Can I vote for him 100 times?

Yes, because you don't have to show photo ID when you vote.

jerseyhoya wrote:Yes, because you don't have to show photo ID when you vote.

thank god mine is a bad picture, lol!

i think i like the reaction of the black guy in the back more than obama's moment...the dude was up and cheering the SECOND he did it. the old guy next to him just stood up because everyone else did...he was so clueless

Pacino Classic avatar holla

I enjoyed McCain on The Daily Show tonight. And, not that this was a particular surprise, Stewart asked him tougher questions than his male girlfriends in the MSM generally do.

Here's hoping he's as good as his word on "running a respectful campaign." The "I'm Hamas's worst nightmare" stuff, which was the low point of the interview, isn't very encouraging.

Neither of them are going to run a respectful campaign. But both will probably run a more respectful campaign than we got last time around.

And if some Al-Qaeda leader issues a statement talking about how they want McCain to win so that the war can continue driving up recruitment, and the Dems don't make light of it, I'll eat my hat.

Republicans have nothing but contempt for American soldiers. Mutherfuckers.

Seriously, if this doesn't convince you that Republicans need to lose, you have no soul, and no penis.

It's an outrage.

I saw that today, Paul. The prudes in the party really fucking suck.

TenuredVulture wrote:Republicans have nothing but contempt for American soldiers. $#@!.

Seriously, if this doesn't convince you that Republicans need to lose, you have no soul, and no penis.

It's an outrage.

You all know how liberal I am, and respectful of women -- but if I was out there with a gun with my ass on the line, I don't want nobody regulating what I can have access to with my 5minutes to myself... geez! Outrage!

jerseyhoya wrote:I saw that today, Paul. The prudes in the party really $#@! suck.

Between this and the pill thing....Look, I'm sorry you guys can't get laid. But that's no reason to keep the rest of us from having fun.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I saw that today, Paul. The prudes in the party really $#@! suck.

Between this and the pill thing....Look, I'm sorry you guys can't get laid. But that's no reason to keep the rest of us from having fun.

My lack of a talent for getting laid just increases my need for porn. These things aren't the same.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I saw that today, Paul. The prudes in the party really $#@! suck.

Between this and the pill thing....Look, I'm sorry you guys can't get laid. But that's no reason to keep the rest of us from having fun.

"You can have body armor, or you can have pr0n... actually, strike that. It's adequate health coverage after your discharge, or pr0n... no, that's not right either. Education assistance through a new GI Bill, or pr0n... what? Oh, okay, never mind. You cannon fodder get nothing and like it! Praise right-wing Jeebus!"

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....

It's a natural progression for a maturing and "growing" economy. But the workforce in that economy also has to advance to the next level (see pacino's reply). It wasn't that long ago when there was child labor (such as children working in coal mines) in the good ol' US of A. Not only did the country wise up, it also advanced beyond that. Same thing will happen in China. Right now they have cheap labor compared to us, partially because of exchange rates and their cost of living. The time will come when their economy grows past that and some other country will take their place as the cheap manufacturing economy.

dajafi wrote: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.

But yet, of the list of Democrats since the Reagan era, Clinton was the only one to win. While it's somewhat "icky", Hoya is right in regards to the election part of politics being a game. The GOP knows this, and they play the game to win. If you don't win, you don't get to affect policy, you don't get to "make a difference". Not to disregard their achievements and contributions, but in the presidential election game... Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry... losers.

Something that concerns me about Obama... the makeup of his coalition is the same as that of Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.

I'm somewhat a "student of history" (for lack of a better term) and believe in the adage "those that fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it".

dajafi wrote: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.

An unfortunate part of "the game" is that you need to raise the big bucks. I'd be all for taxpayer campaign financing for prez campaigns if it would remove this layer of sleeze from "the game".

dajafi wrote: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.

