So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

If there's one thing in American politics that's a given, it's Democrats thinking their party is too conciliatory/weak/compromising and Republicans thinking their party is too conciliatory/weak/compromising. There is a full scale meltdown right now going on across the right with regards to the impending nomination of McCain.

I think we mostly just say MoveOn is so extreme they called Bush Hitler, a statement that is at least marginally true. Plus "liberal" has more resonance as an attack as conservative does.

dajafi wrote:I think we're almost at the point where HRC would pick Obama as her running mate--if only to increase the odds of holding on to the young voters and Dem-leaning indies whom he's brought into the tent. Though I agree with jerseyhoya that the Clintons would be scared of being upstaged--and Obama probably is sharp enough to realize that with Billy Boy running around, the VP job reverts to John Nance Garner's description... if that.

No way he'd pick her--maybe Sebelius or Napolitano, more likely a tough old white guy like Webb or Biden.

I dont think he would accept. If she wins, he has to sit there under her for 4 years at least. If she loses, he gains nothing. PLus they hate each other.

Rococo4 wrote:

dajafi wrote:I think we're almost at the point where HRC would pick Obama as her running mate--if only to increase the odds of holding on to the young voters and Dem-leaning indies whom he's brought into the tent. Though I agree with jerseyhoya that the Clintons would be scared of being upstaged--and Obama probably is sharp enough to realize that with Billy Boy running around, the VP job reverts to John Nance Garner's description... if that.

No way he'd pick her--maybe Sebelius or Napolitano, more likely a tough old white guy like Webb or Biden.

I dont think he would accept. If she wins, he has to sit there under her for 4 years at least. If she loses, he gains nothing. PLus they hate each other.

But think of the greater odds he'd have to become president.

potential avatar for you Obama honks

Hillary picks up a key endorsement

jerseyhoya wrote:I think we mostly just say MoveOn is so extreme they called Bush Hitler, a statement that is at least marginally true. Plus "liberal" has more resonance as an attack as conservative does.

The latter is true, and disgraceful. (And it makes my point--that liberals don't fight for their own convictions.)

The former isn't. It was one idiot who made an ad on his own, which MoveOn explicitly rejected, and then right-wing propagandists used it to discredit an entire organization.

The equivalent might be if lefties tried to discredit all of the Christianists by saying that they all protest military funerals with signs about how AIDS is God's revenge on gays. Whether they don't do this out of a greater sense of fairness and respect for the truth, or because they're lily-livered wusses, is basically my original question.

For those torn between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a solution for your dilemma...

"Kang, the puny Americans are completely oblivious. The bio-duplication is a success!"

"Excellent, Kodos!"

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

I dont think we need this endorsement to make the case he is a far left liberal. he has done that for himself.

It would be a shame if a dirty liburrl preznit ruined everything that's going so great in our country right now.

Rococo4 wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

I dont think we need this endorsement to make the case he is a far left liberal. he has done that for himself.

Non-sequitur, meet ad hominem.

dajafi wrote:already the Republicans are using this to smear McCain as a Dirty Libburl..

Fixed

Phan In Phlorida wrote:For those torn between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a solution for your dilemma...

Isn't that the Indian dude from American Idol?

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

Wow

Obama is leading in CA & GA, and is tied with Clinton in NJ and Missouri, according to the new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll

Assuming these polls are remotely accurate, this is surprising to say the least, especially the NJ results.

meatball wrote:Wow

Obama is leading in CA & GA, and is tied with Clinton in NJ and Missouri, according to the new Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll

Assuming these polls are remotely accurate, this is surprising to say the least, especially the NJ results.

Zogby has been terribily inaccuarate since 2004. Not saying this poll isnt right but he has not been very good lately

Based on polls I calculate Hillary winning around 53% of the delegates on Tuesday. This is despite her leading in many states. It's close in a lot of states, but Obama is way ahead in Illinois.

With Republicans it's a little different. There are a bunch of winner take all states. McCain looks good in most of those. Each candidate has his home state. The proportional states have less delegates for the most part. McCain is running ahead in many of them.

California is different from all of them. McCain is running ahead of Romney by 3 to 9 points depending on the poll. Huckabee is running in the low teens. If it were winner take all McCain would look good. Proportionally he'd do better. California will reward 3 delegates to whoever wins each of the 53 Congressional districts. Thus, Diane Watson's district will have three delegates. There was no Republican candidate there in 2006. Duncan Hunter got 124,000 votes the last time. Both have three delegates. A candidate could win a bunch of districts with few Republicans and get trounced in the big districts and take home a lot of delegates.

We hear a lot about Republican and Democratic districts down here, based on the demographics. How are the Republicans different in Orange County vs. San Francisco vs. Fresno?

Just got back from the Obama rally in Wilmington, DE; Dude knows how to work a crowd. Really good sized, vocal crowd. He seemed to talk a little more of policy particulars, which the crowd seemed to appreciate. After having seen him in person, I'm not regretting the vote I cast on Wednesday.