Four More?

Bill Clinton:

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let’s send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.

< Ready | Supporting the Democratic Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    4 more (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    Bill and Hillary said no to 4 more years of Bush

    i will listen to them.

    Sen. Obama said at one time (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    that he agreed with Bush on the war. How many times do you think Sen. Obama shook Pres. Bush's hand or said something nice about him, or voted with Bush? I am making up my own mind (and it's made up). I, like Hill and Bill, am a leader among mine, and listen, study, I gather and interpret. I do not call anyone names nor do I tell people they are unimportant to my goals. I try, at least try, to speak to people respectfully and hope they treat me the same. I have not received the respect from Sen. Obama that I, in the beginning, gave him.

    As Kucinich wanted to say (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    "They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20."

    Heck, TalkLeft might even be willing to make a few exceptions to its pro-defendant policies just for the occasion.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    this convention has really been something hasn't it? The "old guard" raises lots more excitement from the base than the "new guard". These people that Obama has drug up are some of the most boring speakers I have ever seen. It's almost like his campaign tried to find them. They all couldn't have been this bad by chance could they?

    There is no "new guard" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:26:02 AM EST
    Well, they think they're new... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    not realizing that eventually, everything old is new again.

    Cole Porter and I thank you (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    for using that line. :-)

    you know the think I am most sick of? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    hearing how this election is "different" than past elections.  and my expectations are somehow tainted because I am expecting the same results as past elections.
    um, no.
    not exactly.  the democrats nominated a loser who is  going scare the hell out of middle america.  just like the last time.
    what the heck is so different about that?

    Hmm (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    well not according to the party elite.

    Meet the new boss... (none / 0) (#114)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    ...same as the old boss.

    I get on my knees and pray,
    We don't get fooled again.


    Bill Clinton gave a convention (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    speech in 1988 that many called the most boring in the history of convention speeches.  It lasted over an hour.  Didn't the crowd cheer when he indicated he was almost done?  

    And Obama didn't "dig" up any of the speakers.  They are Dem senators, reps, govenors, etc.   I've only watched in the later part of the evening, but I've enjoyed the speeches.  Loved Schweitzer.


    Schweitzer... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    ...is a rising star, mark my words.  If you ever get the chance to meet him in person, do.  He is amazing!

    i sent him an email (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    telling him I loved his speech, he was fun and inspiring.  Wish he lived in Illinois, our governor well........

    No, I saw a lot of Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    speaking at the Dem convention, even doing a  nominating speech.  Of course, I suppose you call them "New Dems"!

    And the very first to speak was the minister who made the opening invocation that denounced a crucial plank in the Dem platform.

    Ugh.  From that invocation through the non-roll call, most of this convention has been, like the nominee's campaign, a retreat from Dem principles.

    But you can look forward to the roar of the crowd tonight -- because Fox is at the stadium and just reported that the crowd response already was taped and just was tested.  The final step in making what used to be the best reality tv into a sitcom.


    Sure, I'll believe Fox (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Realleft on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    on their objective coverage of the Democrats convention.  Did they also describe him as "The One" and the stage as "The Temple of Obama?"  

    On a side note, I see Peggy Noonan has also just described it as similar to the Neuremberg Rallies.  The depths to which people will sink.  


    Well, he was in the stadium (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    with the sound in the background.  But sure, Fox could have superimposed the sound.  Or the Dems could do it tonight.  You decide.

    I suspect.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    ...that this was part of a sound check, rather than a test run or artificial enthusiasm.  

    (But I wonder if this will become an "al gore said he invented the internet" type of "fact" -- one that has little or no basis in reality, but that tons of people wind up believing anyway.)


    comparisons (none / 0) (#104)
    by noholib on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    Well, I agree that Peggy Noonan sinks pretty low and I would never pay any attention to anything she writes.  However, it doesn't take her making the comparison to make a person nervous about such large political rallies.  I can't stand the thought of it for all sorts of reasons: yes, mass political rallies in undemocratic states, the American Idol aspect of it, the trivialization of politics to site it in a football stadium.  Politics as sports, politics as entertainment, politics as rock concerts, politics as celebrity culture, politics as mass group-think.  Yup, all that makes me nervous completely independent of Peggy Noonan.  And I don't feel any better about it because JFK did something similar in the Los Angeles Coliseum.    

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    I've noticed that for Jews over a certain age, any time you get more than 20 cheering people in a room they think of Hitler.  I think I can give them a pass on that.

    Peggy Noonan has no such excuse.  She's just a Godwin-violating hack.


    more than 20 in a room (none / 0) (#120)
    by noholib on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Funny first line -- and true!

    It's all a ruse (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    everything is a sham.  No one really wants to follow it.