Yes it was irresponsible. But if his family can forgive him (regardless of the reasons for said forgiveness), then so can I. I'm not his family, so to me the biggest sin was giving the right fodder for tainting his name as a means of pushing the Democratic Party away from center, and the time and energy taken away from more pertinent things. The fact that some still hold ire over the Lewinsky thing to this day means the right's gameplan worked.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote: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.

But yet, of the list of Democrats since the Reagan era, Clinton was the only one to win. While it's somewhat "icky", Hoya is right in regards to the election part of politics being a game. The GOP knows this, and they play the game to win. If you don't win, you don't get to affect policy, you don't get to "make a difference". Not to disregard their achievements and contributions, but in the presidential election game... Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry... losers.

Something that concerns me about Obama... the makeup of his coalition is the same as that of Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.

I'm somewhat a "student of history" (for lack of a better term) and believe in the adage "those that fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it".

dajafi wrote: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.

An unfortunate part of "the game" is that you need to raise the big bucks. I'd be all for taxpayer campaign financing for prez campaigns if it would remove this layer of sleeze from "the game".

dajafi wrote: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.

Yes it was irresponsible. But if his family can forgive him (regardless of the reasons for said forgiveness), then so can I. I'm not his family, so to me the biggest sin was giving the right fodder for tainting his name as a means of pushing the Democratic Party away from center, and the time and energy taken away from more pertinent things. The fact that some still hold ire over the Lewinsky thing to this day means the right's gameplan worked.

This theory assume that you believe that Gore and Kerry actually lost. I do not. I think they won and had it stolen from them. Mondale/Dukakis were victims of the hype about Reagan, and the Dems were not ready for the emergence of the Evangelicals and the organization of the radical right.

I'm not optimistic that Obama can win, but it won't be McGovern 2.0, and saying "well, the Clinton's know how to win..." I don't know what that means really?? Are we saying that only Southern Dems can ever win the White House?

Philly the Kid wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote: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.

But yet, of the list of Democrats since the Reagan era, Clinton was the only one to win. While it's somewhat "icky", Hoya is right in regards to the election part of politics being a game. The GOP knows this, and they play the game to win. If you don't win, you don't get to affect policy, you don't get to "make a difference". Not to disregard their achievements and contributions, but in the presidential election game... Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry... losers.

Something that concerns me about Obama... the makeup of his coalition is the same as that of Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.

I'm somewhat a "student of history" (for lack of a better term) and believe in the adage "those that fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it".

dajafi wrote: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.

An unfortunate part of "the game" is that you need to raise the big bucks. I'd be all for taxpayer campaign financing for prez campaigns if it would remove this layer of sleeze from "the game".

dajafi wrote: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.

Yes it was irresponsible. But if his family can forgive him (regardless of the reasons for said forgiveness), then so can I. I'm not his family, so to me the biggest sin was giving the right fodder for tainting his name as a means of pushing the Democratic Party away from center, and the time and energy taken away from more pertinent things. The fact that some still hold ire over the Lewinsky thing to this day means the right's gameplan worked.

This theory assume that you believe that Gore and Kerry actually lost. I do not. I think they won and had it stolen from them. Mondale/Dukakis were victims of the hype about Reagan, and the Dems were not ready for the emergence of the Evangelicals and the organization of the radical right.

I'm not optimistic that Obama can win, but it won't be McGovern 2.0, and saying "well, the Clinton's know how to win..." I don't know what that means really?? Are we saying that only Southern Dems can ever win the White House?

Being Clinton's VP, Gore was basically an incumbent of a popular administration. It shouldn't have even been close enough for it to be stolen. I recall polls at the time showing that Clinton would have soundly defeated GWB if he were allowed to run. But Gore fell for the GOP tactics of Clinton taint and tried to distance himself from Clinton (remember, he didn't even want Bill Clinton to campaign for him). Gore deserved to lose.

No, I am not saying only a southern Dem can win the WH. I'm saying the Dem candidate must play to win (be a "winner"), and "the game" dictates that a sizeable percentage of the moderates, including the proverbial "Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton Republicans", are needed to win. Neither party can win the WH with just their respective party line loyalists or their typical party coalition.

pacino wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

Great clip. I'll be on the lookout, though, for the first conservative columnist who tries to make an issue of Obama using a rap reference, which will quickly be turned by the Fixed News types into a gang sign.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

dajafi wrote: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.

