<link>

My son is McCain, he never liked Hillary (reason above, limiting video game use is tantamount to heineous crimes against the state I suppose.) and he had to think about Obama, he had his cousins, and his friends all pro Obamans and he had to look into it. He decided that the name change was enough to cast aspersion on Obama's insistence that he was not ever a muslim and that was enough. (not me, my son thinks for himself, and unless he asks I do not get involved) (it was not the fact he was a muslim, it was the fact that it was a transparent lie, why lie about it?)

anywho:

this is a link to a blog that is chiding Obama for misquoting McCain, apparently McCain is not going to stand for it and are calling him on his "stuff". He does the same to Hillary and I've called some of it here on the Fray, but Hillary is way too gracious I think. She needs to punch this guys lights out, he's not cut from the same cloth that she is.

<link>

As far as the silly attitudes of Obama-bots on the debate. This article from Politico does a lot to ummm, keep me from needing to comment really. It's all here.

If you come across that NYT link could you post it please?

<link>

stalking and for his (usual) SEXISM to our (Female) Editor. It's amazing he gets away with such tawdry behavior & language. He would frighten me somewhat, if I lived anywhere near Crooked Ole Chicago, aka ObamaNutLand. Pls. see your e-m, btw. Thanks. I think he is (still) taking out resentment toward his ex-wife on women on here who DARE to speak up to him -- you, me, Angel, Ellen, I'm sure there are more. "L."

You are an angel. I know it helped when I wrote her about those you know what and who was doing on the other post. She is a doll. Thank god she is back!

;-) and so are you, dear (((friend))).

1. That you are a racist

2. That you are trying to get McCain elected

or

3. You are trying to prove those who said they would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee liars as you drive them away in droves.

Sorry, but nice try... don't like racists whatever color they come in including black racists like Farrakhan and Wright. I don't want McCain elected that why I want Hillary ..because I beleive she can beat him . I also Believe Obama can not. I was for Obama. .. see my post in Topazz thread that she got her check mark for with the title about what her son said about never voting for a woman. I posted about how great I did think it is that the kids like him. and how good, at that time(before the Wright thing came out) how good I thought he could be for the country. I was for him right after Iowa. The Wright thing is what changed my view. As to Hillary and will the bots vote for her?......nothing you, I or Lunesta can do good bad or indifferent will matter. People wil vote the way that they believe is best for the country regardless of what anyone says or writes here. You give me far too much power if you think otherwise....but thanks.

It does look like we'll get a chance to find out what a majority of Americans will do, because he is going to be the nominee.

I'm a little more hopeful than you, but I'm no less pragmatic. I'm not one of those dreamers you guys keep talking about. He's doing well in the polls, he's bringing in a lot of young people, it looks like he's going to be very competitive in states in which Democrats aren't even used to be competitive. Particularly here out west. I'm looking forward to this.

I don't see much difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. And John McCain would only last four years. If I can wait eight years for this country to get its head out of its butt, I can wait another four. The bottom line is, everything to gain and not much to lose.

ducadmo:

I don't see much difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. And John McCain would only last four years. If I can wait eight years for this country to get its head out of its butt, I can wait another four. The bottom line is, everything to gain and not much to lose.

Can you provide some examples - you know, from their stated positions on relevant subjects? Cause you seem like an intelligent guy and all, and its hard for me to fathom how we could be seeing such different things.

Again Laurie, excellent post! Would you be my favorite poster?

Dave

awwww, you are always such a great friend to me Phoen_X! You're the best! Sure just click me on in your favorites file. What a sweet thing of you say! Wishing you a great weekend, Dave! ~~LAM~

Ducadmo

you are such a fatalist.

I don't think it is such a foregone conclusion. But I am tired. It's like Dukakis all over again, without the eyebrows.

Whoever gave that link, do you really like this commentator David Brooks?

That poll favors Hillary

This telephone survey of 730 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 17, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

But again it is primarily Democratic voters.

Here it is as I see it:

Obama is a loose canon, we pit him against McCain and it's hard to know what the Reps are going to hit him with. I still have concerns about Odinga and that has not once cropped up with Hillary..

Hillary is soft balling him, and Obama can barely hold it together with that. He's not ready for prime time yet, he's just not. He does have an ego, with McCain, Obama's going to crack. How it falls out is anyone's guess. I'm going to take a shot and these are all speculations. Based on Obama's reactions to Hillary, he's going to fall back on blame, so it will be a litter of blame blame blame all over. If McCain can keep his infamous temper in check, then Obama will fall so hard that a Carter/Nader ticket will look electable next to him.

