28 posted 2007-02-12 08:54 PM


"""
"...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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
29 posted 2007-02-13 09:20 PM


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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
30 posted 2007-02-14 09:35 AM


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 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
31 posted 2007-02-15 01:38 AM


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 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
32 posted 2007-02-15 09:40 AM


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
33 posted 2007-02-25 11:37 PM


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 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
34 posted 2007-02-28 04:03 PM


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 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
35 posted 2007-02-28 05:03 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2007-02-28 08:42 PM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2007-02-28 10:18 PM


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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
38 posted 2007-02-28 11:47 PM


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
39 posted 2007-03-01 11:41 AM


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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
40 posted 2007-03-01 05:21 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
41 posted 2007-03-03 01:12 AM


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 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
42 posted 2007-03-03 12:10 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
43 posted 2007-03-03 03:42 PM


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 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
44 posted 2007-03-07 02:22 AM


*
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 1999-09-03
Posts 5496
Forever In Your Heart
45 posted 2007-03-07 09:47 AM


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 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
46 posted 2007-03-08 09:59 AM


"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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
47 posted 2007-03-16 11:25 AM


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
48 posted 2008-02-13 04:13 AM


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
49 posted 2008-06-04 02:10 AM


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.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2008-06-04 07:44 PM


So you are open to a wager then, Mysteria?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

51 posted 2008-06-04 10:29 PM


oh this is like a book that is gettin' sooooooo good...



*lick my finger to turn the page*


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
52 posted 2008-06-05 03:57 AM


Awe Michael I couldn't take your money.  I think it would be priceless though to see the look on your face if what I think is going to happen happens though.  This story is about to get really interesting me thinks.  I don't think we've seen the last of ole Hillary either.  I felt simply terrible taking my son's $50 and couldn't ever bring myself to take a cent from you
The Great Onion
Junior Member
since 2008-06-05
Posts 40

53 posted 2008-06-05 10:29 PM


I would think obama. but that wouldnt matter to me anyways now because Clinton is going into an open slot for vice prez.

obama   o
o   a   b
b   m   a m a   amabo      amabobam   amabo
a   a   m   b   b   b      b   b  a   b   b
m   b   amabo   obam a     o   a  a   obam a
amabo

The Great Onion
Junior Member
since 2008-06-05
Posts 40

54 posted 2008-06-05 10:32 PM


aww my giant text go ruined
Just.Another.Falling.Star
Member
since 2008-05-08
Posts 422
Canada
55 posted 2008-06-21 05:10 PM


In my very own opinion...I think Obama should win. I\m not even American but Canadian Politics are boring, so I just follow the US. So, ya GO OBAMA!!!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
56 posted 2008-06-21 06:18 PM


I agree...Obama, GO!
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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
57 posted 2008-07-21 03:02 PM



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
58 posted 2008-07-22 08:15 AM


Another one trying to sell his book...so what's new? This quote came out well over a year ago and, obviously didn't cause much of a stir then..why now, Sharon?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

59 posted 2008-07-22 01:26 PM


Thanks for posting, Mysteria, it’s a fascinating excerpt that really lays it all out, no holds barred. Now that you’ve brought it to my attention, will put it on my reading list. Maybe it didn’t cause much of a stir because some people just aren’t willing to listen or think? Anyway, I for one hope the book does well since a portion of the proceeds go to the Iacoccoa Foundation for diabetes research.

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
60 posted 2008-07-22 02:18 PM


Exactly, Jennifer.   The Diabetic Association has really benefited from this book.

Michael, I got the book and read it, and now this excerpt is circulating in emails a year after it was first exposed. So a good question to ponder - why now?  

I think it is good to have all the feedback you can get to make a good decision when voting for the United States President this coming election.  Economically, everyone agrees a change is needed, but then you have 1/2 the population under age 50 voting for Obama, and the other 1/2 over 50 for McCain, so it will be very interesting to see the results.  In any event, getting out of that war is not as easy as everyone thinks and 16 months as Obama has stated is sure pushing it, but what do I know?  

By the way, I do think Bush did the right thing in the beginning by reacting, but something sure has gone seriously wrong, and what concerns me as a Canadian is that are going to be left with some serious clean up duty.

However, I do enjoy the shopping benefits of our dollar now because of all this  and am supporting the USA in that area probably just a bit too much.  

The one thing about living in this wonderful free country is having a right to verbalize your opinion, and thank you for letting me exercise mine.


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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
61 posted 2008-07-22 02:30 PM


I am even going to answer the 50th post by Balladeer sadly, but truthfully this way:
quote:
So you are open to a wager then, Mysteria?


No wager from me.  I actually do think that McCain will win Michael, as unfortunately it is better to deal with the devil you know than the one you don't, but I sure hope I am wrong.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
62 posted 2008-07-22 06:58 PM



If I were American I'd be voting for Obama.

I think America needs a President that the World respects and I believe he fits the bill.



Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
63 posted 2008-07-22 08:20 PM


quote:
If I were American I'd be voting for Obama.
I think America needs a President that the World respects and I believe he fits the bill.


Grinch, thank you for your opinion.

May I ask, why do you believe Obama fits the bill?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
64 posted 2008-07-22 09:50 PM


Sharon, it is always a pleasure to have you voice your opinions because I know they are sincere and unbiased.

Grinch, I have to echo Sunshine. How do you know the world respects him? He's a one-term senator running for president. Two years ago the world didn't even know he existed...and now, based on nothing but a call for change, the world respects him? On what do you base that?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
65 posted 2008-07-23 03:22 PM


quote:
May I ask, why do you believe Obama fits the bill?


Partly, but not solely, for the reason Michael thinks he doesn’t.

quote:
based on nothing but a call for change


When you don’t like what you see and are faced with a choice between someone offering more of same and someone offering change the choice isn’t that difficult.

quote:
How do you know the world respects him


I don’t Michael, I can only speak for myself, which is why I said “I think he fits the bill”.

The only evidence of what the “World” thinks that I can offer would be the opinions of people I’ve spoken to in the UK, where I live, and in France and Spain which I’ve visited recently. In all three I’ve yet to meet one person who believes Obama doesn’t deserve respect and almost all believe he projects the persona of someone you can trust. McCain doesn’t generate the same responses, people I’ve discussed this with see him as a Bush clone, and people over here trust and respect Bush about as far as they could throw him.

I know that persona could all be a sham Michael, a thin façade that covers the truth but we’re back to a similar situation to our earlier choice. Faced with a man you think you can trust and one you know you don’t the choice is obvious.

With regard to respect I sometimes wonder if the people of America are actually aware of how far the image of America has fallen outside the US in just a handful of years, largely due to the actions of its government and leader.

Which is why I think America needs a leader that the world can respect if it’s ever going to regain the position it once held.



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

66 posted 2008-07-23 03:58 PM


Mike? Why do you think McCain would be the better choice? It seems to me no one thought he was qualified before.

So, why him now?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
67 posted 2008-07-23 06:40 PM


Grinch and Serenity, I don't know that McCain would make a great president. You haven't heard me singing his praises in my posts.

Obama, on the other hand, is someone I just can't seem to trust. As has been said, he's just a man who can say nothing more eloquently than anyone else. When caught without a prompter in fron of him or someone whispering in his ear what to say, he stumbles over his words like a first-grader...please ask me for examples.

