Alphabetized version of mtvcdm's list for easy access:
Al Gore, Tennessee
Anthony Zinni, Virginia
Bill Nelson, Florida
Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
Brian Schweitzer, Montana
Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Colin Powell, New York
David Boren, Oklahoma
Dennis Kucinich, Ohio
Dick Gephardt, Missouri
Drew Gilpin Faust, Massachusetts
Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Hillary Clinton, New York
Jane Harman, California
Janet Napolitano, Arizona
Jim Webb, Virginia
Joe Biden, Delaware
John Edwards, North Carolina
Joseph Cirincione, DC
Kathleen Sabelius, Kansas
Mark Warner, Virginia
Max Baucus, Montana
Michael Bloomberg, New York
Nancy Pelosi, California
Richard Lugar, Indiana
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Sam Nunn, Georgia
Ted Strickland, Ohio
Tim Kaine, Virginia
Tom Daschle, South Dakota
Tom Vilsack, Iowa
Wesley Clark, Arkansas
William J. Fallon, New Jersey
Alphabetized anagrams of MKR's alphabetized version of mtvcdm's list for easy access, for the lulz:
Arch major if anal inane
Askew ransacks really
Attacked hoodlums as hot
Belch or worm-like bogey-man
Blinders flail loon
Capably boney vainness
Crummies slick social liar
Elegant, serene, so
Ensnared lively planned
Farcically poison inane
Heroic blinders climax now
Hey! In avid banana
His kind, choice union
Hot kindest cordial
I am raw, ranking river
Irk in imaginative
Is woundless if scorning
Joined, chronic spice
Jolly jewels win mean flair
Large sake hunchback
Launch air-raid daring
Laze joint paranoia on ant
Man! Act a buxom anus
Man hoodlike bravado
Manuring on sage
Now conk yellow peril
Now jeered able aid
OK! I am vital cows
On wrinkly, nicer tally-ho
On zany in inviting hair
Rage dishumor dipstick
Snake like, subnasal hates
Stigmatised sharp-cut awfulness
The rich, conducted spin doctor
Thorn and iron-jawed scholar
View jar imbibing
Whims brazen recantation
Hey guys, I just want to give an overall thanks for posting tons of useful information here. This thread (and the previous ones) is what got me to vote and actually give a damn about politics. Keep up the good work.
Very easily. After all, the only other viable option when I get home from work is Sunrise Earth.
That's the one on Animal Planet. They set up cameras at some place on Earth some sunny morning, and then record the sunrise. That's the whole show.
I have actually been fairly entertained by all the talking heads as of late, and when I say all I include all the 24 hour news channels and Comedy Central. I even might actually start buying the morning newspaper again.
So Hillary is saying she's ahead in the popular vote*.
* if you include Florida and Michigan, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and don't include any caucus states.
If you count it the sane way though, Obama's well ahead.
She's been saying that, with the same caveats, for quite a while. Wolf and John King even did a graphic tribute to it a few weeks ago, where they ran down most of the possible vote-counting scenarios.
Guess what? Obama still led, unless you discounted states he won, and counted states he didn't run in. Good work, Wolf and John!
By their own admission, this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history.
:shock:
Edit: Every time I hear Bill open his mouth, I think he's said the most outrageous thing of his career. It's like the gift that keeps on pissing all over the carpet.
what it do peeps, I dropped my ballot off at one of the boxes today, good times
I didn't vote for the other stuff though, I feel lame but I didn't have time to research the candidates for senate or the propositions and such
You're not alone. When I got to the ballot box in N.C. I realized that I had completely forgotten to research the other candidates. It was my first time voting and I didn't even really have any residual notions about them, except some attack ads. I felt pretty irresponsible, but I have no real love for either of the major political parties.
I did tick off a candidate for one of the lower offices because I was given a pamphlet outside the polling area. He was the only person handing out pamphlets, he seemed competent, and the outline of what the candidate supported seemed reasonable.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting it. He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators - there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy.
Because heaven knows that the Cubans haven't spent 60 years waiting for a change in US policy; they've spent that time "undertaking" many "fundamental reforms" as a result of the embargo.
Hedgethorn on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
That kind of shit used to sell. Part of the reason that Hillary tacked right on foreign policy (olol nuke Iran) is that in historical races, the Democrat got absolutely clubbed about the head and ears by muscular GOP posturing on foreign policy. The fact that Bush calling Obama an "appeaser" not only slid off, but was actively and successfully counterpunched was a surprise to a lot of pundits, and might reflect that the American public is, at least temporarily, a little sick of mindless bellicosity.
