jeff2sf wrote:again PiP, just admit you're an HRC fan who doesn't like Obama. Besides pacino and dajafi, no one's going to hold it against you. But your shots at Obama are just gratuitous.

As I've posted before, I don't really care for any of the three. I'm not a fan of any of them, and I may not even vote in the general if the DNC disregards my state (Florida)... yes, even though I'm not a democrat, I am very upset about this.

I feel that the GOP needs to lose the WH because of the stink of the GWB admininstration, both for the sake of the country and for the sake of the GOP (they need to be taught a lesson, that the country won't let them get away with their misdeeds and misadventures). There is something about Obama that troubles me. His legislative record thus far has been contrary to his oratory. Based on his record, Obama is too liberal for the palate of the "middle of the road" electorate. Most of the electorate lays more towards the middle of the political spectrum, and the next prez will be the candidate that wins the most of these moderates. It just feels to me that the Democratic Party hasn't learned any lessons from the past. I just have a feeling Obama will be the next in the line of McGovern (who was labeled as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion and acid" back in '72), Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry... Heck, if it wasn't for the more moderate Bill Clinton, the D nominee in '92 would have been either Paul Tsongas or Jerry Brown.

In the wake of GWB, if the democrats blow this election with a candidate that is too liberal for the moderates... including the proverbial "Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton Republicans"... then the Democratic Party doesn't deserve to be a major political party anymore.

If "gratuitous shots" is in reference to my "hand picked and groomed" comment... (cough) Jack Ryan (cough)

• "Operation Chaos" has just been downgraded to "Operation Unverifiable, Minorly Annoying Act Of Puffery."
• Pressed on why they called IN so early last night, CBS and Katie Couric confessed they just wanted to know what it felt like to be first at something.
• MSNBC's enthusiasm for Obama last night registered somewhere between Richard Simmons and the "American Idol" girl who cried over Sanjaya.
• Adding to HRC's money woes, she's still waiting on her stimulus payment.
• We weren't too concerned that Obama had a white working-class problem, until he chose to drink a PBR.

The first five Swizzle Sticks today from Hotline. I think my favorite is the PBR one. The Clinton stimulus one is sorta lame. Got a chuckle at the shots at Rush, Couric and MSNBC though.

BuddyGroom wrote:I got the point she was trying to make - that Bill is an albatross for Hillary that she could have (and in Quinn's opinion, should have) unloaded.

I don't agree, and think the column is just another anti-Clinton hatchet job.

I have a theory on the "anti-Clinton" thing that emits from both parties...

The Democrats on the left hate everything Clinton because Bill Clinton wasn't a "liberal enough" president... he was more of a moderate, more of a centrist. I'm sure I'm not the only one that recalls people on the left saying such things as "Bill Clinton is/was a good Republican president", thus indicating their disappointment that President Clinton-D didn't advance a liberal agenda (or one they considered liberal enough). Concern that Bill Clinton would take the Democratic Party more to the middle is the cause of Clinton ire amongst the left. Ironically, this is the same reason for anti-Clintonism from the right... Clinton taking the Democrats more to the middle is/was a considerable threat to the GOP. With a majority of the American electorate lying in the middle regions of the political spectrum, the GOP may never win the White House again in the forseeable future had the Democratic Party moved more to the middle (not to mention how it could have effected the makeup of the House and Senate). So the right ramped up the anti-Clinton hate for the sake of the GOP. They needed to taint the legacy of Bill Clinton to force the Democratic Party back to the left so their "liberal" pigeonhole would still apply.

Hillary Clinton gets her share of anti-Clintonism for basically the same reasons as her hubby... isn't considered "liberal enough" by the more-left of the Democratic Party and the GOP desires to preserve itself. There's also the "taint by association" to her hubby factor.

j-hoya, I like the Couric dig myself.

PiP writes:

The Democrats on the left hate everything Clinton because Bill Clinton wasn't a "liberal enough" president... he was more of a moderate, more of a centrist. I'm sure I'm not the only one that recalls people on the left saying such things as "Bill Clinton is/was a good Republican president", thus indicating their disappointment that President Clinton-D didn't advance a liberal agenda (or one they considered liberal enough). Concern that Bill Clinton would take the Democratic Party more to the middle is the cause of Clinton ire amongst the left.

Maybe so, but not for this "leftist."