    And if Fox News says something that is as close to absolute truth as you can get.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    So maybe they'll become good speakers in the future then? We already knew people like McCaskill and Sebelius were terrible speakers.

    The only time the audience (none / 0) (#116)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    applauded Gov. Bill Clinton, keynote speaker at the 1988 convention, was when he said, "In conclusion...."

    meh (none / 0) (#128)
    by wystler on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    And Obama didn't "dig" up any of the speakers.  They are Dem senators, reps, govenors, etc. I've only watched in the later part of the evening, but I've enjoyed the speeches.  Loved Schweitzer.

    Are you sure you didn't oversleep? Schweitzer was Tuesday night.

    Meanwhile, Wednesday's card included:

    1. Mark Docherty (Veteran and a firefighter from Sterling Heights, Michigan)
    2. CSM Michele S. Jones, US Army (Ret.) (First female command sergeant major of the US Army)
    3. Xiomara Rodriguez (Nevada delegate and retired member of the US Coast Guard)
    4. Beth Robinson (Stay-at-home mom from Hampton Roads, Virginia)
    5. Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, US Army (Ret.) (First woman to achieve the rank of three star general in the US Army)
    6. Rear Admiral John Hutson (Ret.) (President, Franklin Pierce Law School in Concord, New Hampshire)
    7. Tammy Duckworth (Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs,
    Helicopter pilot and wounded Iraq war veteran )

    If Jean Sebelius and Claire McGas-kill (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    are the new guard, just shoot me now.

    The good news: the Bill and Hillary one-two punch is going to give Obama a bounce.  And I expect that Obama will make a good speech tonight. McCain's VP pick is going to be a snoozefest (Romney/Pawlenty) or its going to unleash the the wrath of Hades (Liebertoad) from the wingnuts, unless Holy Joe swears on a New Testament Bible that he will foresake any vestigial liberal social beliefs he may have. And I'm not kidding about the New Testament Bible.  

    The bad news: the schmundits are going to continue to question whether Bill and Hillary's highly persuasive, eloquent endorsements are  really just part of an evil, sinister plot to recapture the White House in 2012 -- which will be part of an evil, sinister plot to diminish the value of the Clinton's endorsements.


    heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    I'm still not voting for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    Hillary and Bill can speak until the cows come home. The message I will be sending this election cycle, absent any major new developments, is don't manipulate and then try to sell a banana republic decision as a democracy. Feel free to thank the DNC come November.

    paying back the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    is not worth my child dying on some  North Korean beach.. the icey plains of siberia  or the unforgiving sands of Iran

    no thank u....u can pay the DNC back later by voting them out of office.

    McCain cant be allowed to happen over payback.


    That (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    seems like a pretty hard speech considering Biden's speech last night. Frankly, inexperience can make lots of huge mistakes and do worse than you are suggesting.

    True, inexperience can make mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    but mcinsane is telling you with certainty that he will pursue endless wars, that he will give even more tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy than even bush did, that he is intent on invigorating the cold war with Russia, that he will accelerate evisceration of the environment, and that he will select justices to overturn abortion rights. These are not possibilities with mcinsane - he proudly states them as objectives.

    Possible mistakes vs. certain disaster. Seems like a no brainer to me to do everything possible to avoid certain disaster, but I guess that's just me.


    My problem (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    is that I see both of them as certain disaster. Do you want to drive into the left ditch or the right ditch? What a choice? I don't trust Obama as far as I can throw him because of his associations in Chicago. He's shown very bad judgement there.

    Sadly, Obama (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    Sputters and hems and haws and ultimately agrees with McCain.  From votes for Alito/Roberts to his ultimate endorsement of Georgia's attack on South Ossetia (and other examples you're all familiar with), Obama is playing "follow the leader."

    Fortunately, outside constraints prevent McCain from starting any of the wars he wants or cutting taxes recklessly.  Not with China and Russia presenting massive bills to the Treasury and thoughtfully tapping baseball bats into their palms.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    Obama voted against Alito and Roberts.  Do you really feel it necessary to misrepresent his votes in order to support the false assertion that he agrees with McCain?

    He voted against cloture (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:35:24 AM EST
    Which was the only vote where they could have been stopped, and then against them when it was a free and meaningless vote.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    Voting against cloture means the voter wants to continue a filibuster. Obama voted against cloture on Alito, as did Hillary, because they both supported the filibuster.  They were among the 25 senators to vote against cloture on Alito.  You want to fault them for that?

    True, it was pointed out to him (none / 0) (#99)
    by Radix on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    the consequences what a yes vote would mean to his career. So it appears he can learn, that's always a plus. But we will be going more heavily into Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan, that is Obama's position, no? And Cass Susstein doesn't exactly inspire inspire to much hope for his, Obama's, possible Supreme Court appointments either.  