Anyone can call for change. That tactic has been used in more than one presidential campaign. Change can go both ways, for better or for worse. Obama hits all of the right generic buttons people want to hear, not unlike the "chicken in every pot" promise from over half a century ago. He, however, stays away from giving his solutions for these changes he calls for or how he would plan to make them.

Who would be better? Who knows. All I can go by is I see a man on one side with less than one term as a junior senator, no military experience, no foreign affairs experience on one side and a time-tested senator, a respected war hero and a man who comes off as decent on the other. Who do I want in this day and age with the world in the state it's in....I'll take the experienced man.

Every day Obama is apologizing for a misspoken comment or a misunderstood communication which got him into hot water with someone. Without someone to tell him what to say, he comes off as just a small fish trying to be a whale....I wouldn't buy a used car from him, either

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
68 posted 2008-07-23 08:03 PM



quote:
Change can go both ways, for better or for worse.


At least change gives you a shot at better Mike, maintaining the status quo offers you only more of the same at best. In that respect who you vote for is a simple reflection of your aspirations and your expectations. If you believe that what you have now is as good as it gets as far as America goes then vote for McCain. If you think it needs to change vote for Obama.

quote:
All I can go by is I see a man on one side with less than one term as a junior senator, no military experience, no foreign affairs experience on one side and a time-tested senator, a respected war hero and a man who comes off as decent on the other. Who do I want in this day and age with the world in the state it's in....I'll take the experienced man.


I see two men that have presumably been selected by intelligent people as the best candidates to hold office, neither of whom have any experience of being President, which is the only experience that counts when push comes to shove.

quote:
Every day Obama is apologizing for a misspoken comment or a misunderstood communication which got him into hot water with someone. Without someone to tell him what to say, he comes off as just a small fish trying to be a whale....I wouldn't buy a used car from him, either


Nobody is perfect Mike, we could trade the gaffes of both candidates from here until next Christmas and all we’re likely to do is underline that fact.

After carefully studying both candidates policies and listening to what they have to say  I’ve ended up with more respect for Obama, and trust him more than I trust McCain to make the right decisions. That’s not to say I have no respect for McCain, I just think Obama is the better man for the job but I’d still buy a used car off either of them.




serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

69 posted 2008-07-23 08:41 PM


Well, now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike McCain, but...<--there's my but !

it does seem to me that he just started saying what he needed to say to get the nomination. (I actually hope he's just doing that, in case he does win the election.) And just typing that gives me the winces, because that means I hope he's lying. And I've had quite enough of that.

I also hope he doesn't take our governor away--Louisiana needs Bobby Jindall.

Do I like Obama? Sure, I do.

Why?

Because he inspires people, and we need that.

Before you pick apart what I just said, please tell me why Obama's political gaffe's aren't as endearing as President Bush's. sigh...it would take me some time, but I'm sure I could find the thread where you stated that George W.'s lack of logic was not an indication of stupidity, but served as proof that he was not a polished lackey of the political "machine". (Yes, I paraphrased--sigh, I'm willing to wager you'll make me go looking for your quote, too.)




JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

70 posted 2008-07-23 11:26 PM


I don’t have much confidence in a presidential candidate who doesn’t know the difference betweenCzechoslovakia and the Czech Republic, is unaware that Iraq doesn’t border Pakistan, and doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite without Leiberman whispering in his ear.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU and when he does make a mistake, as he did in the recent CBS interview, refuses to admit his error. Easy to see why some call him McSame/McBush.

I don’t think a “decent” man commits adultery, files for a license to marry a second time before he’s even divorced from his first wife, leaves his family and disabled wife, refers to his second wife as a trollop and the c word, humiliates a child by saying the things McCain did about Chelsea Clinton, snickers and sings Bomb, Bomb Iran and makes a joke about killing Iranians with cigarettes.

McCain may be more experienced, but I find him lacking in character, knowledge and diplomacy skills - McSame/McBush.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
71 posted 2008-07-24 01:48 AM


Serenity, we're not talking about Obama's political gaffes...we talking about his downright lies and misconceptions. That's a lot different than gaffes.

Grinch, do I think America is as good as it can possibly be? Nope, but I think it's good and I think it could be worse. If you don;t feel that Obama's lack of experience in the political and world arena makes a difference, then he gets your support. The fact that he is the presidential candidate ony means that he beat out the other few choices that were given to vote for....not that he is the best man for the job. Same with McCain. Hillary said, while running, that this was not the time for an on-the-job-training president, referring to Obama. She was right. I happen to like the fact there has not been another 9-11. That's not a change I would like to see.

Jennifer, then you must have DESPISED Clinton!

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

72 posted 2008-07-24 04:56 AM




     There is a logical fallacy that is called, roughly, "after the thing, therefore because of the thing."  Aristotle first identified it, I believe, so that gives it some legs; and Miss Pfeifer taught it to my fourth grade class back in Canton, Ohio.  She would have pointed at that example of no terrorist attacks since 9/11, and she would have looked at how that was being credited to current government policy, and she would have done a fair amount of laughing.

     She would have asked me if I'd bought a lucky rabbit's foot on September 12, and I would have said, "No, Ma'am," and she would have said, "Well, pretend you did."
With Miss Pfeiffer, you didn't want to fool around, so I would have changed my statement very quickly.  "Yes, Ma'am, I guess," is what I would have said, and you could have put money on it.

     "Now aren't you powerful?" she would have said.  "Because of you, there have been no terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11."
    
     "But...But...But..."

     "You got as much proof as that Balladeer fella," she would have said, "with his funny talk about the administration being responsible for all that safety.  Just because one thing comes after another, doesn't mean that was the cause.  Just because Nobody's blown up something here in the U.S. while the Republicans have been getting people to step out of their shoes at the airports doesn't mean that's why nothing's been blown up.  It could have been your rabbit's foot or your daddy's new job.  It could be they think it's funny watching what Bush is doing to the country's constitution.  That's more damage than they could ever do by blowing up a building.  

     "Probably no connection either way, but you can't say," that's what Miss Pfeifer would say.  "Because that Balladeer fella's spouting another of them logical fallacies.  Probably thinks nobody'll notice that what do you call it."

     Post hoc ergo propter hoc, I think it was, yessir.  I'm almost sure of it.  Or something like that.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

73 posted 2008-07-24 09:03 AM


Why would I despise Hillary? Not my choice for sure, but I certainly don’t despise her.

The fact that there was a 9/11 and that it happened on Bush’s watch speaks volumes about the necessity of choosing a presidential candidate who’s smart, informed, able to handle the demands of the office, doesn’t repeatedly stumble through senior moments or nod off while performing his duties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXE3JavR2Fw


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
74 posted 2008-07-24 09:22 AM


I wasn't referring to Hillary, Jennifer.

The fact that there was a 9/11 and that it happened on Bush’s watch

Now THAT is probably the most incredible statement I've seen in the Alley...my congratulations, miss. You have outdone yourself. A  shame...if Obama, Gore or Kerry had been president, it never would have happened, I'm sure.

That's a prime example of why I left the Alley, seeing the lengths one will go to seek justifications. Have a wonderful day....

You are right, Bob. Nothing Bush has done since 9-11 has kept any terrorist activity in the country under control. It has been all coincidence. Cause and effect is a fallacy anyway, right? That would be like saying you learned things because she was a good teacher when, obviously, it was nothing more that coincidence, I'm sure. If our cars last longer because we change the oil regularly, that's just a coincidence, too, of course. Good luck with your rabbit's foot.....