Ultimately McCain's position of 'it's bad to talk to people' is untenable. It is only defensible from and ideological perspective, and that ideology is one that we as a nation seem to be rejecting en mass. The fact that you can attack it in easily digested sound bites is icing.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
That kind of shit used to sell. Part of the reason that Hillary tacked right on foreign policy (olol nuke Iran) is that in historical races, the Democrat got absolutely clubbed about the head and ears by muscular GOP posturing on foreign policy. The fact that Bush calling Obama an "appeaser" not only slid off, but was actively and successfully counterpunched was a surprise to a lot of pundits, and might reflect that the American public is, at least temporarily, a little sick of mindless bellicosity.
I think part of that was that Obama didn't meekly sit back and say, "Thank you sir may I have another." The Dems have always been unwilling to be firm on their FP stances, they have always responded then tried to change the subject. This gives them the appearance of being soft, it makes them seem like they have something to be afraid of on the subject.
The thing that's so dumb about McCain's Cuba rhetoric is that only really hard line Cubans are for the embargo as it is or tightening it. The hard liners are old as hell now, and most of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren want to see loosening of restrictions and an opening of relations with the country, especially now that Fidel is out of the way. It's like McCain is operating on ten year old polls or something.
Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting it. He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators - there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy.
Because heaven knows that the Cubans haven't spent 60 years waiting for a change in US policy; they've spent that time "undertaking" many "fundamental reforms" as a result of the embargo.
A bit off-topic, but Cuba hasn't spent the last 60 years "waiting for a change in US policy". They have, in fact, undertaken many reform programs, though none of them was a result of the embargo. A lot of what they did was a result of the fall of the Soviet Union.
Clinton campaign to rail against sexism aimed at their campaign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902729.html . Some blogger on HuffPost suggested that she do a gender equality version of Obama's race speech, since there's this big outcry of sexism among her supporters. I'm not optimistic that she'll do something that useful. It's much safer to assume she'll use it as a wedge issue.
Clinton campaign to rail against sexism aimed at their campaign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902729.html . Some blogger on HuffPost suggested that she do a gender equality version of Obama's race speech, since there's this big outcry of sexism among her supporters. I'm not optimistic that she'll do something that useful. It's much safer to assume she'll use it as a wedge issue.
She would have to get Obama to write the speech. :P
I loved watching the Today show this morning (or GMA, I forget) with some woman talking about how Hillary has been maligned by pundits and news shows through rather overt sexism. So their plan to deal with it if Obama becomes the nominee is to vote Republican. Because, naturally, this sexism is coming from the progressive left.
Where is this sexism? I can't think of one example.
It's mostly been on the random pundit shows when someone will be a douchebag and say something sexist as part of their larger inane rant.
The only part of Clinton's railing against sexism I disliked this morning is that she also said racism played no part in this campaign, but the media is overtly sexist. Race and Sex played a part in the campaign, and while tragic, it doesn't explain her campaign's performance. Which seemed to fail entirely around the lines of using loyalists instead of subject matter experts in high places, and having absolutely no plan beyond being greeted as liberators after Feb 5th.
An alternative view would state that any and all changes in Cuba are as a result of our foreign policy towards them.
Well I'm sure that's the world view McCain espouses. And it is completely wrong.
If anything, the embargo has had more of an impact on the US than on Cuba. Cubans just hate the US and go on with their lives. Americans make a big electoral issue of this, drive a wedge in their electorate using it, and vote accordingly.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
That kind of shit used to sell. Part of the reason that Hillary tacked right on foreign policy (olol nuke Iran) is that in historical races, the Democrat got absolutely clubbed about the head and ears by muscular GOP posturing on foreign policy. The fact that Bush calling Obama an "appeaser" not only slid off, but was actively and successfully counterpunched was a surprise to a lot of pundits, and might reflect that the American public is, at least temporarily, a little sick of mindless bellicosity.
I think part of that was that Obama didn't meekly sit back and say, "Thank you sir may I have another." The Dems have always been unwilling to be firm on their FP stances, they have always responded then tried to change the subject. This gives them the appearance of being soft, it makes them seem like they have something to be afraid of on the subject.
