Clinton's toast.

i probably should have gone to law school. but then id be 125k in debt.

phuturephillies wrote:i probably should have gone to law school. but then id be 125k in debt.

I'll let you know if Bloomberg jumps in. You can go back to worrying about your guitar or the Flyers' losing streak.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:He must really be the front-runner, because I'm starting to get nervous again--akin to the Phils with a two-run lead against a good team in the 6th or 7th.

It's a four run lead.

Edit: And you're playing the Braves. They used to be awesome. Now they have a few bats that scare you, but if you can get them out, you should be OK. Just don't put in Gordon for a third straight day and Roberson in for defensive help.

(That was a six run lead, right? Well, you're not up that much yet.)

Since Romney suspended on Thursday the McCain campaign seemed to shut down. I've been likening the campaign to the 2007 Mets. McCain was lucky Saturday that he didn't get swept and tonight's results were closer than the polls said they'd be.

Laexile wrote:Since Romney suspended on Thursday the McCain campaign seemed to shut down. I've been likening the campaign to the 2007 Mets. McCain was lucky Saturday that he didn't get swept and tonight's results were closer than the polls said they'd be.

Eh, McCain won DC by 50 and Maryland by 26. Only VA was closer than it should have been, and that was exacerbated by how the votes came in, which let Huckabee hang around for a while and allowed the networks to drag it out. In the end he almost won it by ten.

McCain can't ignore the upcoming primaries, but his major focus should be raising money. And maybe trying to reach out to the right win talk radio crowd while the rest of the country is paying attention to Obama v. Clinton.

Obama's got this brilliant enthusiasm that he's built in his ranks - I wonder though, will the Jesus-Freak thing start to turn people off by November? If he's not careful, his people are going to start to make Ron Paul Nuts look rational, realistic, and patient.

Did y'all see this from Ed Rendell:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIjY ... gD8UP1VUG0

Yeah, that was...interesting.

Stay classy, Fast Eddie.

Some of us remember ten years ago when Rendell was comparing himself to Bill Clinton: large men who ate too much, talked too much and screwed around way too much.

How does Ed Rendell not know that he can't say that type of thing

Woody wrote:How does Ed Rendell not know that he can't say that type of thing

He's a Democrat, he can say whatever he wants - see Biden, Joe

I'm just happy that Ed Rendell and I are on the same page.

I thought Rendell was one of the good guys. Not only was it insulting to just about everyone, it was not on point either. Swann doesn't lose because he's black, he loses because he had no political experience whatsoever, he' a Republican in a Democratic state in a Democratic year.

Serious question here...

I understand why what Rendell said was bad, I think. By raising the specter of white people not voting for Obama in the general, he's saying maybe Dems shouldn't nominate the black guy because racist whites won't support him in the general election like they would Hillary. So he's basically saying the party should bow to the desires of the ignorant racists or whatnot and avoid nominating black people.

That's my understanding of why people have a problem with what he's saying, and I completely agree that he shouldn't have said it because it makes him look like a horse's ass.

On the other hand, isn't a somewhat core belief of the modern Democratic Party that America is still racist and blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked et cetera and so forth? The potential of low income whites, Reagan Democrats maybe if you want to pull a designation from the past, deserting a black nominee for the boring white guy the GOP will inevitably nominate is something I'm sure Democratic strategists are deeply worried about.

It strikes me as the sort of thing one is perfectly OK to state in a private setting, but important people shouldn't go making statements or issuing press releases about it because it lends power to the folks who don't deserve it.

Yes? No? Partially right?

TenuredVulture wrote:I thought Rendell was one of the good guys. Not only was it insulting to just about everyone, it was not on point either. Swann doesn't lose because he's black, he loses because he had no political experience whatsoever, he' a Republican in a Democratic state in a Democratic year.

Swann is a good looking SOB though

jerseyhoya wrote:Serious question here...

I understand why what Rendell said was bad, I think. By raising the specter of white people not voting for Obama in the general, he's saying maybe Dems shouldn't nominate the black guy because racist whites won't support him in the general election like they would Hillary. So he's basically saying the party should bow to the desires of the ignorant racists or whatnot and avoid nominating black people.

That's my understanding of why people have a problem with what he's saying, and I completely agree that he shouldn't have said it because it makes him look like a horse's ass.

On the other hand, isn't a somewhat core belief of the modern Democratic Party that America is still racist and blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked et cetera and so forth? The potential of low income whites, Reagan Democrats maybe if you want to pull a designation from the past, deserting a black nominee for the boring white guy the GOP will inevitably nominate is something I'm sure Democratic strategists are deeply worried about.

It strikes me as the sort of thing one is HAMELS OK to state in a private setting, but important people shouldn't go making statements or issuing press releases about it because it lends power to the folks who don't deserve it.

Yes? No? Partially right?

I think Rendell's "well spoken" comment was pretty thoughtless.

There's no doubt that race is will be a factor in influencing how people vote. That's not the point. The question is are there people who would otherwise vote Democrat who won't for for a Black man? And since we're talking specifically about 2008, the question really is how many people who would vote for Hillary but not Obama are there, and is that number offset by the number of people who will vote for Obama and not vote for Hillary?

But the real objection to Rendell's statement is that he seems to be saying that PA is more redneck and backwards than Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:isn't a somewhat core belief of the modern Democratic Party that America is still racist and blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked et cetera and so forth?

No, but it is a Republican caricature of what the "Democrat Party" is about. That's why we give every black woman on welfare a Cadillac, hold gay prayer vigils (don't even ask!) for violent criminals, etc.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:isn't a somewhat core belief of the modern Democratic Party that America is still racist and blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked et cetera and so forth?

No, but it is a Republican caricature of what the "Democrat Party" is about. That's why we give every black woman on welfare a Cadillac, hold gay prayer vigils (don't even ask!) for violent criminals, etc.

Sweet. No more problems. Can we end affirmative action then?

Speaking of interesting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_ ... mnMzqs0NUE

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:isn't a somewhat core belief of the modern Democratic Party that America is still racist and blacks are mistreated/disadvantaged/distrusted/disliked et cetera and so forth?

No, but it is a Republican caricature of what the "Democrat Party" is about. That's why we give every black woman on welfare a Cadillac, hold gay prayer vigils (don't even ask!) for violent criminals, etc.

Sweet. No more problems. Can we end affirmative action then?

That you see affirmative action primarily in political terms is exactly why I'm not interested in arguing it with you. Believe it or not, not everything is a direct mailer or push poll waiting to happen.