I consider myself a moderate Democrat, and I think it's fairly likely that 50 years ago I would have been a Rockefeller Republican. By at least one standard, I'm a huge social liberal--gay marriage. And I'm pretty big on the First Amendment. The Clintons have been disappointments on those issues, though not so much while Bill was in as in the years since. But on the other traditional "social liberal" issues--gun control, abortion, religion--I don't have any problem with their centrist approach. Their views are my views, more or less.

On economics, I have a couple major, major issues with the Clintons--the Telecommunications Act particularly--but they stick out because most of what he did was so good. Same with the rest of the domestic policy agenda. Welfare reform was ultimately okay--could and should have been better, but it also could have been worse, and the big problems with it now aren't the Clintons' fault (though Hillary didn't help when she torpedoed a compromise five years ago in order to look tough on those dastardly Welfare Mums). SCHIP and the Family Leave Act and big R&D investments all represented good work.

No, my problem with the Clintons has to do with character and politics. I really do believe they'd say anything and do anything to win, and that disgusts me. I'm a classic goo-goo type; I think process matters. (This is also why I'll always have at least a bit of a soft spot for McCain: his early and fervent support of CFR always suggested to me that he had faith in the public to reach the right decision when the deck wasn't stacked--even if it wasn't the decision he'd reach.) I first began to get turned off by Bill in '96 when the fundraising hijinks became public knowledge. And that steadily rose through his term as it became obvious that the Democrats were becoming a stylistic "party of the rich" to the same degree as the Republicans--just different rich folks. Hence things like the Telecommunications Act.

The Lewinsky thing angers me to this day because it was so damn irresponsible. At the time, I defended him and wanted him to stay in because I felt that the Gingrich/DeLay Right couldn't be allowed to claim his scalp, but that doesn't mean his behavior wasn't shameful and disgraceful.

Bill Clinton never went nearly as far for a policy cause--health care reform, his original vision of welfare reform, climate change, anything--as he did to get his own ass out of the sling. And Hillary's next courageous political stand will be her first. If she'd voted for the war because she had weighed both sides and thought it was the right thing to do, I could credit that. But she didn't even read the damn briefing--unlike committee chair Sen. Graham and most of the other two dozen or so Dems who voted no. Edwards, Kerry and others, who also cast political-viability votes that sent Americans into harm's way, at least had the decency to admit they were wrong and apologize. Sen. Clinton couldn't do that; maybe she can't.

A lot of this is stylistic and personal. When the Clintons say, through mid-February, that "this race is about delegates," and then turn around two friggin' weeks later and say it's about the popular vote and Florida and swing states and white left-handed women 60 and over and whoever else, that insults my intelligence; we've got YouTube, y'know. When Hillary--whom nobody has ever called stupid--pushes the Gas Tax Holiday not as a good policy solution, or even one that's practically implementable, but solely to establish her Screw the Eggheads cred, that's irresponsible and deeply disturbing about what kind of leader she would be.

I'm getting to PtK length here, so I'll stop. But the "not liberal enough" argument doesn't hold for me... even if their perpetual willingness to toss liberals over the side (and, in the last few weeks, to do it with obvious glee) admittedly does have something to do with it.

dajafi wrote:I'm getting to PtK length here, so I'll stop. But the "not liberal enough" argument doesn't hold for me...

geez, so now i'm an adverb...

but for me YES, they are NOT liberal enough. i agree with many things Jeff stated but I'm not a moderate and would never be aligned with Rockefeller of any generation. I'm aligned with Thomas Paine...

seriously... GATT and NAFTA passed under Clinton. Hilary is a pure politician. She stands for nothing. That she became a Senator is shocking to me, in NY no less... nevertheless, the Clinton DNC is not the "Democrat" I am... I don't know what Obama really is or will be, he's likely not going to rock any boats or change any status quo and be in for a rude awakening... but a little movement to the left would be a good thing... how bout taking a few shots at agri-business for starters so we can get more support for local farming...

TV? you want local-- I'm for local... where are you on subsidies for local farming, not for soybean mass growers, what about breaks for pasture raised chicks and beef? that's supporting local, environment and quality.... we won't get anything of the sort under any of these 3... i care, i'd prefer the Rep be out of the White House for a while... but I have no illusions that much will change....