Odinga will be a factor, I can't believe it won't be.

One of the issues with the Dems is that they have for the most part presented what has been seen as weak presidential hopefuls (besides Clinton). Hillary is strong, a monster, a bitch, a scary being from the depths of hell! I think she's been likened to Satan even. You go girl! Hell she has had the most balls of any presidential hopeful since Clinton, and I say it would be a shame not to go for it. The DNC needs someone with balls and Hills' got em.

Off topic: What is the deal with Lieberman?

The Million Man March was a good thing, why would you call it a bad thing?

Is this like Jewish Anti-Semitism? I can't even read this stuff anymore. Some folks will find any excuse not to vote for a black man. Sorry but this shit is pure racism.

I'm not much interested in 'stated positions'. I'm what you would call a 'results-oriented' person. So when I compare Hillary and McCain this is what I see.

Neither has anything I would consider to be a plan for revitalizing the economy. Nothing. Hillary's nothing would cost more. To tell you the truth, Obama won't be able to do much in the short term, either. We're fucked in the short term. And we're fucked in the long-term too, if we waste a lot of time in short-term solutions.

McCain doesn't have much of a health care plan. Hillary has one that won't make it through Congress. Again. You would think she'd learn. Maybe she did. In fact, that plan will get stalled and give Republicans a real opportunity in the midterm elections. Obama has a plan that has a reasonable chance of passing, one we can aford, and without getting eaten up in Republican backlash.

Regarding the Middle East. McCain wants to talk real tough on Iran. Hillary wants to talk a little tough on Iran. There is nothing we're going to do about Iran. Some people think we're going to drop some bombs or something. It ain't going to happen. All we could do is turn Iran into Iraq. That would give us chaos from Pakistan to the Mediteranean. Wouldn't that be fun?

Believe it or not, Iran is our best hope for stability in the Middle East. Tough talk irritates them all and Iran is really not much different than us - a bunch of very diverse people with everyday concerns who happen to have an idiot for a President who is supported by a bunch of religious fanatics. Treating Iranians like people might piss off Zionist fanatics back here in the U.S. of A., but it's the only real option we have.

Any other questions? I'd be happy to oblige.

I thought this Krugman op-ed was quite interesting, and wonder if you've seen it. If so, do you have a comment?

So far as your response is concerned, I see you've arrived at a number of conclusion, but you provide no insight into how you arrived at those conclusions. As nearly as I can tell, the more vehement Obama supporters/Clinton critics have been repeating the same hollow talking points, but don't really know what they're talking about. If you know what you're talking about, perhaps you could make some demonstration?

Health care: there are some things for which a compromise is worse than no action at all. That's the decision Clinton made, for better or worse, with the first attempt at reforming the medical system. If we have a Democratic congress, we may have an unparalleled opportunity to do something meaningful. Otherwise, we might as well have elected Romney, so far as health care plans go.

Nobody knows what to do about the economy - not really. So where do you get that Hillary's non-planned plan would cost more?

The Middle East: If there's one thing that Hillary has learned, its manipulative politics, which is one reason many dislike her. My point is that, without learning these lessons very well indeed, there is absolutely no way she could've been in a position to make a legitimate run at the presidency in the first place. Hillary has to talk tougher than Obama because she has to overcome the whole "feminine" thing so far as foreign relations are concerned. Watch what happens when she's elected - could you see Bill as Secretary of State? I certainly can. You think those two are going to try to scare Iran? Only if you've got a short memory.

So, as regards further questions, what I'd really appreciate is if you'd flesh out your unsupported conclusions, and I'll leave off with this observation (and question):

Since the healthcare reform initiative failed, I've heard my Republican associates talk about Hillary Clinton as though she is the antiChrist. In fact, I cannot remember another political figure I've heard subjected to such a prolonged and intense attempt to undermine credibility. These days, I'm hearing very similar arguments coming from people who consider themselves quite liberal. My response to this is, WTF? Are you'all really that susceptible to campaign propaganda? Or is there something substantive that I'm missing - something that explains the agreement between more conservative elements of the Republican party, and more liberal elements of the Democratic party?

Any ideas?

Eagerly awaiting your response.