    Don't count on either (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    Congress or budgetary constraints checking  McSame from starting new wars.  Have either of those two "constraints" had any effect up until now?  We've been spending more money than we have for years now on Iraq. The government just keeps borrowing more money from the Chinese, and keeps the funding in "emergency" bills that are outside the usual budget process.

    only 1 effective constrain on McSame (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by wystler on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    that's making sure he, or any GoOPer, never has the opportunity to take the oath of office next year

    Exactamente n/t (none / 0) (#138)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    'Experience' makes Mistakes Too (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    Witness all the experience Cheney and Rumsfeld brought to the table, and the consequences.

    Spare me (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    the theatrics. Obama lost his credibility on a "different kind of foreign policy" when he made his statements on Georgia and by his behavior on Iraq.

    Really? (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    Do go on about how Obama lost his credibility on Georgia. I would love to hear it.

    Let's see (none / 0) (#84)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    His position is the same as McCains and basically ignore the fact that the two territories in question don't want anything to do with Georgia. Simple enough.

    I'm going to respect the rules and not go any further but I assure you any credibility about a "different kind of foreign policy" went right outr the window when he basically condemned S. Ossetians for democracy.


    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM EST
    McCain's approach to the issue is quite different from Obama's.

    If two approaches (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BrianJ on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    Lead to the same destination, how much better can one be than the other?  The article you link to was written before Obama endorsed Georgia's actions.

    Didn't S Ossentia vote against (none / 0) (#102)
    by Radix on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    becoming part of Georgia? So how is supporting Georgia's take over remotely considered supporting Democracy? Also, Georgia can hardly be considered Democratic considering how it's leadership encourages the peoples continued support of said leadership.

    How do you reconcile Sen. Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    statement in the morning (in Oregon), "Iran is not a threat" and in the afternoon (in Montant), "Iran is a definite threat." I don't want my children in any conflict(s) either, but there is no guarantee what Obama says is what he will do, we have seen him flip on so many promises. He voted himself as president to spy further on you and me without supervision, for instance, when he said he wouldn't. If Sen. Obama can blurr the line between dem and repub. what does that tell you about dem ideals?

    this morning I saw heard a list (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    and a pretty darn long list of foreign policy issues, MAJOR foreign policy issues, on which Obama and Biden disagree.
    the prediction is that conflict will arise because Bidens reputation is built on his foreign policy cred and he will not give it up to prop up Obama.

    I think Biden will. He looked (none / 0) (#25)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    uncomfortable last night saying those things about "his friend" John McCain. Biden may get better at it, but he didn't look comfortable at all! To keep the status quo, he will either change his position, or massage it to be that with Obama's.

    you bring up an excellent point (none / 0) (#53)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    Some friends of mine are convinced he'll have a classic "WTF have I gotten myself into?" moment when he realizes the campaign is being run by people who don't know how to run winning campaigns.  And that these people are neither open nor willing to listen to whatever advice or strategy he offers.  He's the attack dog, so his job is simply to go out and attack and leave the strategy to the "experts", okay?

    So, as we barrel through October toward November and it becomes obvious to Biden -- who probably knows a thing or two about Polls and Electoral Reality -- does he ease his foot off the gas in attacking his friend John McCain?  As it becomes obvious Obama-Biden are going to lose and he tries to distance himself as far as possible from what might be an embarrassing train wreck, does he get gun shy and not attack as hard as those on Team Obama are expecting him to?

    And that's not even including those inevitable Obama v. Biden, Campaign in Disarray articles we'll see next month and throughout October.

    It'll be interesting to see.


    To be accurate ... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    Obama said that Iran was a tiny threat compared to the threat once posed by the Soviet Union and pointed out that the U.S. nonetheless talked to the Soviet Union.  That speech was in response to McCain's willingness to follow the Bush tactic of refusing to talk to governments he doesn't like.  When McCain misrepresented that remark by claiming that Obama didn't appreciate the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose, Obama said he recognized that Iran posed a grave threat to the interests of the U.S., particularly in Israel, but that it was "common sense" that Iran is less of a threat to the U.S. than the Soviet Union was during the Cold War.  The McCain spin that you keep regurgitating here just isn't accurate -- there is nothing inconsistent about Obama's two speeches.

    That's A Great Point (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    And it's good to have someone who can understand and disseminate the nuance of policy.  Honestly, it's not easy for me to find the time to go over every little statement made by the candidates and evaluate them for consistency. That's why I turn to TL for a summary of the events of the day.  Otherwise, I have to accept whatever I hear about whatever Obama or McCain said. It's unfortunate if commenters are repeating Republican spin on here.  Keep then honest!

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    Folks should remember, when using quotation marks, to actually be quoting the speaker.

