Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hillary Clinton knows how to stay classy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008..._wa_112232.htm

She's more or less saying, "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, and it might happen to Obama too, so it makes sense for me to stay in the race until the better end."

In fairness, didn't she actually mean "the primary was still going on in June when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated"--i.e. why shouldn't it still be going on in June of 2008?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In fairness, didn't she actually mean "the primary was still going on in June when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated"--i.e. why shouldn't it still be going on in June of 2008?

Yeah, that's probably what she meant, but it still comes off sounding really insensitive and crass. Given how much she's touted her "experience" throughout the campaign, one would think she'd be politically saavy enough not to make comments like that.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Hillary Clinton knows how to stay classy:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232008..._wa_112232.htm

She's more or less saying, "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, and it might happen to Obama too, so it makes sense for me to stay in the race until the better end."

i don't even know what to say. I am at a loss for words right now. There are no words in the english language to describe this so i will invent one now:

Scrumtrulescent.

[MarchHare]

That didn't take long:

Clinton apologizes for Kennedy assassination remark

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” Ms. Clinton said.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Meanwhile, McCain is picking his Veep in the time-honoured American way--over brats and beer.

His potential choices (apparently) are here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...nts/index.html

My thoughts on some of them:

1. Haley Barbour, Mississippi Gov.

This would be an odd choice, to say the least. If McCain picks him, that signals that he's deeply worried about the base of the party not turning up on election day. In the end, Barbour is a long shot, because he a) is from a state and a region that McCain should carry easily without his help and b) looks kind of like an evil John Candy.

2. Charlie Crist, Fla. Governor.

Geographically this choice makes a lot of sense. Florida's a swing state, and McCain may steal Pennsylvania from an Obama candidacy. Lose both Florida and Pennsylvania and the Dems are probably cooked. I'd call Crist the odds-on favourite. Electorally the smartest move.

3. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Gov.

Geographically this choice would make no sense at all, but Jindal possesses a lot of traits McCain doesn't. Charisma, youth, energy, not being a ######bag, etc. As a supporter of the democrats, Jindal would scare me a little. He might be the GOP's answer to Obama.

4. Tim Pawlenty, Minn. Gov.

Enjoy your bratwurst, Tim. The Miller light's in the fridge. Now take your food and sit over there while the adults talk.

5. Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney.

I really hope McCain picks Mitt Romney. Together they would form an unelectable, super-dense black hole of ######baggery. In all honesty, this would be the worst choice, bar none--yet for some reason he's going to the barbecue. Weird.

It'll be interesting to see who he picks.

Bah. A short list given to the media to gauge reaction. If nobody on that list creates any buzz (and they won't) I wouldn't expect any of them. I still say Lieberman.

[icecube]

Clinton needs to be held accountable for those remarks. That's not the first time she's brought up the Kennedy assasination as a reason for continuing her campaign. She hasn't apologized to Obama either. It was disgusting.

[Nehkara]

Delegate Update!

Total Delegates:

Clinton 1779
Obama 1969 (190 ahead)


Pledged Delegates:

Clinton 1500
Obama 1660 (160 ahead)


Superdelegates:

Clinton 279
Obama 309 (30 ahead)

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Reagan's increased spending was do to military expenditures which won him the cold war and also modernized a military that thanks to Carter was hurting big time.

Clinton was pretty much hamstrung by the Republican houses which demanded a balanced budget. If he had control Hilliary would have introduced universal health care in his first term. Clinton's economic legacy was handed to him. He could continue playing lip service to all the special interest groups that make up his party and point to the congress as the bad guys when asked why he wasn't doing much for them. The economy without government tampering{taxes} grew strong as it always does.

The current President Bush is in the later stages of a war. War is expensive. Because of the rise of Islamic traditionalists he also has had to create a whole new government agency which is expensive. No President could do those things and keep a balanced budget. If it wasn't for Bush's tax cuts America would have been in recession a long time ago.

Do you actually believe what you just posted?