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

75 posted 2008-07-24 10:01 AM


My opinion of course, but I honestly believe that if Obama, Gore or Kerry had been President and received that Aug. 6th Daily Brief entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US”, that included “indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives” they just might have done something other than cut brush and ignore it.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
76 posted 2008-07-24 10:34 AM


They needed a brief to know that? How about the first WTC bombing attempt? Don;t you think maybe that could have given the same thoughts? Oh, Bush wasn't president then, was he? How about when the fellows were going through flight school, telling the instructors they didn't need to learn how to land? Oh,he wasn't president then, either, was he?

Yes, I have little doubt that a brief in Gore or Kerry's hand stating that Bin Laden wanted to attack the USA would have spurred them into action and saved the country from the 9-11 tragedy....or at least would have caused them to say, "No kidding!"

cutting brush....very clever.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

77 posted 2008-07-24 11:26 AM



Bush spent approximately 40% of his first 8 months in office, the eight months directly before 9/11 on vacation - 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport.

During the summer of 2001 Clarke and Tenet had both been waving reds flags about a threat spike and the possibility of an imminent attack. So what does Bush do to protect the American people from the possibilty of an imminent terrorist attack? He goes to the ranch for a month's vacation, cuts brush, plays golf and never even convenes a cabinet-level meeting to discuss these imminent threats until after his vacation, one week before the 9/11 attack. Or, as Kucinich put it in Article XXXIII, Bush

REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO 911.

The Lounge is all yours, Balladeer, I’m off to work. Have a lovely day!




Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
78 posted 2008-07-24 11:35 AM


You would knock a man for playing golf??? You are much more unreasonable than I imagined!!

I'll assume you're not working at the RNC....have a good day.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
79 posted 2008-07-24 02:47 PM



quote:
Hillary said, while running, that this was not the time for an on-the-job-training president, referring to Obama. She was right.


She was so far out Mike she almost missed wrong altogether.



Every single President there’s ever been, or ever will be, has by definition got to start out as an on-the-job training President - Prior experience at being President in the case of a new president is an impossibility.

The only way her statement would make sense is if she was suggesting giving the incumbent President or a former President another crack at the job.

quote:
I happen to like the fact there has not been another 9-11


So do I Mike, I also dislike the fact that the price of oil has gone through the roof. If Bush wants the credit for one he has to accept the responsibility for the other because both happened while he was in office.

quote:
They needed a brief to know that? How about the first WTC bombing attempt? Don;t you think maybe that could have given the same thoughts? Oh, Bush wasn't president then, was he? How about when the fellows were going through flight school, telling the instructors they didn't need to learn how to land? Oh,he wasn't president then, either, was he?


While it’s true that Presidents prior to Bush dropped the ball that doesn’t excuse Bush from not picking it up.

I’ve a little story that highlights my point:

At 09:00 am on my first day in a new job the IT Director asked me for a backup tape of an SQL database. I checked and there wasn’t one. When I told the IT Director he pointed out that backups were my responsibility and not maintaining a robust backup policy was sufficient cause for dismissal. He said that he’d let me off on account of it being my first day.

At 09:00 on my second day in a new job the IT Director asked me for a backup tape of the same SQL database.  I gave it to him which is why I still have my job.

Bush’s responsibility wasn’t ensuring that he had  a backup tape, his responsibility - you could say his prime responsibility - was to protect the United States and it’s citizens. If 9-11 happened on his second day or even the second week in office I’d be willing to cut him a little slack anytime after that and the buck stops with him.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

80 posted 2008-07-24 02:49 PM




Dear Balladeer,

          In response to the sneer at Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, I notice that you carefully switched statistically confirmable examples, such as engine wear, for logically unconfirmable one, such as your comments about cause and effect.  You blithely side-step the need to actually establish causality, and hide your major misstatement with that slight of hand.  Not so fast, Red Baron!  You've got about six aces up that sleeve, and all of them are spades.

     There is no causal connection we can make between Bush and lack of U.S. terrorist action over the past seven years.  If it helps you at all, there was probably no causal connection between the first World Trade Center bombing
shortly after Clinton took office, his actions, and the absence of foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during his tenure in office either.  You can't establish causality in either case.

     Nor am I sure how it helps to discuss President Clinton.  It allows you to express venom at Democrats, and I suppose that's alright; I do it myself sometimes, most especially about how the Democrats have not made an issue out of each time the Republicans have filibustered or threatened to filibuster a Democratic initiative that's fairly clearly a popularly supported bill.  I think that's spineless, and it doesn't show how obstructive the Republicans are actually being.

     You can say that the Democrats, when they turned over power to the Republicans in 2001, went to very great lengths to make it known to the Republican incoming officeholders that they thought that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should be at the very top of their list of concerns.  And you can say that because we have it from multiple sources, including books praised by President Bush himself (the first of the trilogy of Bob Woodward books dealt with this aspect of the transfer of power and the lead-up to the war quite extensively, and was based on interviews with administration officials, including President Bush).  We have the same material dealt with from  another direction by Thomas T. Ricks in his book, "Fiasco.   Should you be interested in following up on documentation, please ask, and I'll dig up some other source material as well.

     The Republicans, whatever their motivation might have been, did not follow up on this information.  Nor did they follow up on information that was being generated and passed on to the president, and, according to some sources, to his then National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, that named Osama Bin Laden, said he was planning an immanent attack on U.S. stateside targets, and said the threats were serious and creditable.

     Why is this relevant now, and not the record of President Clinton?

     President Clinton is, I guess, as relevant as you want him to be.  In practical terms, however, the Republican candidate for the Presidency at this point has voted with the president's policies a lot over the past year.  Eric Alterman says 95%.  I know that he's changed policies that I found drew me to him, such as his original loathing for torture and human rights abuses.  Apparently his stance on this has changed so much over the past year that he's voted against his own anti-torture bill, and with those of his own party who seem to think that torture is fine.
We are voting on Senator McCain, so I know we need to talk about him.  If only for his stance on torture.  But wait, there's more!  For no extra charge the Republicans will also throw in a Candidate who's says he's willing to stay in a shooting war in Iraq for a hundred years and who thinks it's funny to sing songs about bombing Iran.

     The other candidate is Senator Obama.  Now Senator McCain is grossly sarcastic with Senator Obama about not being in favor of the surge, and being "wrong" about that, yet somehow forgets to give Senator Obama credit for not wanting us to get into that war in the first place, 5000 American bodies ago, and heaven knows how many Iraqi bodies to boot.Senator Obama has expressed concern about the economy.  I'd like to mosey over to his web site and see what his plans are on that matter, wouldn't you?

     But I suspect that rather than doing that, for some odd reason, Balladeer would rather have us talking about Bill Clinton, as though Bill Clinton were running.  Perhaps, if Balladeer can run Bill Clinton down enough, people will become both blind and deaf, and mistake him for Barack Obama.  Alas, while some of us think Bill Clinton has his flaws, we're still sort of fond of him.  He wasn't much for provoking useless wars.  He maintained decent relations with foreign powers and even managed to balance the budget a couple of years in a row.  The better the country got, the more the Republicans went after his personal life.
Now that we've had seven years of Republican rule, I can see the way they want the country to look and feel instead, and I don't particularly like all these great things Republican government has given us.  I particularly don't like the way they keep trying to blame the other guy for what they've done with deregulation of banking rules and communications rules.  I think many of them thank the Lord for Bill Clinton every night of the week, because he gives them a scapegoat.  It used to be FDR for 50 years.  I think Bill Clinton should feel complimented for the company he been placed in.  