    Of course.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    Iran is the tiniest of threats to us.  How big is their Navy?  their Air Force?  How many long-range ballistic missiles do they possess?  They may be a threat to the 51st and 52nd states (Iraq and Israel), but certainly not to the 50 states.

    Anybody who thinks Iran is a threat to the borders of the United States is a bedwetter beyond help.


    Not a direct threat to be sure. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Radix on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    But considering how close they are to the oil, they do pose a significant threat on that basis.

    Don't follow.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    it's their oil, they are free to do with it what they want...they are not obligated to sell it to us.

    Yes, if Iran decided to shut off the spigot it would cause us great economic harm...but that isn't anything close to an act of war or aggression...that's a business decision.  I can sell my tv set to whoever I want, Iran can sell their oil to whoever they want, or not sell it at all.

    We need to stop thinking we are somehow entitled to the oil beneath the soil of other nations.


    Only a threat (none / 0) (#139)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    because the Goopers are obsessed with finding new oil reserves to own.

    You have a good point (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    but the platform committee refused to consider a reform of the caucus system. So there you go!

    Are you really sure (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    that the sands of Iran are unforgiving?  Have you even tried to apologize to them?

    Heh (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM EST
    The sands may forgive you but those mountains are another matter entirely.

    I understand his/her frustration, though. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    I plan on voting for our party's nominee, as I always do but it does feel like I'm rewarding reprehensible behavior.  Plus, everytime I hear some twerp say that Hllary's suporters will "come home" because "where else can they go?" I guess pissed off all over again.  

    I wish I could express my dissatisfaction with the party leadership in some way that would be noticed.  I guess I'll write a strongly worded letter.


    A letter, s EXACTLY what it is (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    going to take to let Sen. Obama know of your dissatisfaction!!!!!!

    make sure its sternly worded (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    I hear those are particularly effective.

    No thank you.

    It's time for me to make some hard decisions. Being in a swing state means that my vote will matter. Now I have to decide HOW MUCH I want it to matter. I have given a promise not to campaign against him since he didn't choose Kaine. That said, I haven't decide to vote against Obama( and the DNC behavior) or just stay home. Those are the decisions I find myself making. The DNC pretty much guaranteed yesterday though that I won't be voting banana republic.


    Can (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    you vote downticket? That's what I'm planning to do right now. I simply can't sit home when that I can vote for Jim Martin against that odious Saxby Chambliss.

    I will be voting downticket (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    Mark Warner probably doesn't need my vote but he'll get it. I don't always agree with Boucher but I admire the fact that the guy sends me three page letters telling me why he felt the need to do the exact opposite(although some of his excuses are pretty lame). He's solid. I dread when the local Dem committee calls me to work the booth this year. I just can't do it. I feel that strongly about what has been done and not done in the name of democracy.

    I'm open to ideas. (none / 0) (#55)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    It's just that I can't vote for McCain.  I'm not optimistic about Obama but McCain for president is unthinkable.  I doubt that Obama shares all of my values and convictions; hell, I'm not sure exactly what Obama believes, at this point.  But I'm certain McCain doesn't share them.

    I could afford to just vote downticket (none / 0) (#140)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    because I live in NY.  There's no way NY is going to go red.

    If you are in a swing state, the calculus is a little different, IMO. If Al Gore had gotten 300-500 more votes in FLA, the Supremes wouldn't have been able to hand the election to Bush.


    I live in Pa. (none / 0) (#143)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:44:11 PM EST
    It's close; Penna. went for Clinton, in a big way.  Obama has recently increased his lead a little.  If Obama wins the state, it will probably be by a small margin.  

    I've considered not voting for president or writing in someone's name, but I don't think I can do that.  

    I guess I could change my party affiliation to independent but there are 2 problems with that.  First, in Pa. you can't vote in the primary unless you are affiliated with a party.  Secondly, I can't imagine a republican candidate, even a moderate one, who shares my values.  So, I'm in a quandary.  I will almost certainly vote dem, but I am not gonna be happy doing so.  I may have to get liquored up beforehand ;).

    One decision I have made is to contribute to Hillary and other individual candidates that I support rather than contributing to the pres. campaign, which I would normally do.  It makes me feel a little better.  


    You could demand an apology (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    That always works too.

    No disrespect if your child is in the military.... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    ....but the one thing I learned from GWB war years is that this country will never fight a war in which my child will be the one fighting. Unless you believe that McCain is going to reinstitute the draft, but I don't think the Republicans have the guts to do that. I'm pretty sure my pacifist children will never enlist in the military. What I really hate about wars are the civilian casualties, especially the children. I think everyone's doing a little bit too much saber rattling for my taste.

    The point remains (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    whether your children go off to fight an unjust war or someone else's, the war is still unjust.

    It is VERY clear to me that McCain would start a war with Iran on the smallest of provocations.