The Soviet economy was already on the decline well before Reagan ever took office, and military spending actually decreased by the Soviets during the time of Gorbachev. In a nutshell, the social/economic policies of glasnost and perestroika implemented by Gorbachev were by far the biggest reason the Soviet Union collapsed when it did.

But really, Reagan just happened to be in office during that time period, which for some reason seemingly gives Republicans the right to spread that myth around.

[Azure]

I'm not saying that he 'won' the Cold War, but he sure forced Russia to practically run out of money trying to keep up with the US economy.

Glasnost and perestroika had a much bigger effect, but you can't just discount what Reagan did.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm not saying that he 'won' the Cold War, but he sure forced Russia to practically run out of money trying to keep up with the US economy.

Glasnost and perestroika had a much bigger effect, but you can't just discount what Reagan did.

I'm not discounting his efforts completely, just mostly. If he wasn't in office, very likely the exact same thing would have happened with Gorbachev in place.

Military spending decreased and the economy was already in decline prior to Reagan. American spending and keeping up with the Jones' simply wasn't the top priority at that time.

The Soviets thought Reagan was pretty crazy and they did fear him, but they couldn't keep up with American spending even if they wanted to. So they didn't.

[Azure]

And their economy crashed as a result.

He had an effect....although its debatable how big it was.

[HotHotHeat]

“We’re going to have to change the system by which we pick the nominees, I believe, and we are with the system we have now,” Clinton said, responding to a supporter here who lamented the role of superdelegates in selecting the party’s nominee. “And I’m a big believer in one person one vote, and I believe in as much democracy as possible.”

Because Clinton lost the nomination the process has to change? Alright there, Hill.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Do you actually believe what you just posted?

The Soviet economy was already on the decline well before Reagan ever took office, and military spending actually decreased by the Soviets during the time of Gorbachev. In a nutshell, the social/economic policies of glasnost and perestroika implemented by Gorbachev were by far the biggest reason the Soviet Union collapsed when it did.

But really, Reagan just happened to be in office during that time period, which for some reason seemingly gives Republicans the right to spread that myth around.

The Soviet's economy never worked but, until Reagan they were able to appear to compete militarily with the States. Carter's underfunding of the military helped prolong this illusion. Reagan put the arms race out of reach and at the same time offered the Soviets a treaty which would have eliminated all stockpiles of nuclear weapons in both countries. Gorbachev seen Reagan as both a strong leader and sincere. Gorbachev's trust of Reagan and Reagan's motives allowed him to make the changes he did at home. Both men should be remembered as great leaders who made the world safer because of their vision and courage.

Not too long ago Gorbachev did a speaking tour with Ronald Reagan's son Micheal where they addressed the special relationship the two leaders had.

Yes Ronald Reagan borrowed money to finance the build up but, I think it was money well spent. He borrowed from the future to secure a future.

[MarchHare]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

Fox News proves that they have absolutely no shame. In this clip, a guest speaker is discussing Hillary's comments about the RFK assassination, and she mispronounces Obama as "Osama". She then laughs and says it would be great if they were both knocked off. Worst of all, the host of the show just laughs along with her and says, "Tell us how you really feel" instead of calling her out for advocating the assassination of a presidential candidate.

[Daradon]

^^^ I can't believe they allow state television in the US. Being so anti government involvement and all.

I mean everything that is American will be lost once universal health care is pushed on them right?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

Wow... I can't even put into words how disgusting that was.

[Daradon]

You can totally tell that was a planned flub too. Bad actress.

Why do people still watch that network?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Wow... I can't even put into words how disgusting that was.

Yeah disgusting but effective as most of the electorate doesn't really pay attention to what is going on and lots still believe Obama is Moslem. My guess is this is just the start of the misinformation and bad jokes that will be spread, not by McCain so he can distance himself, but by Fox and other right wing groups.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You can totally tell that was a planned flub too. Bad actress.

Why do people still watch that network?

Maybe they are dumb?

Who is that withered old slut anyway?

[Daradon]

^^^

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34775,00.html

Liz Trotta

Ex Washington Times bureau chief, new Fox contributor.