Geraldine Ferraro babbled on and on for about 10 minutes on the Today Show:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyVvDfOcIA[/youtube]
LOL to her not getting the brush your shoulder off reference

omg, some incredibly delusional lady is on msnbc right now talking about michigan votes and stating that obama took himself off the ballot

pacino wrote:Geraldine Ferraro babbled on and on for about 10 minutes on the Today Show:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyVvDfOcIA[/youtube]
LOL to her not getting the brush your shoulder off reference

There are plenty of people in West Virginia whop openly admit to not voting for Obama because he's black, but she's trying to make it seem like people have been more sexist. People don't like her because she's a bitch, not a women.

jerseyhoya wrote:White people like Obama just fine West of the Mississippi, by the way. The rout is on in Oregon.

Obama's problem isn't with white people. It's with the white blue collar crowd that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Oregon doesn't have nearly the amount of blue collar industries that the East does.

Laexile wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:White people like Obama just fine West of the Mississippi, by the way. The rout is on in Oregon.

Obama's problem isn't with white people. It's with the white blue collar crowd that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Oregon doesn't have nearly the amount of blue collar industries that the East does.

So where does he differ with Clinton other than NAFTA, where he has never publicly been married to the guy that signed it? And where would these people vote for McCain, who is 'fiscally conservative'?

pacino wrote:So where does he differ with Clinton other than NAFTA, where he has never publicly been married to the guy that signed it? And where would these people vote for McCain, who is 'fiscally conservative'?

Which is why I find it so funny when "experts" suggest that Obama should tap Clinton for the ticket. Her commitment to economic populism began around Feb. 25, and will end around June 3.

The idea of putting someone on the ticket to angry up the rural/working-class whites makes some sense, but Webb or Strickland would be far better choices for that than Clinton. Maybe you lose some older white women by not choosing her, but that presumes they'd rather lose Roe v. Wade out of spite than vote for Obama, which seems like a stretch.

Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

pacino wrote:So where does he differ with Clinton

He doesn't, significantly. These "hard-working whites" are not voting for Clinton but against Obama. Fuck 'em.

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

Philly the Kid wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

Really? That's the same principle? The situations are comparable at all?

pacino wrote:

Laexile wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:White people like Obama just fine West of the Mississippi, by the way. The rout is on in Oregon.

Obama's problem isn't with white people. It's with the white blue collar crowd that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Oregon doesn't have nearly the amount of blue collar industries that the East does.

So where does he differ with Clinton other than NAFTA, where he has never publicly been married to the guy that signed it?

I don't know all the places their policies differ, but I think they have a tough time figuring out Obama. He's from Hawaii. That's hardly blue collar. He went to Columbia and Harvard. He's young. He hasn't been on the national scene long. He has made comments that make him sound removed from the blue collar types. Obama may not be different than Clinton but he's perceived differently. They love what Bill Clinton did for them and Hillary gets a big benefit from that. They feel like they know her and that she understands them. Maybe they shouldn't perceive the two differently, but they do.

pacino wrote: And where would these people vote for McCain, who is 'fiscally conservative'?

Some people don't vote with their pocketbooks, but on social issues. I have a friend who is socially conservative and fiscally liberal and she's undecided on who to vote for. She likes McCain on social issues, but Obama on fiscal issues.

Beyond social and fiscal issues there is the comfort level. Older Clinton supporters may have a problem with Obama's youth and inexperience. When you're 25 you might want a guy who brings something new and different, wanting to change the world. When you're 65, you're much more concerned with yourself and can be uncomfortable with someone who wants to change everything.

Philly the Kid wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

This is like equating killing a cop while robbing a bank to beating on a suspect for 50 seconds after seeing the suspect involved in a shooting.

I'm not even voting for McCain, though I do like him a bunch. His "indiscretion" pales in comparison. Hell, I'm mostly looking for a Democrat to tell me it turns out there was a book that pretty conclusively points out that Kennedy was innocent. Or something.

Philly the Kid wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment. [McCain's] actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him."

Twenty years ago McCain did nothing more than exercise poor judgment. He's acknowledged the mistake and the experience helped shape him into the man he is today.

Obama was involved with Tony Rezko for 16 years. At this point it appears that Obama did nothing more than exercise poor judgment. The two situations seem similar to me.

TomatoPie wrote:This is a very troubling concept for those most eager to punish the winners in our capitalist system. Or to populist candidates playing to the hate-the-rich voters.

The inescapable conclusion: to grow tax revenues, reduce tax rates.

Wow

there are probably several reasons why you got zero reponse to this post

-too long
-too far from context of surrounding posts
-total escapability of the 'inescapable' conclusion you've drawn from it

quick off the cuff example: some will tell you, earnestly, that society is better off when DP is not so G-D G

by the way, you're not rich; what do you get out of advocating on their behalf? B/C they do NOT care a fig about you. Apologies if you've covered this previously in this or other threads.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:This is a very troubling concept for those most eager to punish the winners in our capitalist system. Or to populist candidates playing to the hate-the-rich voters.