    So there (none / 0) (#87)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    if no war your child would go fight?  None at all?  What if they thought it was worth it?  Would you still stop them?  

    At some point (none / 0) (#141)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    Republican pugnacity, if unchecked, will force the return of the draft.

    It will be politically unpopular, but if, like McCain, you think that the US should lead by deploying "an example of force," and equate re-thinking the wisdom of war with defeat, then a draft is inevitable.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:58:54 AM EST
    then Obama shouldn't talk about going into Pakistan with or without their permission.

    The Dems are going to do a LOT of saber rattling and WILL go to war in their first term to ensure a second.

    Americans are getting REALLY tired of all the war talk.  War on crime, war on drugs, war on terror...give it a FREAKING break.

    Also, just an observation but Jeralyn claims that no name calling or insults to the candidates.  Out of equity, why is Obama called Obambi, "The One" and why is McCain called McInsane, McSame, et al?  


    This is where we part ways (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn, BTD, and TChris I've enjoyed the forum but I think we have different objectives at this point. I did want you to know that I really enjoy your forum though and will be back after the cycle is complete regardless of who wins. Peace out.

    If Obama wins does that mean (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    Pelosi and Reid suddenly grow spines and start enacting the rprogressive agenda they were given control of Congress to enact?

    I didn't think so.

    Their spinelessness will just be hidden among the lovefest between preznit Obama and the vichy dems working furiously to enact all that legislation that doesn't get the disgraced, disparaged, disreputable republicans angry with them.

    hardly (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    it mean we will have a middle much president to go with out middle mush congress and they will go along to get along and keep power and not rock the boat.
    just MO.
    I would love to be proven wrong.  but I dont expect to be.

    I don't think so either... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    and I certainly don't think they will if McCain gets elected either.  

    personally (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    I have a lot more faith in resistance from a dem congress to a republican president than I do from a dem congress to a dem president.
    to much shared and vested interest in proping each other up.
    this is why divided government is not a bad thing.

    Yes... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    ...they've done such a wonderful job of standing up to Bush these last 3+ years.  A man with approval ratings lower than the Devil himself.  

    Sorry, but if history is any indication, I don't see them suddenly growing a spine anytime soon.  


    my point was it would be worse (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    with a one party government.
    most of our trouble STARTED when republicans controlled both the white house and the congress.

    so what you're saying ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by wystler on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:04:31 PM EST
    ... is that if HRC had prevailed during the primaries, you'd still be talking up a gop presidency, since you so dislike one-party government?

    not thats not what I am saying (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    didn't think so (none / 0) (#136)
    by wystler on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    what's it gonna take to get you on board?

    The devil himself? (none / 0) (#78)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    Would you be referring to the Dem lead Congress who's approval ratings were hovering in the teens and Bush43's were at 30 last week?

    We have SERIOUS problems with our pandering-do-nothing Dems. Gimme more Kucinich types who draw clear distinctions between himself and republicans.  Not some bipartisan junk that blurs the line between issues that matter to REAL liberals, not ones wrapped up in Chicago-driven rhetoric.


    History does not give us (none / 0) (#142)
    by litigatormom on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:04:40 PM EST
    any reason to have faith in the willingness of a Dem Congress to resist a Republican pres.

    FAIRY TALE ENDING (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    exactly.  I had not thought of it like that but exactly.

    in the end (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    the best person to make a case for Barack Obama is Barack Obama.

    He can earn my vote by asking his supporters what was more important to them, defeating clinton or getting the country back in the right track.

    And he'll get an enthusiastic cheer from me if he asks his supporters what was more important to them, punishing a politician for a controversial vote that empowered a president to start a war, or getting the country back on the right track.

    Cause aside from how it will help to unify the party, I still think most of obama's support was,at the root cause, a protest vote against Clinton.  I mean nobody believes his post partisanship routine, ....  Etc.  What else was obama besides a way to punish Clinton for something?

    Not much, I think.

    Just once, it would be nice (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    to see some of the more militant anti-Obama folks to even make an attempt at nuance.

    It's awfully convenient to pick one little sound-bite or one little phrase to support the apparent argument that he's the worst thing ever...

    That, of course, presumes that the writer has never misspoken, or that they themselves have never been taken out of context.  Folks with teenagers will know what I mean; they've had to deal with that kind of behavior.

    Further, where's all the parsing of McCain?  Worse, in mot cases, no one even has to; he regularly repeats his or reprehensible comments and policy positions.

    Last I checked, Pelosi and Reid aren't running for President, Obama is.  How are their activities even remotely connected to his campaign?  and, why, for God's sake, won't anyone even acknowledge the reality of how Congress works?  Those people can't flip a switch without a veto-proof majority, which they just don't have.  So, be realisitic.  Until we have a veto proof majority OR a Democratic President, nothing you want is going to happen.  Which, of course, further strengthens the case for Obama.  

