Well, the post above mine apparently didn't.

jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her

Kind of an interesting thought. Not sure she wants to be VP that badly, though.

I was just about to post this; glad I looked back a couple of pages first. Anyway, that article scares the hell out of me. I really don't like Clinton at all and I would not be a happy Obama camper if Hillary is on the ticket with him. I think Hillary and Bill would work to undermine Obama at every turn just to say "See, I told you I [Hillary] was the better person for the job."

What's it called if you're in the middle of post graduate degree? I mean, I'm obviously smarter and more successful than the standard college grad, but I might not quite be snob material just yet

jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton Wants VP, Obama Can't Stop Her

Kind of an interesting thought. Not sure she wants to be VP that badly, though.

I'll avoid the strong temptation to mock the wisdom of listening to Mondale's campaign manager and just say that I disagree with his premise. A lot of the supers who endorsed Obama seem to have done so in no small part either because they never particularly liked The Clinton Show, or because things happened in the course of this campaign that moved them from neutral to negative on the two of them.

That said, much as you guys know I like Webb, I'm really starting to think it has to be Clark, largely because he is identified with the "Clinton wing" of the party and his place on the ticket would somewhat placate them.

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, the post above mine apparently didn't.

Sorry, I will have to see the data to believe that.

If you do have the data, though, that's an outlier since 1992.

BuddyGroom wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, the post above mine apparently didn't.

Sorry, I will have to see the data to believe that.

If you do have the data, though, that's an outlier since 1992.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2004 Exit Polls

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Beck's idea was that we shouldn't be talking about oil companies and their windfall profits since university endowments don't get taxed and their main function is to spread radical ideology.

This sort of "thinking" is a large part of the reason why I refer to that guy solely as Howdy Dumbf*ck. He really might be the stupidest man on TV, and among the most obnoxious.

Woody wrote:What's it called if you're in the middle of post graduate degree? I mean, I'm obviously smarter and more successful than the standard college grad, but I might not quite be snob material just yet

A swing voter?

jerseyhoya wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, the post above mine apparently didn't.

Sorry, I will have to see the data to believe that.

If you do have the data, though, that's an outlier since 1992.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2004 Exit Polls

That was quick. Good for you - I stand corrected.

But college-educated voters have trended toward the Democrats in the last 20 years or so, I believe.

Somehow I had never heard of him (I mean I'd heard his name but never seen or distinguished him) until my friend pointed out his show the other night; I'm kind of mesmerized by his Limbaugh-meets-TMZ shtick.

BuddyGroom wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, the post above mine apparently didn't.

Sorry, I will have to see the data to believe that.

If you do have the data, though, that's an outlier since 1992.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2004 Exit Polls

That was quick. Good for you - I stand corrected.

But college-educated voters have trended toward the Democrats in the last 20 years or so, I believe.

You're almost certainly right on that one. And it will probably be worse this year, given how unpopular Bush and the rest of the party is.

BuddyGroom wrote:But college-educated voters have trended toward the Democrats in the last 20 years or so, I believe.

This is my understanding as well--though I'm not sure if I've seen it as "college-educated" or "professional." I know that as of the early '60s, people like I believe most of us to be--well-educated professional types--were overwhelmingly Republicans. Now it's obviously closer to 50-50, and I think that if the Republicans persist in the Bush "screw expertise and empirical reality; I've got my 'gut'" approach, it'll swing to the Democrats.

Increasingly, though, I think the Republicans are going to self-correct, so they'll start winning back people like SQUIRE (just to take an example of someone I remember calling himself a Bush-hating Republican). But they have to lose for another cycle or two for the lesson really to sink in.

House Dems get nasty nationwide

We aren't the only ones lying about stuff and stirring up the racial pot this election season.

Camile Paglia (an Obama supporter) charges that the "Iron my shirt!" gag in New Hampshire was coordinated or set up by the Clinton campaign to energize/enrage feminists.

Hadn't heard that one before. I wouldn't put it past them, but I need a little more to go on...

philliesphhan wrote:some hilariously ignorant racist white people on The Daily Show

<embed FlashVars='videoId=168561' src='http://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

link

About 1:40 in

dajafi wrote:ossibly fatal flaw.

What got to me most about Bush, the ur-problem from which all the other ones spring, is how totally lacking he is, in terms of intellect, temperament and character, for the job he holds.

It's like we've had a taste of what a 2-term Harding administration might have been like.

It tastes funny, but not haha funny

dajafi wrote:Camile Paglia (an Obama supporter) charges that the "Iron my shirt!" gag in New Hampshire was coordinated or set up by the Clinton campaign to energize/enrage feminists.

Hadn't heard that one before. I wouldn't put it past them, but I need a little more to go on...

I agree totally. I think the Clinton's would certainly pull a stunt like that but I really didn't see any "clear" evidence that the guys were working with Hillary's staff. Either way, it was five months ago - who cares.

BTW, I thought the douche-off bit on Stewart last night was hilarious. Is there any doubt Matthews is from Philly?

Didn't catch Daily Show last night--out playing poker. (Badly, I might add.) At the office today, but I'll watch the clips posted here tonight at home...

doc, the thing about the Harding comparison is that back in the day, the executive branch was so much less powerful relative to the other ones than it is now--and those institutional ties were more powerful than partisan ones. So you had, for instance, big-name Republicans in on the various Teapot Dome investigations--something almost unimaginable today relative to the myriad Bush scandals.

dajafi wrote:doc, the thing about the Harding comparison is that back in the day, the executive branch was so much less powerful relative to the other ones than it is now--and those institutional ties were more powerful than partisan ones. So you had, for instance, big-name Republicans in on the various Teapot Dome investigations--something almost unimaginable today relative to the myriad Bush scandals.

agreed on the institutional dissimilarities; was thinking more of the individual "unsuited by temperament/inclination/competence for the job" aspect.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:doc, the thing about the Harding comparison is that back in the day, the executive branch was so much less powerful relative to the other ones than it is now--and those institutional ties were more powerful than partisan ones. So you had, for instance, big-name Republicans in on the various Teapot Dome investigations--something almost unimaginable today relative to the myriad Bush scandals.

agreed on the institutional dissimilarities; was thinking more of the individual "unsuited by temperament/inclination/competence for the job" aspect.

Yeah, I can go along with that. But Harding at least sorta knew his limitations and spent most of his time either playing cards or living out various Bill Clinton/Cinemax fantasies. Bush actually seems to think he's good at the job.