     Once again, somebody we should be talking about instead of what the Republicans are doing to the country today.  Hooray!

Welcome, Balladeer!
By best to you, BobK.
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
81 posted 2008-07-24 11:03 PM


I see two men that have presumably been selected by intelligent people as the best candidates to hold office, neither of whom have any experience of being President, which is the only experience that counts when push comes to shove.

I see. So, if I am looking for a man to fill the post of CEO of my company, the candidate who has many years of experience in my particular field and has years of experience in leading others would actually be no different than the assistant manager at Burger King also applying, since neither has experience being the CEO of my company, which is the only experience that counts, according to your statement.

I also dislike the fact that the price of oil has gone through the roof. If Bush wants the credit for one he has to accept the responsibility for the other because both happened while he was in office.

I see. So, by your standards, anything that has happened in the world in the past eight years is Bush's responsibility. The price of oil is up so that's Bush's fault in some way, disregarding the experts who cite the immensely increased demand for oil in countries like India and China are the main reasons. Bush somehow made it all happen by himself, just by virtue of being president when it happened. 9-11 is also Bush's responsibility, even though all of the planning for it occurred before he took office. When he read a memo about possible explosives being used on aircraft in futuristic terroristic attacks, he should have immediately told the FBI,CIA, and airports to be on the lookout for exploding box cutters.  His responsibility was to protect the United States, yes? How do you propose he could have done that? Well, he could have shut down all of the airports, just in case. He could have begun searches of all passengers, removing any item that could have been used as a weapon. "Sorry, grandma, but that knitting needle could be a terrorist weapon. Turn it over!"  Can you see that happening in a pre-9/11 world? Are you kidding? People complain even after 9/11 about going through airport security! Can you imagine how many memos predicting mayhem pass through Washington, DC on a daily or weekly basis?  For you to say Bush is responsible for 9/11 simply because he was the man in the Oval Office at the time is absolutely incredible to me and shows a bias on your part that makes the one I have for Clinton insignificant.   If you feel any action on his part could have prevented it, please share it with me. I'd really be interested in hearing it. Then please share with us how he is responsible for the price of oil. If you can't, then you accusatory finger is pointed in the wrong direction. I'm sorry, Grinch, but I find it very difficult to try to reason with someone who has your viewpoints. Of course, you may feel the same of me, who knows?

At least you're not alone. I'll repay your story with a little one of my own. Two days ago there was a story in the Miami Herald of a 42 year old man found dead, trapped in an a/c shaft. Seems the fellow was hiding up there to rob the stores after the mall closed. Unfortunately for him, he was a little too large for the shaft, got stuck and was lying there dead for three or four days before an evil smell was detected and his body ws found. The fellow was a habitual criminal with a rap sheet longer than Gore's electric bill. This venture of his to burglarize  was not his first. One of the local politicians (a Democrat, by chance) stated when interviewed that, unfortunately this could have been a result of the state of our economy, forcing people to resort to such drastic measures to feed themselves and he wouldn't be surprised to see more instances like this, due to Bush's handling of the economy.  Forget the fact that this was a habitual criminal. By the time you finished reading the article, you could be worried that there would be a rash of dead bodies stuck in a/c outlets all over the place  while trying to rob some business, all victims of Bush's failed economic policies.

Spare me, please......

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

82 posted 2008-07-25 12:57 PM




Bear Balladeer,

quote:
Balladeer:
        I see. So, if I am looking for a man to fill the post of CEO of my company, the candidate who has many years of experience in my particular field and has years of experience in leading others would actually be no different than the assistant manager at Burger King also applying, since neither has experience being the CEO of my company, which is the only experience that counts, according to your statement.



     Not having been here through the original Bush election cycle, and being too darn lazy to check on my own at this time, my curiosity has been piqued, Balladeer?
What exactly did you say when the experience issue came up between Bush and Gore in the 2000 election cycle?  Did you use this frankly off base analogy when you were pushing President Bush over the clearly more experienced Vice-President Gore?  It doesn't really fit now, and I suspect you would have been really clear about how silly it would have been during that election cycle.  

quote:
Balladeer:
I see. So, by your standards, anything that has happened in the world in the past eight years is Bush's responsibility.


     I go on to address this not because I believe Grinch shouldn't or can't, but because I addressed you about the problems in Bush's position, and his failure to take proper responsibility for events in my post above, and your response to Grinch ignores what I said.

     There is nothing that Grinch said that blames Bush for anything [and everything gone wrong] that happened in the world for the past eight years.  Further, there is nothing that I said that blames Bush for anything [and everything gone] wrong over the past eight years either.  

(The bracketed parts are my interpolations.  I believe you meant to say that Grinch was blaming Bush for everything gone wrong over this time frame rather than a single potential thing that probably did not happen, and were using exageration to say so, and I believe that the same obtains to my description of what you might mean had you said such a thing about text I would have written.  If I'm wrong, simply say so, and say how:  You know what you really meant to be saying, and all I'm doing here is making a guess.)

     Speaking for myself, however, I did say that President Bush did not pay attention to specific warnings from outgoing administration officials about the importance of terrorist activity and specifically Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda.  He and his advisors were warned specifically.  I gave references above.  They were warned by the CIA afterward.

     What could he have done?

     What would a reasonable man have done, Balladeer?  You are frequently a reasonable man.  I am frequently a reasonable man.  With warning in hand from people who have just finished doing my job, even if I didn't like or approve of them, I would have immediately turned to the DCI and said,  I want to know everything you have on this and I want the preliminary report on my desk in 24 hours.  I want daily followup in addition to the other material we're going to cover.  I want to get to the bottom of this.

     To myself and my closest advisors I would have said, I don't care if this is a political wrench they're trying to throw in the works.  I want the truth about this and I want to know the truth now, not when somebody sets off a bomb in the subway someplace like they did in Tokyo.

     If my advisors couldn't handle that or thought it was a silly assignment, I'd fire my advisors.  I wouldn't want sabotage, I'd want information, criticism and cooperation.
And I would want to read briefing papers that came across my desk that said they were about the risk of terrorist activity in the continental United States by arab extremists.  I think papers like that would interest me a great deal.  And if they wanted to continue to work for me, they'd better interest my staff as well, especially if other portions of my staff were telling me that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were still very much a threat.

     Please don't tell me that you'd simply ignore the whole thing, Balladeer.

BobK.

  



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
83 posted 2008-07-25 01:11 PM


Bush:  Ok, gentlemen, we have a report, #3247, of a chance there may be a terrorist attack on the United States. We have to get to the bottom of this! Muellar, take 1,147,212 of your best agents and check out every Arab currently residing in the country. Just don't make it look like racial profiling. Can't give  them ALCU whackos a reason to poop their diapers. Don't use any wiretapping of overseas calls to suspected terrorists abroad, either. Democrats would have a kiniption fit over that. Just, uh, observe them and see what they do out in public, where they wouldn't be doing anything to tip their hands, anyway. I want you to take this report without specifics and find me some specifics. If it acutally had any specifics, then there wouldn't be a need to look for them, now would there? Just find something and, if you can't do it in 24 hours (where is Jack Bauer when you need him?), I'll fire the lot of you and hire another group of advisors who won't be able to find anything in the next 24 hours. Get moving! I need to know if they are going to attack on a day I have an early tee time so I can't switch it.