    God forbid anyone actually look at the substantial negative ramifications of a McCain Presidency and do the right thing.

    The choice is now clear, so there isn't any more convincing that needs be done.  Oh, sure, it's nice when someone grovels, but he doesn't have to.  We're beyond that.  We're in the GE and he's the nominee.  

    And the pettiness...his speaking style.  Who, frankly, gives a sh!t?  Clinton WAS a horrible speaker at one time.  Kerry isn't great...are you honestly going to vote on public speaking style?  Do you boo the kid who fumbles the national anthem at the game, too?

    The whole "we don't know him" is such a canard.  By now, if you don't know about him, it's willful.  Millions of words written.  Interviews, debates, on and on and on.  And they all say the same thing, that he's a fundamental liberal (FISA be damned...like you've never heard of political compromise, either).

    It's tough when you lose.  It's tough when you abhor the way you lose.  But when I read all these posts from people who state that the person that they've exalted all the way down the line is now trying to bullsh!t them, it's unbelievable.  Now it's, "She's just a politician".  Before it was, "She's the best thing ever!"  Get over yourselves and make the decision that makes sense for all of us.  Vote Obama.  

    SAVED!! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    I have saved this post  and emailed it out to some coworkers ( hope that is ok)

    excellent post   just excellent

    there is a picture of BUSH HUGGING MCCAIN over there  with the title BEAT MCCAIN------------>>>  but all you hear is hot horrible OBAMA is...

    out of the park  grand slam


    TChris, (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sleepwalker on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    are you ready to say "Uncle" yet? I have to say you get an "A" for trying, but unless most of the commenters at TL leave and are replaced with the OBF boyz, this site will never be "pro-Obama". There may be some here that support him, and some who will be holding their noses and voting for him, but day-to-day the conversation here will continue to be mostly about Obama's deficiencies. Fortunately, they are numerous enough to fill the blog until November. I can't wait to hear the fallout from the "Greatest Speech Evah" tonight. I'm not complaining. The discourse here is wonderful! Finally, a place to discuss the Democratic Party that is for the most part Kool-Aid free.

    The SITE is expressly pro-Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    It is the commenters who are divided.

    I'm even divided in my own head (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    Alert to the absurdity on all sides.

    Commenters Aren't Part Of This Site? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:38:00 AM EST
    I plan to vote for Obama. I plan to support Obama. I plan to defend Obama against the Rethuglican attacks.

    But I dont plan to walk around all stary-eyed, and think he's the savior of as all.  I hope he will help build a lasting Democratic majority, and when his term is up, we can elect a Democrat who better exemplifies the higher aspirations we share.  

    I say this as an ardent Clinton fan/supporter/defender, and I'll continue to defend Hillary agains the smears from Obama's fans, even those here at TL.


    we have kool aid here (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    but we spike it with everclear.
    it gets way better results.

    the anti-obama stuff (4.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    I use to think this place was pretty hard on OBAMA and it is.

    but after spening some time on the PUMA site...where OBAMA is compated to adolf Hitler...

    Obama has it good here....

    I just try to get people here who cant stand OBAMA to just be fair sometimes.


    Looking for (none / 0) (#79)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    warm and fuzzy at PUMA sites with regard to Obama is like looking for gas prices when Clinton left office.


    Warm and fuzzy works at TPM, HuffPo, DK and Americablog, I believe.  But don't take my word for it, because I haven't haunted those sites in MONTHS.


    I sure as hell don't want 4 more.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    but Nader is the one who is offering something new, Obama and McCain are both selling 4 more.

    4 more of bodies coming home in bags and chairs from Iraq and Afghanistan...

    4 more of a war on our own people, with millions of pow's...

    4 more of unsound fiscal policy that will eventually bankrupt our arses...

    I wish we had the gumption to say "thanks, but no thanks", but apparently 4 more is exactly what we want.

    WELL 8 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    WELL 8 YEARS of Bush is enough for me...

    i will vote obama and take my shot that  it will be 1992 all over again.

    McCain = war and china owning america


    Obama is just as free market as McCain (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    I would expect us to be just as beholden to China under Barack Obama as McCain.

    and I cant believe anyone (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    is still talking about Obama "ending the war".

    Yes - heard that on the radio this morning (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    and just about choked on my coffee. 16 months!  riiiiiight.....

    16 months vs 100 years (none / 0) (#63)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST
    Oh I know, the choice is clear (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    No way, now how, no McCain.  I'm just not expecting miracles from Obama.  We'll see who likes him more 4 years from now - me, or those who believe in him most strongly today.