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:I got the point she was trying to make - that Bill is an albatross for Hillary that she could have (and in Quinn's opinion, should have) unloaded.

I don't agree, and think the column is just another anti-Clinton hatchet job.

I have a theory on the "anti-Clinton" thing that emits from both parties...

The Democrats on the left hate everything Clinton because Bill Clinton wasn't a "liberal enough" president... he was more of a moderate, more of a centrist. I'm sure I'm not the only one that recalls people on the left saying such things as "Bill Clinton is/was a good Republican president", thus indicating their disappointment that President Clinton-D didn't advance a liberal agenda (or one they considered liberal enough). Concern that Bill Clinton would take the Democratic Party more to the middle is the cause of Clinton ire amongst the left. Ironically, this is the same reason for anti-Clintonism from the right... Clinton taking the Democrats more to the middle is/was a considerable threat to the GOP. With a majority of the American electorate lying in the middle regions of the political spectrum, the GOP may never win the White House again in the forseeable future had the Democratic Party moved more to the middle (not to mention how it could have effected the makeup of the House and Senate). So the right ramped up the anti-Clinton hate for the sake of the GOP. They needed to taint the legacy of Bill Clinton to force the Democratic Party back to the left so their "liberal" pigeonhole would still apply.

Hillary Clinton gets her share of anti-Clintonism for basically the same reasons as her hubby... isn't considered "liberal enough" by the more-left of the Democratic Party and the GOP desires to preserve itself. There's also the "taint by association" to her hubby factor.

Much of that makes sense and is probably true. But on the right-wing side, I believe there is something pathological going on, as well.

It may be simply that before Bill Clinton came along, the Republicans' thought they had an electoral lock on the White House, and he took away that illusion.

But I still say, and always will say, that the right and much of the corporate media appear to think Clinton's extra-marital dalliances are far worse than the pile of ethical mess (and worse) Bush/Cheney have assembled. If you care at all about social justice, impact on others (and I'm not implying that anyone here does not care about such things), then Clinton is practically a saint compared with Bush and/or Chaney.

And in the current context, what really matters other than getting rid of those two and beginning to undo the damage of the past 8 years. That's why I find Quinn's column strange, deplorable and more than a little ill-timed.

I'm McCain compared to ptk.

The major problem with NAFTA and CAFTA has been the lack of investment put into retraining and the lack of free/cheap schooling for those who lose hteir jobs. Losing many of these manufacturing jobs is inevitable, frankly. Companies will continue to find cheaper solutions to maintain their profit margins. It is up to our society to provide outlets for those losing their jobs to get new jobs.

I also feel a single-payer universal healthcare system would actually help most businesses that currently pay for worker's HC, and would eliminate one major problem that businesses w/ white-collar and union workers have.

Don't blame NAFTA/CAFTA and other worthwhile trade agreements for our country's problems. The solution isn't to abandon these ideas, but to fix the mistakes. I disagree with Obama/Clinton about halting these, but I do like that they have some ideas about retaining and such.

pacino wrote:I'm McCain compared to ptk.

The major problem with NAFTA and CAFTA has been the lack of investment put into retraining and the lack of free/cheap schooling for those who lose hteir jobs. Losing many of these manufacturing jobs is inevitable, frankly. Companies will continue to find cheaper solutions to maintain their profit margins. It is up to our society to provide outlets for those losing their jobs to get new jobs.

I also feel a single-payer universal healthcare system would actually help most businesses that currently pay for worker's HC, and would eliminate one major problem that businesses w/ white-collar and union workers have.

Don't blame NAFTA/CAFTA and other worthwhile trade agreements for our country's problems. The solution isn't to abandon these ideas, but to fix the mistakes. I disagree with Obama/Clinton about halting these, but I do like that they have some ideas about retaining and such.

WHen did it become "ok" to export good jobs in the USA for cheap labor outside? When did become ok to create a bunch of non-sense paper financial products (see Kevin Phillips new tome) in lieu of solid manufacturing, infrstructure, skilled jobs here -- we could have been spending the last 30 years going green, going solar, high speed rail, and surely improving health care and making free to all....

Philly the Kid wrote:

pacino wrote:I'm McCain compared to ptk.