I'm curious, Bob. Do you put on a helmet and shoulder pads before doing your Monday morning quarterbacking? And I would want to read briefing papers that came across my desk that said they were about the risk of terrorist activity in the continental United States by arab extremists.   Are you stating that he didn't? Are you further stating he did nothing? Where does that insight come from?

President Bush did not pay attention to specific warnings from outgoing administration officials about the importance of terrorist activity and specifically Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda.

...and what exactly did the outgoing administration do about these warnings before they were outgoing? If there was so much information on the subject while they were still steering the ship, why didn't they do anything during the time all of the planning and preparation for 9/11 was going on? They had enough pointers to go on....the previous WTC bombing, the USS COLE, Clinton calling Bin Laden "the most dangerous man in the world". Why didn't they follow your advice instead of just "passing it on" to the next administration? No, you don't like references to that, do you?

Let's face it, Bob. Your comments and conclusions stem from your utter dislike for Bush and his administration...period. You picture him as a fellow who sits around and provokes useless wars, nothing more, just as Jennifer portrays him as a man who cuts brush and plays golf. Your complete disdain for him obliterates any other type of rational thought.  You will paint whatever scenario needed to cut him down a notch or two. I daresay that, if the situation were reversed and Bush had been President before Clinton, you would have pointed out the same things I pointed out here and damned Bush for not doing anything during his term and sympathized with poor Bill for coming into a situation like 9/11 happening.

You appear to refuse the simple fact that NOTHING could have prevented 9/11. That's they way our country is set up, with it's revolving doors. Anyone can come in and live a life of as much privacy as they want. They can travel anywhere, attend flight training schools, and do anything an American can do. Nothing could have stopped them, outside of a dictatorial role by our government, which you certainly don't like, do you? I seem to recall lately your distaste for the fact that officlials could ask for papers. Should the airports, train stations, power plants, tunnels, bridges, schools or whatever other targets on the terrorist wish list have been shut down? Should they have been enforced with extra security? Who says they weren't? And what would you have looked for in the airports? Would you have checked each bag in that pre-9/11 world? Would you have taken away all sharp objects? Subjected passengers to body searches? Would a box cutter trigger a vision as a weapon able to command a 747? No, I believe you would have been one screaming about individual rights and government officials acting like storm troopers.

You can speak of meetings, firings, advisors and briefings all you want and create a made-for-tv episode about how the government was able to save the WTC, but, if you can get past the bias and disdain you have for Bush for just a second, you must certainly realize that it would have been impossible to stop in that pre-9/11 world.

You actually stated that as well, in a recent e-mail, if I may share it...

We simply need to remember that it’s likely  that anybody who’s serious enough and lucky enough may find a way through our defenses.

That's right, bear Bob.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
84 posted 2008-07-25 01:50 PM


Mike,

If your selection process for potential candidates deemed the assistant manager at Burger King was suitable I’d have to presume he\she had something that made them seem suitable. The same goes for the alternate candidate.

One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that having experience of being the CEO of your company wasn’t a deciding factor in selecting either as a possible candidate.

quote:
I see. So, by your standards, anything that has happened in the world in the past eight years is Bush's responsibility.


Not my standards Mike, I was using yours. You inferred that Bush should get the credit because there’d been no terrorist attacks since 9-11 when there’s no obvious correlation between the two. I pointed out that the price of oil had risen while Bush was in office which, using the same logic, must be down to Bush despite there being no correlation, I was hoping you’d see how ludicrous either claim was.

There’s another glaring hole in your logic, while you’re happy to give Bush credit for attacks that haven’t happened you’re adamant that he can’t be apportioned any responsibility for one that spectacularly DID happen. It can’t work both ways Mike.

quote:
Then please share with us how he is responsible for the price of oil. If you can't, then you accusatory finger is pointed in the wrong direction. I'm sorry, Grinch, but I find it very difficult to try to reason with someone who has your viewpoints.


I never said he was responsible for the price of oil, I chose that particular absurd example to highlight the absurdity of your claim that Bush should get the credit for there being no terrorist attacks.

quote:
I'm sorry, Grinch, but I find it very difficult to try to reason with someone who has your viewpoints. Of course, you may feel the same of me, who knows?


I don’t have any problem at all in that regard - the trick is to try to understand the other persons viewpoint.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-25-2008 05:08 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
85 posted 2008-07-25 02:07 PM


What exactly did you say when the experience issue came up between Bush and Gore in the 2000 election cycle?

Well, let's see.

Gore attended Vanderbuilt Divinity School but didn't finish. He went to Harvard Law School but earned no degrees. He then went into politics, where he has been ever since. The only acutal job in the outside world he ever held was a night-shift reporter for a small paper, The Tennesseean, no other experience in the corporate world and no leadership positions of any kind. Vice-President for eight years, with duties ranging from attending social functions for the president and working on environmental issues. Oh, yes, and fundraising, like the one at the Buddhist Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, where everyone wound up being arrested  but Gore, who claimed he didn't know it was a fund-raiser, even though all those people showed up with briefcases filled with money for him.

On 9 March 1999, Gore gave an interview for CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which he stated: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.   Well, he did have that going for him

Bush had been the CEO of several companies. He was part owner of the Texas Rangers. He was the two-time governor of the biggest state in the country (if you take away Alaska's snow and ice).  As governor....

Bush used a budget surplus to push through Texas's largest ever tax-cut of two billion dollars. He extended government funding for organizations providing education, alcohol and drug use and abuse prevention, and reduction of domestic violence


So you have, one one hand, a fellow who never held an actual job in his life, outside of politics, going up against a man who was both very successful in private life and equally successful in politics. What's a voter to do????

If Bush had been smart, he could have come up with some fancy slogan, like "We need change! Time for a change! It's time to get away from those washington insiders and elect someone who's interest is in the American people and not their own political legacies."

But, then again, he didn't need to, did he?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
86 posted 2008-07-25 02:37 PM


There’s another glaring hole in your logic, while you’re happy to give Bush credit for attacks that haven’t happened you’re adamant that he can’t be apportioned any responsibility for one that spectacularly DID happen. It can’t work both ways Mike.

Of course it  can, Grinch.  Bush had no control over 9/11. It happened, shortly after he took office. Now, if he had not taken steps to prevent another one from happening, and one did, it would certainly be on his head. It's the old, "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" routine. He has instituted many items into prevention, from airport security to that evil surveillance to having terrorists all over the world running for cover, instead of sitting around coming up with new ways to attacks us. You or I  don't know even a small percent of the things the government is doing to bolster our security...and that's fine with me. Don't tell me - just do it.  Do you really think there have been no thwarted attempts since then? They just decided to leave us alone?

How you, or even the most adament Bush-hater alive, can look at the fact that no further occurences have occurred here since that day, even though there are terrorist groups all over the world dedicated to doing so, and not give Bush any credit for it, simply boggles the mind and shows a prejudice so overpowering that it is irrational, to say the least.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
87 posted 2008-07-25 03:39 PM



quote:
How you, or even the most adament Bush-hater alive, can look at the fact that no further occurences have occurred here since that day, even though there are terrorist groups all over the world dedicated to doing so, and not give Bush any credit for it, simply boggles the mind and shows a prejudice so overpowering that it is irrational, to say the least.