    92-00 wasn't all it's cracked up to be.... (3.50 / 4) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    if the internet didn't happen to blow up under Clinton's terms we wouldn't have had the economic prosperity and balanced budget.  I chalk that up to lucky timing.  I will grant you that he didn't f*ck up the gift of the tech boom that landed in his lap.

    Clinton appointed that lying s.o.b. McCaffery as drug czar, and we saw the greatest increase in marijuana arrests ever.

    Talkleft has documented his rather pitiful civil liberties record.

    1992 all over again is no prize...


    WELL (none / 0) (#51)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    if 1992-2000  was no prize

    wait until u get a load of 2008-2012  under McCain

    this man admitted that the economy to him is  like college calculus 104 to a 6 year old


    Talk Left Also Documented His Record (none / 0) (#68)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    on the economy.  So has Forbes.  The verdict is in:  the country enjoyed the best economy under Bill Clinton than any other time since WWII.  The tech boom goes back to the 70's.  I get so tired of hearing that old, worn-out spin.

    Reaganomics helped Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#80)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Reaganomics helped Bill Clinton

    never forget that one either from the repubs....Rove ran that up the flagpole last night on repub news  i mean FOXNEWS


    Of Course It Did (none / 0) (#86)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    Clinton's economic successes shine brighter against the backdrop of Regan/Bush economic nightmare.  Also against the contrast of Dubya's anemic economy.

    Regarding the economy.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    the president gets too much credit when its good, and too much blame when its bad.

    Are you saying being president during the height of the dotcom boom isn't a case of lucky timing, at least a little?

    Again, I will grant you Bill didn't f*ck it up, where a republican might have, who knows.  Can we at least stop this charade that the 90's were some kind of golden age?  Sure, compared to G-Dub anything will look good, but lets take off the rose colored shades.


    A sensible analysis (none / 0) (#112)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    by a sensible man.

    No Charade (none / 0) (#132)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    It's well documented that Bill Clinton's economic policies went a long way to the prosperity in the 90's.  No sorry, one does not inherit record deficits and pass off record surpluses and we say it was just good 'timing.'  That's Republican spin, and it will occur every time a Democrat shows how to be a good steward of the economy.  They will always say "good timing" or make some other excuse about why the Dems have the better economy.  I'm not going over all the reasons yet again why Clinton deserves credit for the accomplishments on the economic frond.  They are all here at TL, well documented and thoroughly argued.  Sorry if you want to live in denial, along with the Republicans.  By almost every economic measure, Clinton was one of the best stewards this country ever had.  No amount of spin, excuses, obfuscation or any other kind of mindless blather changes that.

    Haw. (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:19:06 AM EST
    that whole internet thing that went from a handful of users in 92 to millions in 00...and all the accompanying tax revenue generated had nothing to do with deficits becoming surpluses.  It was all Bill Clinton's magic wand.

    Again...maybe a republican would have squandered all that newfound tax revenue on a new weapons system and the deficit would have remained.  I'll give Bill credit for not squandering the gift that landed in his presidential lap...I bet G-Dub would have.

    Imagine how much more he could have done to get our debt down if he didn't give McCaffery budget increases every year to have more of your friendly neighborhood stoners arrested.


    And What Prey Tell, Fuled The Growth? (none / 0) (#145)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    What were the economic conditions that favored the growth of the internet?  Why did the bubble occur after years of economic growth in the 90's.  It didn't just "spring up" all on it's own.  The internet grew as the general economy grew, and created the capatol and disposable wealth to fuel that growth.  What is your exucse for the economic growth in '93, '94, '95, '96, '97?????  

    I can't imagine how he could do more.  I can't imagine how the economic miracle of turning record deficit into record surpluses can even be challenged.  You got the most dramatic economic turn around in history, and you can find reason to gripe?  

    BTW, he made excellent appointments, like James Lee Witt to FEMA.  Governemt response to natural disasters was stellar during his admin.


    Tell Al Gore that tonight (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by DemForever on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    i like your SIG (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM EST
    I am drinking the Clinton Koolaid

    whatever they say to do... i am onboard


    its really inspiring to see the two of you (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:13:24 AM EST
    embrace the Clintons.

    1992-2000 (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:24:09 AM EST
    were the best 8 years of my life... i was making too much money...gas was cheap... life was good...

    if a Clinton tells me to  VOTE OBAMA  

    i am all in

    2008  the new 1992


    Gas was cheap.... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM EST
    me and my friends and loved ones getting the chain and cage treatment for simple marijuana possesion wasn't too much fun though.

    Add.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    money ain't everything...I'd rather be a free pauper than a tyrannized millionaire.

    Nothing new there (none / 0) (#122)
    by DemForever on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    I enthusiastically voted for Bill twice, and have never said a bad word about Hillary, for whom I have great respect and admiration.