The major problem with NAFTA and CAFTA has been the lack of investment put into retraining and the lack of free/cheap schooling for those who lose hteir jobs. Losing many of these manufacturing jobs is inevitable, frankly. Companies will continue to find cheaper solutions to maintain their profit margins. It is up to our society to provide outlets for those losing their jobs to get new jobs.

I also feel a single-payer universal healthcare system would actually help most businesses that currently pay for worker's HC, and would eliminate one major problem that businesses w/ white-collar and union workers have.

Don't blame NAFTA/CAFTA and other worthwhile trade agreements for our country's problems. The solution isn't to abandon these ideas, but to fix the mistakes. I disagree with Obama/Clinton about halting these, but I do like that they have some ideas about retaining and such.

WHen did it become "ok" to export good jobs in the USA for cheap labor outside? When did become ok to create a bunch of non-sense paper financial products (see Kevin Phillips new tome) in lieu of solid manufacturing, infrstructure, skilled jobs here -- we could have been spending the last 30 years going green, going solar, high speed rail, and surely improving health care and making free to all....

Outside of some manufacturing, many of these jobs can be done just as well in other countries. I do not view our nation as some amazing workforce tremendously better than all others at all jobs. I'm also not a huge protectionist.

Providing opportunities to all citizens to create new skills and get education in new fields is vital to 'going green' and such. We will always need janitors and doctors and lawyers and other professions (and likely professions we don't have yet), but we don't always need the guy that pulls the lever for the massive cookie batch to be cut.

No sense clinging to some past that won't come back. The days of a guy signing up for a 45K job with great benefits and a retirement package without any sort of education is long gone. However, gearing that person towards a valuable skilled trade and providing them the opportunity to afford it is vital. Unskilled work no longer pays well. Just ask Walmart workers.

edit: Protectionism as a philosophy isn't a very realistic vision for the future and for the global economy.

Philly the Kid wrote:

pacino wrote:I'm McCain compared to ptk.

The major problem with NAFTA and CAFTA has been the lack of investment put into retraining and the lack of free/cheap schooling for those who lose hteir jobs. Losing many of these manufacturing jobs is inevitable, frankly. Companies will continue to find cheaper solutions to maintain their profit margins. It is up to our society to provide outlets for those losing their jobs to get new jobs.

I also feel a single-payer universal healthcare system would actually help most businesses that currently pay for worker's HC, and would eliminate one major problem that businesses w/ white-collar and union workers have.

Don't blame NAFTA/CAFTA and other worthwhile trade agreements for our country's problems. The solution isn't to abandon these ideas, but to fix the mistakes. I disagree with Obama/Clinton about halting these, but I do like that they have some ideas about retaining and such.

WHen did it become "ok" to export good jobs in the USA for cheap labor outside? When did become ok to create a bunch of non-sense paper financial products (see Kevin Phillips new tome) in lieu of solid manufacturing, infrstructure, skilled jobs here -- we could have been spending the last 30 years going green, going solar, high speed rail, and surely improving health care and making free to all....

Not everyone can afford $150 shirts and $5 whole wheat flour.

This might be just me, but I see colleges as a far more prevalent thorn in the ass to middle class families than healthcare.

As pacino said its almost a necessity at this point.

The fact that students and their families are paying the price literally because state colleges are horribly funded and in New Jersey's case because New Jersey has no more money to give.

Even if the state colleges were well funded and cheap they can only carry so many students and most private universities cost ridiculous amounts for the average student and family.

I'd have to imagine that college puts more families and 18-26 year olds in almost insurmountable debt than healthcare does.

But its not a talking point so no one cares.

When you go too crazy with protectionism and other nanny-state elements, as PtK seems to be wishing for, you turn into France and Germany with bloated public workforces, 10 percent unemployment, and middle-aged people still living with their parents... which someone might describe as a fairly apt metaphor for democratic socialism itself.

(Somewhere, TomatoPie is shuddering violently...)

But the notion of education/retraining as the cure to every problem also represents more than a bit of wishful thinking... and I write that as someone whose career is essentially bound up in advocating for more education/retraining. At some point, you have to tilt the playing field back at least a bit. That means unions, it means workplace standards, it means creating public incentives for companies to be good citizens. And--to pacino's point--it means not abandoning free trade deals, but using our (enormous) market leverage to get more actors to play by the right set of rules.