It’s not a result of prejudice Mike or irrational - you even prove the point yourself if you’d take a moment to think about it.

quote:
You appear to refuse the simple fact that NOTHING could have prevented 9/11.


Explain the logic in saying that, on one hand, NOTHING could stop a terrorist attack and on the other that Bush should be given credit for doing SOMETHING to stop one!

He either did something to prevent an attack or he did something that had no chance of stopping an attack because nothing could stop an attack.

If it’s the latter I’m right. If it’s the former you were wrong to say that NOTHING could stop an attack - worse than that though you need to explain why the hell he didn’t do that magical SOMETHING he’s taking credit for BEFORE 9-11!

I’m not saying that Bush can’t claim credit simply because it’s Bush, I’ve no political axe to grind either way, I’m saying it because it’s the most rational thing to conclude.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
88 posted 2008-07-25 04:02 PM


Ok, Grinch...I see the point you are trying to make. Let me clarify, if I can.

Yes, I am still of the belief that nothing can stop a terrorist attack should the terrorists be determined and clever enough to do so.

Before, there was basically nothing to make their jobs even difficult. Grab a box-cutter, hijack a plane, fly it into a building. We had no controls to make it even a challenge.

It's not that simple anymore. Airport security is much tighter. Ports are much more  closely guarded. Suspicious activity is more scrutinized. Communication and cooperation between us and other international anti-terrorist agencies is better coordinated.  Many safeguards have been instituted since then.

Could there be another attack? Of course. Can it happen like, or as easily as,  9/11? Nope. One does what one can do and hopes it's enough. That's all the guarantee one gets in life. Apparently, at least up to now, what Bush has done, has done the job. To not give him credit for it is not only ungrateful, it's wrong.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
89 posted 2008-07-25 04:55 PM



quote:
Apparently, at least up to now, what Bush has done, has done the job.


Maybe it has Mike, then again maybe it hasn’t, it could be that the terrorists haven’t even tried another attack, in which case what Bush has done hasn’t made an ounce of difference.

If that’s the case surely the terrorists who haven’t tried another attack are more deserving of the credit than Bush.

Like I said I’m not arguing against Bush in this case, I’m arguing against the logic of giving credit where it’s not due.

In fact I’d happily agree with you if you were to say “Bush deserves some credit for putting measures in place to reduce the chance of another terrorist attack.”

I couldn’t argue with that - I wouldn’t even want to, I might disagree with you on the amount of credit but I’ll readily agree the guy deserves some.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

90 posted 2008-07-25 08:36 PM


Dear Balladeer,

         You really should read what other people say before you let yourself respond:


     "There is no causal connection we can make between Bush and lack of U.S. terrorist action over the past seven years.  If it helps you at all, there was probably no causal connection between the first World Trade Center bombing shortly after Clinton took office, his actions, and the absence of foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during his tenure in office either.  You can't establish causality in either case.

     You can say that the Democrats, when they turned over power to the Republicans in 2001, went to very great lengths to make it known to the Republican incoming officeholders that they thought that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda should be at the very top of their list of concerns.  And you can say that because we have it from multiple sources, including books praised by President Bush himself (the first of the trilogy of Bob Woodward books dealt with this aspect of the transfer of power and the lead-up to the war quite extensively, and was based on interviews with administration officials, including President Bush).  We have the same material dealt with from  another direction by Thomas T. Ricks in his book, "Fiasco."   Should you be interested in following up on documentation, please ask, and I'll dig up some other source material as well."


     At another point in our exchange I write, in the letters you've placed in boldface:


And I would want to read briefing papers that came across my desk that said they were about the risk of terrorist activity in the continental United States by arab extremists.  

And Balladeer responds,
"Are you stating that he didn't? Are you further stating he did nothing? Where does that insight come from?"

     And I respond to you here by pointing out that yes, in fact, I am pointing out that he didn't.  And that had you checked the references I supplied, you would have seen that was so, and that though there have been instances of Dr, Rice denying that these were the events that happened, there have also been times when she has acknowledged them to be true.  In fact, as you will remember, presidential candidates are given CIA briefings before they are elected because the country wants to make sure that whomever is elected, they will be sure to be able to hit the ground running.  Whatever my feelings about Bush may be are completely secondary to the actual events that occurred before, during and after his assuming office; despite your attempts to make what you assume to be my feelings about President Bush an issue, they are not, no more than your avowed dislike of President Clinton is the issue.

     The issue, as I understand it, for the purposes of this thread, is Obama and McClain.  The revelence of Bush seems to be only the extent to which Senator McClain seems to be eager or willing to carry forward those policies.

     My interest in Bush about this is that he does no more damage to the country and the constitution while he's in office; that he starts no more wars, and commits us to no more policies that will ruin us financially and militarily, and none that will raise the possibility of a new cold war.  That those that have been instituted be curtailed and reversed, and that the awful temptations for the further abuse of power by the administrative branch be reduced buck to where they were before this unfortunate expansion of them began before this administration took office.  I say before, because some of these things, like FISA, took place even earlier.

     No matter whom we elect, we will need to do those things.  I believe no matter how trusting you are, balladeer, there's got to be somebody you won't trust to have all the power that's devolved into the hands of the administrative branch.  It doesn't belong there, to my mind, in as unbalanced fashion as it has arrived there now for the use of anybody, no matter how benign.

     But to return to your questions, which I still feel to be misleading,
my insight but more importantly my information comes from those books.  I can dig up articles, but since you don't actually seem to read my responses these days before dashing off a reply, I'm not certain that the extra references would actually get read or, if read, would get digested.  The two I offered above were not.  Here are others that talk about the time period in question, and what the Bush White House Team was doing.  I'm even defining the word "team" narrowly.


http://www.slate.com/id/2098861/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_Determined_to_Strike_in_U.S.
http://www.antiwar.com/rothschild/?articleid=2342
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/19/september11.usa
http://www.truthout.org/article/jason-leopold-bush-ignored-911-warnings
http://http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-terrorism/


     While the democrats in the Clinton administration had left office saying that terrorism was the upcoming issue, and was the one that needed urgent attention.  The incoming Bush administration thought differently.  They were interested in policy initiative around an anti-ballistic missile system, and in getting our allies on board in taking part in deploying one.  As part of a major speech that Bush delivered in May of 2001, he mentions this and even suggests that it may be possible to get China and Russia to sign on to the initiative.  If I remember correctly, the White House felt there were Five major  national priorities, and homeland security didn't even make the cut.
Although, to be fair, President Bush, even then seemed interested in tackling and eliminating Sadam Hussein.  I guess he was willing to wait and allow time to let his creativity work to invent causes.

     The information that Bush and friends that was coming in from pre-Bush administration sources, from current CIA sources, and from even within their own temporarily retained Richard Clarke (life long Republican, worked previously for Clinton, sure, but also for Bush I, and for Reagan) said that they weren't paying attention to the facts so much as what they wanted the facts to be.  I don't know why.  I have guesses, but those really aren't all that important.