The inescapable conclusion: to grow tax revenues, reduce tax rates.

Wow

there are probably several reasons why you got zero reponse to this post

-too long
-too far from context of surrounding posts
-total escapability of the 'inescapable' conclusion you've drawn from it

quick off the cuff example: some will tell you, earnestly, that society is better off when DP is not so G-D G

by the way, you're not rich; what do you get out of advocating on their behalf? B/C they do NOT care a fig about you. Apologies if you've covered this previously in this or other threads.

Truly, one need not be Houdini to escape that conclusion.

What neither the Grover Norquists nor the Robert Kuttners grasp is that there are no immutable laws to taxation and budgeting. The circumstance dictates the response. Kennedy was right to cut taxes in the early '60s; Bush and Clinton were right to raise them in the early '90s. (And, as I recall, it worked--despite the anguished cries of Republicans that "ZOMG THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY" would lead to a Second Great Depression.)

For that matter, a tax cut in 2001 made sense--though not the grossly irresponsible measure that was passed. What we've seen since then, though, is an "expansion" in which only those at the very, very top did well... and man oh man did they do well. W has been the worst president in American history, but he did inaugurate a second Golden Age of Corporate Profitability. A return to Clinton-era tax rates won't "stifle growth" any more than those rates did in the '90s, in large part because the additional revenues will have a stimulus effect.

This election will provide a nice test of the economic literacy (or lack thereof) of the American public. Based on how the Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Pander fell short, I'm fairly optimistic.

dajafi wrote:This election will provide a nice test of the economic literacy (or lack thereof) of the American public. Based on how the Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Pander fell short, I'm fairly optimistic.

I guess I slept through the class in macro theory when we discussed the evils of free trade, and that my micro principles prof lied to me about comparative advantage.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:This election will provide a nice test of the economic literacy (or lack thereof) of the American public. Based on how the Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Pander fell short, I'm fairly optimistic.

I guess I slept through the class in macro theory when we discussed the evils of free trade, and that my micro principles prof lied to me about comparative advantage.

Not sure how you got from my talking about tax policy to free trade--an issue that I doubt either candidate will run hard on. McCain won't want to risk the wrath of his Buchanan/Dobbs-type supporters, who already distrust him on immigration and his lack of enthusiasm for hating on The Gays, and Obama won't want to frighten the Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic Party. Operationally, they're both free traders.

None of you know about this, but there's been a small shake up in Arkansas politics with our primary yesterday. Now, to be sure, this was a very low key affair, as we held our Presidential primary early. But our Republican party seems to have drifted ever so slightly away from the religious crazed fringe. And some progressive Democrats won contested primaries as well.

Why should any of you care about this? Because right now, what's happening at the state level throughout the country is going to shape American politics for the next several decades.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

Really? That's the same principle? The situations are comparable at all?

I'm not comparing their mis-deeds, I'm saying that if mis-deeds preclude you from being one of the elite 100 or the elite "1", then let's deal with all mis-deeds not just the ones that conservatives want to highlight to oust a liberal.

jeff2sf wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Hi, so I've been doing a little bit of reading on Ted Kennedy, and of course Chappaquiddick. Can I please get the Democrat spin on this, because I gotta tell you, this looks REALLY bad. I mean really really bad. Unless it's in war, I really don't want my senators actively involved in people dying. I'm all for forgiveness and all that, but cripes, there's only 100 senators out of 300 million people. Surely we can find 100 people not involved in, (what seems like) involuntary manslaughter. But hey, thank God he voted the way he did on healthcare/gun control/fillinDemocratissue

And by that same principle -- 'surely we can find Senators who weren't part of the Keating 5 and let them run for president, afterall, there are only 100 Senators but there is only 1 president"

This is like equating killing a cop while robbing a bank to beating on a suspect for 50 seconds after seeing the suspect involved in a shooting.

I'm not even voting for McCain, though I do like him a bunch. His "indiscretion" pales in comparison. Hell, I'm mostly looking for a Democrat to tell me it turns out there was a book that pretty conclusively points out that Kennedy was innocent. Or something.

Cheap shot noted.

I never equated cop killing with cop beat-down. I simply said, that cop beat-downs are illegal and you can't have it both ways. If the law is the law, it's the law. Cops are supposed to be trained to resist acting on emotion since they are constantly in challenging and volatile situations.

I would contend that most senior politicians have plenty of skeletons in the closet. Benefits for their power, money, and in some cases, have gotten away with shady criminal things. I'm no fan of the episode with young Teddy, and the shadyness of how that was handled... but I am a fan of one of the great liberal Senators of the last 20-30 years. We need more people like Kennedy in the Senate on policy and principles.

And we shouldn't be going around selectively choosing whose mis-deeds to call-out. Much is known about many a conservative Senator. Personal and professional.

I'm not defending Teddy's possible mis-deeds and or crimes. Just don't pick on him and not go digging on all of them. I used McCain as example of being part of something slim shady that I felt at the time, shouuld have him losing his Senate seat. And now he's got a good shot of becoming our President. Let's not try to stake the moral high road for any side.