As for mcgraw's point--he's right, but a big part of the problem is that so many kids go to college without the first frickin' clue why they're doing it. If you're a great student and want to take liberal arts, you'll be okay. If you are the rare 18 year old who knows s/he wants to be an engineer or a doctor or a physicist, and understands what it takes to achieve such things, you'll be okay. But if you're just some guy/gal not sure exactly what to do after high school, relatively smart perhaps but not hugely motivated to read Great Books or even go to class, the odds are distressingly high that you'll leave school without a degree, but with an assload of debt.

The answer will come, if it comes, when we have a different mindset about what "should" happen after high school. (Raising the quality of secondary education is a big piece of that too--plenty of kids go to college without the academic skills to succeed there.) Learning a trade in high school shouldn't be a shameful thing--and it shouldn't mean that you won't go to college later on when you're a little more clear on what you wish to get out of it. Those who earn vocational certificates or associates' degrees shouldn't bear any stigma compared to Harvard Phi Beta Kappans. It's all good, and who and what you are at 19, or 22, or 25, shouldn't ever be read as determinative to what you'll be as a fully grown adult... whatever that even means.

The system to which we should aspire is supportive but not strangling, offering people a wide range of options into higher education and careers. The current blend of "college for all (if you can afford it)/sink or swim, suckas!" isn't cutting it.

Also--I know we're jumping back, but I'll add two points on which I'm (probably) with PtK and against the Clintons:

-->The military budget is vastly too high. It just is. We spend more than, what, the next 25 countries combined? A large chunk of which goes to programs and systems that became obsolescent with the end of the Cold War. At the very, very least, I'd like the same level of congressional scrutiny applied to the expenditure of "defense" appropriations as to social service programs. I guarantee you wouldn't have forklifts full of money left on Iraqi airfields.

Actually, that goes for the appropriations themselves. I guess it's theoretically possible that we need every last dime of the half-trillion or so per annum we spend on defense. But I'd like someone to explain why--as is always required for investments in, say, adult education and worker retraining.

-->Subsidies for agribusiness. When PtK and jerseyhoya agree, how can they be wrong?

The common thread of these two beefs (and many more beside) actually gets to the reason Obama claims to be running: the dysfunction within the federal government. Granted, every would-be reformer has made this argument and it usually translates to less than a hill of beans. But that's not enough reason to stop trying.

mpmcgraw wrote:This might be just me, but I see colleges as a far more prevalent thorn in the ass to middle class families than healthcare.

As pacino said its almost a necessity at this point.

The fact that students and their families are paying the price literally because state colleges are horribly funded and in New Jersey's case because New Jersey has no more money to give.

Even if the state colleges were well funded and cheap they can only carry so many students and most private universities cost ridiculous amounts for the average student and family.

I'd have to imagine that college puts more families and 18-26 year olds in almost insurmountable debt than healthcare does.

But its not a talking point so no one cares.

There are plenty of ways to fund a college education. True, part of the package will probably involve loans, but our department has three full tuition scholarships available, and no one even applied this year for one of them.

New Jersey may be under-served as far as higher education goes especially public higher education, but many schools are looking for ways to boost enrollment, not exclude people, and money is often a part of the package.

On Dajafi's point on higher ed--of course my job depends on not especially motivated kids going to college, so, let's just say I'm agnostic about that. However, the fact is for one reason or another, most of my students come to college not prepared for anything--not college, not work, not even how to use leisure time. (I mean, they sit around saying there's nothing to do until some shows them how they might have some fun.)

So, we're in the business of catering to an extended adolescence, and the kids with some gumption realize that the real gateway is some kind of professional grad school--law, MPA, MBA, and such.

One thing that students need to understand is that the degree/major/transcript has little value. (Not to say it's not a necessary certification.) Rather, what's important are skills--writing, research, the ability to do a bit of quantitative analysis, how to talk, etc.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrjW9NZo6Y&eurl=http://wonkette.com/388115/terrible-douchebags-launch-new-war-on-birth-control[/youtube]

TenuredVulture wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:This might be just me, but I see colleges as a far more prevalent thorn in the ass to middle class families than healthcare.

As pacino said its almost a necessity at this point.

The fact that students and their families are paying the price literally because state colleges are horribly funded and in New Jersey's case because New Jersey has no more money to give.

Even if the state colleges were well funded and cheap they can only carry so many students and most private universities cost ridiculous amounts for the average student and family.