     I'm not interested, to correct your frequently stated misunderstanding, in Bashing President Bush at all.  I'm actually amused at the characterization.  I am interested in getting the facts straight.  Making sure that the events are told without really strange distortions and lies by anybody is important to me because I've worked with crazy folks my whole life, and I know what a precious commodity truth is, and how hard it can be to come by.  I've seen people kill themselves when they loose their sense of truth.  I'm not making an analogy; I'm being quite literal here.  I've also seen people quite literally make a decision to live, on the spot, when I've told that that, yes, from what I've seen, person X despite all the nice things they're saying and how great they manage to look while they're saying it, really does seem to be trying to kill you,  Let's make sure they don't do that.  I simply like to think that I'm on the side of truth rather than the side of lies.  

     That makes me a pompous jerk sometimes, which I try to avoid as best I can.

     But my interest isn't bashing President Bush, it's simply in making sure that his facts are as straight as possible.  When they aren't, and I say so, you tell me I'm bashing Bush.  I've criticized Clinton as well, almost everybody including myself about the way the truth tends to bend when we tell it.  With Clinton, you agree with me, or go a bit further.  With myself, you've often been extremely kind, more so than warranted, on occasion, I think.  With Bush, suddenly I'm bashing.  I'm far more unhappy with myself than I am with Bush; I take my sins more personally, in the same way I tend to take the sins of Democrats more personally.  I think we should somehow know better.

     Why is it that you seem to think that when President Bush lies and I point it out, that I have committed some sin?  I have done nothing but try to keep the record trustworthy, and the world in working order.  I want a leader who can at least confine his lying
to places where it isn't fatal to other people and dangerous to the health of others.  I don't believe that this is a standard that is so high that I cannot expect a presidential candidate or, heck, even an actual president Herself to live up to it.  

     If you believe that it's a flaw in my character first of all to actually dare to notice this myself, and then, horror of horrors, actually to point this out to somebody else, I can only tell you that we must flatly disagree.  I believe it is a right and in fact a responsibility of a citizen in a democracy for YOU to do so, when you see somebody doing something of this sort.  I don't think this is "bashing" at all if you are being honest in your assertions.  If you believe I am speaking without facts to back me up, as you seem to assert when you say I speak only out of my dislike for Bush, I should like to point out that you have neglected to point out such a case.

     It doesn't matter if I dislike Bush or not.  My motivations and my explanations of them or your accusations about them don't matter.


     People already know I'm ugly and mean, Balladeer.  I might add that my parents never loved me, and children run from me screaming when I do my Peter Lorre imitation. I speak with animals.  I deny rumors of special powers, and I am still struggling to be fluent in English.  I tend to side with the downtrodden, and I like long walks along the beach-NOT.  And IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I SAY ABOUT BUSH, TELL ME WHERE MY FACTS ARE WRONG. I know that may seem like too much to ask when all that character assassination stuff is so-o-o much fun, but really, as far as I'm concerned ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS DISPROVE THE FACTS.

     Most anything else you do seems to me a pretty poor substitute.

Sincerely yours,
Bob K.

An afterthought:

     What Bush has done is make people very much aware of the possibility of further attacks.  We do need to credit Bush for this; I do.

      I believe however that Grinch is right about the reduction of actual danger.  That can't be proved.  Balladeer and I went over this in our discussion of Post hoc ergo Propter hoc reasoning above.  Balladeer smothered the possibility in scorn before actually thinking it through.  This is one of those not-testable propositions.
As I suggested in an earlier post, Balladeer might take comfort in the fact that this conclusion also suggests that Clinton era efforts to curb terrorist attacks on the continental United states after the 1993 world trade center bombing could not be proved to have been successful in preventing all continental U.S. bombings until the 2001 WTC bombing, when the Republicans were in office, either.

     The train of logic simply doesn't follow in either case, no matter who would like to use the false political gain from that reasoning.  Alas.  BK

     In fact many of the major channels for terrorists to smuggle weapons, explosives and, quite possibly people into the country are still quite open, while a lot of time and effort are put into addressing hot-button issues.  Air Freight, for example, as opposed to passenger baggage is not well regulated.  Sea transport of goods is poorly regulated as well, and is the entry of most goods into the country.  Propositions for funding such programs have been, as I understand it, been regularly vetoed because they may block the free flow of commerce.


[EDIT - Tried to clean up broken links. Sorry, Bob, some of them were so scrambled all I could do was remove them entirely. - Ron ]

[This message has been edited by Ron (07-25-2008 09:46 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
91 posted 2008-07-26 01:54 AM


Maybe it has Mike, then again maybe it hasn’t, it could be that the terrorists haven’t even tried another attack, in which case what Bush has done hasn’t made an ounce of difference.

If that’s the case surely the terrorists who haven’t tried another attack are more deserving of the credit than Bush.


An amazing statement...there is no way to respond to that. Obviously any further dwelling on this point would be pointless.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

92 posted 2008-07-26 03:54 AM




     Thanks for cleaning up as much as you did, Ron; I appreciate the work.

Dear Mike,

          Let's not credit the terrorist with being swell fellas all that quickly.  You and Grinch exasperate each other.  It's simply not in the cards to prove a negative in this way, such and so DID NOT happen because of THIS action.  This is part of the problem with retrospective studies as opposed to prospective studies in scientific research.

     I'm not sure if I've ever heard either of you acknowledge the other making a decent point, though, and I'm pretty sure that both of you have at one time or another.  Would acknowledgment by the other make it any easier to keep down the provocative tones.  When I hear it, it makes a difference with me, I know.  It helps me listen more closely.  I know I need to get back to doing more of that.

     Thoughts?

BobK.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
93 posted 2008-07-26 11:02 AM


I have no idea what you are hearing, Bob. Grinch and I have a long history of profound respect for each other and I see nothing provocative or personally insulting in any of our exchanges. If he does, then I would apologize immediately. If you do and he doesn't, then I would say you are viewing what's not there. Provocative, or personal comments, sound more like..

Did you use this frankly off base analogy
You really should read what other people say before you let yourself respond:
I'm not interested, to correct your frequently stated misunderstanding,
Most anything else you do seems to me a pretty poor substitute.
Bear Balladeer,
Perhaps, if Balladeer can run Bill Clinton down enough,
"Because that Balladeer fella's spouting another of them logical fallacies.  Probably thinks nobody'll notice that what do you call it."

You will find no personal barbs between grinch and I. See the difference?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
94 posted 2008-07-26 12:51 PM



Bob,

As Mike says we’ve known each other quite a while, since the Forums opened in fact (though I‘ve had a few names since then), and over the years, as happens in real life, respect for each other ends up as given. We chat, we disagree, we might throw our dummies out of the pram and our hands in the air but we then start the whole process off again in the next thread. The respect is still there, we just don’t need to confirm it every two minutes.

Familiarity doesn’t always breed contempt - sometimes it kindles respect too.

Hope that clears that up.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

95 posted 2008-07-26 01:18 PM


I think Bob's touched on a very important point. Because of copyright laws we're not allowed to post excerpts from articles, books, etc., so we actually need to click the links and read the material in order to respond appropriately.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
96 posted 2008-07-26 02:10 PM



quote:
we're not allowed to post excerpts from articles, books, etc.,


Jen,

First I’d like to say I respect you a lot. (better Bob?)

But.

Are you sure? I thought you could use excerpts under the Fair Use clause, hopefully Ron (who I also respect) will probably be able to clarify.