But yet, of the list of Democrats since the Reagan era, Clinton was the only one to win. While it's somewhat "icky", Hoya is right in regards to the election part of politics being a game. The GOP knows this, and they play the game to win. If you don't win, you don't get to affect policy, you don't get to "make a difference". Not to disregard their achievements and contributions, but in the presidential election game... Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry... losers.

Something that concerns me about Obama... the makeup of his coalition is the same as that of Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.

I'm somewhat a "student of history" (for lack of a better term) and believe in the adage "those that fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it".

dajafi wrote: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.

An unfortunate part of "the game" is that you need to raise the big bucks. I'd be all for taxpayer campaign financing for prez campaigns if it would remove this layer of sleeze from "the game".

dajafi wrote: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.

Yes it was irresponsible. But if his family can forgive him (regardless of the reasons for said forgiveness), then so can I. I'm not his family, so to me the biggest sin was giving the right fodder for tainting his name as a means of pushing the Democratic Party away from center, and the time and energy taken away from more pertinent things. The fact that some still hold ire over the Lewinsky thing to this day means the right's gameplan worked.

This theory assume that you believe that Gore and Kerry actually lost. I do not. I think they won and had it stolen from them. Mondale/Dukakis were victims of the hype about Reagan, and the Dems were not ready for the emergence of the Evangelicals and the organization of the radical right.

I'm not optimistic that Obama can win, but it won't be McGovern 2.0, and saying "well, the Clinton's know how to win..." I don't know what that means really?? Are we saying that only Southern Dems can ever win the White House?

Being Clinton's VP, Gore was basically an incumbent of a popular administration. It shouldn't have even been close enough for it to be stolen. I recall polls at the time showing that Clinton would have soundly defeated GWB if he were allowed to run. But Gore fell for the GOP tactics of Clinton taint and tried to distance himself from Clinton (remember, he didn't even want Bill Clinton to campaign for him). Gore deserved to lose.

No, I am not saying only a southern Dem can win the WH. I'm saying the Dem candidate must play to win (be a "winner"), and "the game" dictates that a sizeable percentage of the moderates, including the proverbial "Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton Republicans", are needed to win. Neither party can win the WH with just their respective party line loyalists or their typical party coalition.

Well, I could be ok with this tactic, IF -- If the Dem once in the White House, actually did more or less what he wanted to do all along (move to the left, just as the Rep go farther to the right once in there.)

Say hello to the next ex member of Congress.

In a statement released through a public relations firm, Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) said Thursday that he had an extramarital affair that has resulted in a three-year-old daughter.

“My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry,” Fossella said in the statement.

“While I understand that there will be many questions, including those about my political future, making any political decisions right now are furthest from my mind,” the lawmaker, who was arrested for drunk driving last week, said. “Over the coming weeks and months, I will to continue to do my job and I will work hard to heal the deep wounds I have caused.”

With respect, I think that if Dukakis, Gore or Kerry had run with Ross Perot taking ~20 percent and essentially training all his fire on the Republican, they might have "won" too. (Also, it could rather easily be argued that Reagan certainly and W. probably were better candidates--better politicians--than Bush41 or BobDole.)

Bill Clinton is (or was) a great politician, but it always gets lost how much he was a beneficiary of good luck... and how he blew that good luck by political self-indulgence in his first term (NAFTA/health care was easily the worst sequence he could have chosen, and then the Hillary's Kremlin approach to health care killed the politics of the thing) and personal self-indulgence in his second.

Also, Gore and Kerry got way, way more votes than Bill ever did. So either their "coalition" grew in size (and demographically, there's something to that), or they drew in people beyond eggheads and non-whites. Even proportionally, given that Kerry got something like 49 percent and Mondale got something like 40 percent, this "losers" argument doesn't hold up.