I'd have to imagine that college puts more families and 18-26 year olds in almost insurmountable debt than healthcare does.

But its not a talking point so no one cares.

There are plenty of ways to fund a college education. True, part of the package will probably involve loans, but our department has three full tuition scholarships available, and no one even applied this year for one of them.

New Jersey may be under-served as far as higher education goes especially public higher education, but many schools are looking for ways to boost enrollment, not exclude people, and money is often a part of the package.

On Dajafi's point on higher ed--of course my job depends on not especially motivated kids going to college, so, let's just say I'm agnostic about that. However, the fact is for one reason or another, most of my students come to college not prepared for anything--not college, not work, not even how to use leisure time. (I mean, they sit around saying there's nothing to do until some shows them how they might have some fun.)

So, we're in the business of catering to an extended adolescence, and the kids with some gumption realize that the real gateway is some kind of professional grad school--law, MPA, MBA, and such.

One thing that students need to understand is that the degree/major/transcript has little value. (Not to say it's not a necessary certification.) Rather, what's important are skills--writing, research, the ability to do a bit of quantitative analysis, how to talk, etc.

3 scholorships. That would really put a dent into it.

i don't know what this is or means but it makes me raff.

TenuredVulture wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vrjW9NZo6Y&eurl=http://wonkette.com/388115/terrible-douchebags-launch-new-war-on-birth-control[/youtube]

the other videos are this channel are hilarious

dajafi wrote:When you go too crazy with protectionism and other nanny-state elements, as PtK seems to be wishing for, you turn into France and Germany with bloated public workforces, 10 percent unemployment, and middle-aged people still living with their parents... which someone might describe as a fairly apt metaphor for democratic socialism itself.

(Somewhere, TomatoPie is shuddering violently...)

But the notion of education/retraining as the cure to every problem also represents more than a bit of wishful thinking... and I write that as someone whose career is essentially bound up in advocating for more education/retraining. At some point, you have to tilt the playing field back at least a bit. That means unions, it means workplace standards, it means creating public incentives for companies to be good citizens. And--to pacino's point--it means not abandoning free trade deals, but using our (enormous) market leverage to get more actors to play by the right set of rules.

As for mcgraw's point--he's right, but a big part of the problem is that so many kids go to college without the first frickin' clue why they're doing it. If you're a great student and want to take liberal arts, you'll be okay. If you are the rare 18 year old who knows s/he wants to be an engineer or a doctor or a physicist, and understands what it takes to achieve such things, you'll be okay. But if you're just some guy/gal not sure exactly what to do after high school, relatively smart perhaps but not hugely motivated to read Great Books or even go to class, the odds are distressingly high that you'll leave school without a degree, but with an assload of debt.

The answer will come, if it comes, when we have a different mindset about what "should" happen after high school. (Raising the quality of secondary education is a big piece of that too--plenty of kids go to college without the academic skills to succeed there.) Learning a trade in high school shouldn't be a shameful thing--and it shouldn't mean that you won't go to college later on when you're a little more clear on what you wish to get out of it. Those who earn vocational certificates or associates' degrees shouldn't bear any stigma compared to Harvard Phi Beta Kappans. It's all good, and who and what you are at 19, or 22, or 25, shouldn't ever be read as determinative to what you'll be as a fully grown adult... whatever that even means.

The system to which we should aspire is supportive but not strangling, offering people a wide range of options into higher education and careers. The current blend of "college for all (if you can afford it)/sink or swim, suckas!" isn't cutting it.

FWIW, I was responding specifically to PTK's ideas. I am in a union, obviously I am a fan. I'm just against the type of mass protectionism and isolationist thinking that ptk backs.

I think a HUGE appeal of trade agreements is the establishment of worker's rights and minimum standards for the workplace and for hte environment...but if you remember we backed out of one of those because it didn't suit us.

I guess I'm just against the idea that we are only part of the global community when it suits us. We're part of it, good and bad. Trade agreements aren't perfect, but they've done a damn lot of good for many people

mpmcgraw wrote:

i don't know what this is or means but it makes me raff.

dude, you didn't see that? it was like the coolest thing i've ever seen a presidential candidate do. then again, it's the first oen of my life that didn't have gray hair (or dyed hair *cough* hillary *cough*)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZJex9Ge2-Q[/youtube]