Respectfully

The Grinch

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

97 posted 2008-07-26 02:37 PM


I could be wrong, Grinch, I frequently am, but I think you can only use a couple of paragraphs.

I respect you, too, and all who post in this forum. I certainly hope no one ever takes my rather opionated stand on issues as being a personal attack.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
98 posted 2008-07-26 03:58 PM


quote:
... but I think you can only use a couple of paragraphs.

Shouldn't that be enough, Jennifer? Along with a link, where possible, so people who want to read more can easily do so?

Ideally, on a site dedicated to writing, people can use their own words to get their points across, even if that sometimes means paraphrasing authoritative sources instead of using excessively long quotations. We want to know what you think, not what someone else said. Nonetheless, as Grinch said, excerpts that remain substantially less than the original source material are fine when necessary to support your points. Links are also fine.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

99 posted 2008-07-26 05:07 PM


Thanks for the clarification, Ron, I appreciate it. Just to make sure that I understand correctly, since it seems I often don’t, you’re saying I could quote from a copyrighted source like an AP article or recently published book? Is that what you meant would be ok? And approximately what portion/percentage of that copyrighted article or book could I quote on this site?

What I think is based in part on what I’ve read. I’d much prefer to use quotes rather than links since people may not want or have time to read an entire article to locate just a few paragraphs pertinent to the discussion. Or they may have to register at a site in order to read an article and might not wish to do that. As for paraphrasing, well, since it seems I so often misunderstand, perhaps that’s a bit risky.

Thanks again for your help.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

100 posted 2008-07-26 08:20 PM



Mike,
     You know I'm not trying to turn you into a Democrat by now.  I know that's not you.  There's something here about the nature of this particular situation that really requires everybody to understand it.  I actually think the country is at a constitutional crisis, no matter who wins the election, and we need to do some basic thinking about what the nature of the country is and what we want it to be for the next hundred years.  We can be partisan all we want, but that skips over the basic needs that I think our country has for all of us right now.

     Who do our Grandchildren need us to be?  (not that I have any)  What do our Grandparents require of us?  What do we owe our ambitions?  What do we owe the least among us?

     What are the other questions we actually need to ask?

     We can beat on each others' heads all day, but I think in the end, we need to be asking ourselves some of these questions, and soon.

Yours, Bob K
    

[This message has been edited by Bob K (07-27-2008 02:10 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
101 posted 2008-07-26 10:00 PM


quote:
... you’re saying I could quote from a copyrighted source like an AP article or recently published book?

Yes.

quote:
And approximately what portion/percentage of that copyrighted article or book could I quote on this site?

There aren't any hard and fast rules, Jennifer, not even in our court system. Two lines from a book is almost certainly fine. Two lines from an article is probably good, too. Two lines from a haiku, on the other hand, would be a bit iffy. The longer your source the more you can quote while still being "fair" (as in, Fair Use Doctrine).

quote:
What I think is based in part on what I’ve read. I’d much prefer to use quotes rather than links ...

When quoting a source, you should also link to it whenever possible. That gives people here a choice, but just as importantly, it gives your source the possibility of more exposure in return for using them. Again, it's just the most fair thing to do.


Hey, Guys? This thread is crossing a line and is dangerously close to being closed and locked. I should probably just edit or delete the last few posts right now and see if we can get back on topic? I don't know. I do know, however, that we're here to talk TO each other, not about each other. If you don't like someone's response, your choices are to counter the points being made or to move on to another thread. Discussion of why the points were made (motivation) or how skillfully the points were made is best left to other venues.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
102 posted 2008-07-26 10:08 PM


Understood, Ron...
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

103 posted 2008-07-26 10:41 PM


Thanks again, Ron, you spelled what I needed to know and your point about giving a source more exposure is well taken. Definitely a V-8 moment for me!

One of the sources I read quite often is Common Dreams. Was just skimming a few articles and noticed sort of a trend regarding Obama’s stance on Afghanistan/Pakistan. I’ll need more time to check out a few things before I sort out whether or not I agree, but perhaps we could move along to that topic? Just a thought.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/26/10622/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/25/10594/
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/23/10558/


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

104 posted 2008-07-27 03:37 AM



Dear Ron, et al.,

          I amended my post in favor of extra congeniality.  For anything I said that might be taken as mean spirited or false, I am, of course, sorry.  I intended to be neither.  As I said in my posting, I like Balladeer and think well of him.  I have been clear about that and about exactly where I believe we disagree.  I still believe him a great and sincere patriot.  I have always seen him as unflinching in that regard.

     I appreciated Jennifer Maxwell's three references.  It's not often enough that we see references to Progressive publications here, and I found these were very informative.  So, thinking of her:

     I recently ran across a more primary source sort of blog on the subject of Afghanistan by Special forces and diplomatic types that's pretty interesting.  You have to look between the lines a bit to follow the unfolding story about the jostling back and forth of the diplomats and the Afghanistani officials, and how the the US army is getting played between them, but if you've got your decoder ring, it turns out to be pretty interesting.  You have the sense that the stories these folks are telling are going to be news or news backgrounds over the next few months.
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/

     Let me know, Ron, Jennifer, whoever seems interested in following up, if anybody, what you think of this stuff.

     It not at the point where it's political yet; the politics, I think, depends on what use you want to make of it.  But the raw story of it's fascinating, and that you can read between the lions.

Sincerely, BobK.
    

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

105 posted 2008-07-27 08:25 AM


Interesting site, Bob, thanks for the link. I'm out all day today, and running really late, but just wanted to say I'm up for discussing anything.

Another interesting site: http://factcheck.org/

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
106 posted 2008-08-28 10:47 PM


Back on topic it is ... I have since hearing Obama was voted in as a Senator thought, one day that remarkable young man will lead America.  When he announced his acceptance to run for the Democrats and his nomination I figured he was a "shoe-in" to win.  After watching his delivery tonight, I would even go so far now as to make Balladeer a bet on it.                 He is more than just talk, showed a lot more of himself tonight, and gave a lot of specific information.  I liked his "fighting back" spirit tonight too.  I believe in him so strongly up here, but I am still wondering if Americans are ready for such a big change?  I don't live there but have never been this interested in any election since John Kennedy.

I am wondering what you all thought of the television coverage tonight, and now what do you think?  Whomever found those "middle class Americans" tonight to speak sure needs a medal.           Obama's one sentence summed it up for me when he said something like "This whole election process has never been about me - it is about you!"  Are Americans ready for this?  That is the question still stuck in my mind.  Let me know what you thought?    

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 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
107 posted 2008-11-04 11:20 PM


Well I am sitting on pins and needles up here waiting for the results.  My little Obama bobble-head doll is shaking his wee head affirmatively, but I won't be going to bed until I am sure that all the results are in, and all are on the up-and-up.  This election is nerve-wrecking I tell you!       Whomever wins, I hope they are treated with the utmost respect as they sure deserve it.  I wouldn't want this job right now for any amount of money, or fame.

I seem to be talking to myself in this thread but oh well, it keeps my sanity. I have believed in this young man since I first starting researching his past on the internet, and watching A&E about his life, and his choices along his career path.

I have had no t.v. hooked up, and just got in, but got a phone call that Obama is President Elect!  Whooo Hoooo!

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » pipTalk Lounge » Obama or Clinton (Very curious what you think either one's chance might be at becoming President?)

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

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