    OT but news I think (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST

    get the split screens ready

    Romney (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    if he pics Romney he is toast.

    thats 15 houses between to the 2 of them.


    Well that's a huge mistake (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    That won't work.  Does McCain really think anyone will cover his VP announcement over a candidate accepting the party nomination?  It will be a blip and nothing more.  If they want any attention, McCain and ??? need to get on the Sunday shows and knock Obama out of the media.

    McCain can't stop the media attention for Obama.  He has to accept the media obsesses over every word out of Obama's mouth and every aspect of the Obama campaign.  McCain's only hope would be to try to cut short the Obama cycle.

    The only thing good about the McCain campaign has been it's commercials and the free media coverage of them.  Ha! maybe he should have done a video with the VP and released that.


    Not just that (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    I hear they are coming out with the "most exciting ad ever" while Obama is giving his speech tonight.  Seems like a pretty sad plot for attention.  I mean, wait one day and you can stop people takling about the convention.  But by doing it in the middle of the convention on a historic night they just seem petty.

    yeah, this: (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    Tonight, John McCain will talk directly to his opponent in a television ad his campaign is airing in battleground states, around the time Barack Obama accepts the presidential nomination, McCain's campaign said.
    McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in an MSNBC appearance that the battleground spot is "an historic ad -- I think this is the first of its kind."

    I admit, I am curious.

    republico says this:

    "The leak of the McCain ticket mate would cause a news frenzy at at time when the Obama campaign wanted viewers to be focused on Obama's economic and change messages."

    so maybe its not so dumb.  I hate republico but they represent the media CW most of the time.


    The media is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:27:46 PM EST
    Mr. and Mrs. Middle America will find it very rude if McCain tries to step on Obama's acceptance speech in some way.  I feel very confident about that.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    I was just persuring around the various "ruckus" blogs and on "hot air" the conservative blog, they were making fun of McCain pretty bad on this one.  Basically, it better be something big, and not an attack ad or he will just seem petty.

    They were guessing VP announcement.  But even that I think will be over-shadowed by the convention speech.  I think this is a potential big loss for McCain, and it seems a little desperate.  I guess we'll have to see what it is before judging though.  He could surprise us all.


    it totally depends on who the pick is (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    I missed the money quote from republico:

    AP's Liz Sidoti reported: "Inside GOP circles Thursday, speculation swirled around Lieberman. It was fueled by reports that McCain's advisers had asked for additional detailed information from him, by McCain's close friendship with the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee, and by word that Republican operatives had been told to prepare for the possibility of an 'unconventional' choice."

    sorry that would be huge news.
    Ridge either for that matter.


    Lieberman (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    Would be huge news, and it would get play.  I don't think it's necessarily good news that will make the American people glad it got play.

    It's not just about getting media attention tonight.  It's about whether people think it's appropriate that they are trying so hard for media attention.  Lieberman is almost a worst case scenario.  With someone less "interesting" (Mitt Romney), it may not get covered as much so people won't care  that he dropped it on Obama's big night.  With someone more exciting, say Sen. Palin, it would be a big enough deal to warrant the coverage.  With someone like Lieberman, it may get a lot of coverage that people don't want, and just make him look bad.


    honestly (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    I think most people will say, "its politics"

    Humor (none / 0) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    I think his Paris Hilton ad would have been very funny to have put out tonight.  Would have gone with the Repub attack meme.  I like the humor myself.  I'm not in to the doom and gloom militaristic ads (heck, after listening to the Dems applaud Biden's saber rattling last night, obviously I'm in the minority)

    I guess we will know tonight the round up of the attack on McCain and the McCain ad may give us a hint on the Repub attack on Obama.

    Could it be the McCain camp is expecting a leak and now they are just trying to get control of the message?


    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:54:27 PM EST
    I think its rather boneheaded.  dont get it.
    they have been pretty smart so far.
    so maybe HuffPo is right and Drudge is wrong and it wont be today.
    maybe they are just trying to muddy the waters a bit.

    I bet (none / 0) (#82)
    by D Jessup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    it is Mitt

    Mitt (none / 0) (#85)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    Its almost gotta be MITT   but Mitt kills McCain on so many issues.

    If Ridge was Pro-Life   he would be the best pick by far.

    Mitt ends it for McCain... Biden is licking his chops


    I assume you mean if Ridge (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    WAS NOT pro life.  
    I still think it could be Ridge. but it looks like Mitt.

    isnt Ridge for abortion? (none / 0) (#93)
    by MrPope on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    thats why he isnt the Shoe-in pic.... the repub base would not vote McCain  based on that   no?

    sorry (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    I must be on drugs.  again.
    yes Ridge is pro choice.  for some reason I read your comment the other way.