I think it has more to do with 60%+ of the nation thinking that our brazenly going into Iraq without even acknowledging that a table exists where 2 people can sit down and talk, was a mistake. 'I'm going to be diplomatic, but with a hard line' would not have worked for Gore, or even Kerry, most likely. It only works when we're embroiled in a failing conflict and/or starting to get isolationist. Even if you do point to Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and H.W. as evidence that your path leads to positive results and the Republican opponent's saber rattling leads to madness, it doesn't always go over well. Especially if you're a Democrat, because the quick attack lne is that you want to talk and won't take action, no matter how many times you say you're willing to bomb people. Only Nixon can go to China.
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know.
Clinton campaign to rail against sexism aimed at their campaign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902729.html . Some blogger on HuffPost suggested that she do a gender equality version of Obama's race speech, since there's this big outcry of sexism among her supporters. I'm not optimistic that she'll do something that useful. It's much safer to assume she'll use it as a wedge issue.
She would have to get Obama to write the speech. :P
It would be pretty hilarious if Obama chose this moment to overshadow Hilary by delivering a speech about gender inequality in America, proving he has a stronger grasp of that issue as well.
The Obama Campaign has not spewed sexist remarks, messages, rude gestures, or hidden codes on the bottom of the kool-aid cups that I've seen. They've been wanting the race to be decided on merits, and have pushed that pretty hard.
The Clinton Campaign, however, have been courting the racist vote since Super Tuesday. "Hard working white voters"? Come the fuck on.
Sounds like McCain and Bush are going to be alone in this foreign policy stand.
Clearly Israel doesn't care about the security of Israel. Probably all closet anti-semites.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The Obama Campaign has not spewed sexist remarks, messages, rude gestures, or hidden codes on the bottom of the kool-aid cups that I've seen. They've been wanting the race to be decided on merits, and have pushed that pretty hard.
The Clinton Campaign, however, have been courting the racist vote since Super Tuesday. "Hard working white voters"? Come the fuck on.
She's saying the media is sexist (and the nation in general, but mostly the media), not Obama's campaign. I think it's misdirected outrage instead of asking why her strategy failed, but don't take it as a punch towards Obama.
MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know.
I keep wanting Clinton supporters to explain why it's okay to say that you're voting for her because she's a woman, but it's not okay to say you're voting for Barack because he's black.
Where is this sexism? I can't think of one example.
I'll sum it up for you: Remember anytime Obama dismissed remarks by his opponent, at all? Those were all examples of rampant sexism, because his opponent was a woman.
Posts
Al Gore, Tennessee
Anthony Zinni, Virginia
Bill Nelson, Florida
Bill Richardson, New Mexico
Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
Brian Schweitzer, Montana
Christopher Dodd, Connecticut
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Colin Powell, New York
David Boren, Oklahoma
Dennis Kucinich, Ohio
Dick Gephardt, Missouri
Drew Gilpin Faust, Massachusetts
Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Hillary Clinton, New York
Jane Harman, California
Janet Napolitano, Arizona
Jim Webb, Virginia
Joe Biden, Delaware
John Edwards, North Carolina
Joseph Cirincione, DC
Kathleen Sabelius, Kansas
Mark Warner, Virginia
Max Baucus, Montana
Michael Bloomberg, New York
Nancy Pelosi, California
Richard Lugar, Indiana
Russ Feingold, Wisconsin
Sam Nunn, Georgia
Ted Strickland, Ohio
Tim Kaine, Virginia
Tom Daschle, South Dakota
Tom Vilsack, Iowa
Wesley Clark, Arkansas
William J. Fallon, New Jersey
Arch major if anal inane
Askew ransacks really
Attacked hoodlums as hot
Belch or worm-like bogey-man
Blinders flail loon
Capably boney vainness
Crummies slick social liar
Elegant, serene, so
Ensnared lively planned
Farcically poison inane
Heroic blinders climax now
Hey! In avid banana
His kind, choice union
Hot kindest cordial
I am raw, ranking river
Irk in imaginative
Is woundless if scorning
Joined, chronic spice
Jolly jewels win mean flair
Large sake hunchback
Launch air-raid daring
Laze joint paranoia on ant
Man! Act a buxom anus
Man hoodlike bravado
Manuring on sage
Now conk yellow peril
Now jeered able aid
OK! I am vital cows
On wrinkly, nicer tally-ho
On zany in inviting hair
Rage dishumor dipstick
Snake like, subnasal hates
Stigmatised sharp-cut awfulness
The rich, conducted spin doctor
Thorn and iron-jawed scholar
View jar imbibing
Whims brazen recantation
I have actually been fairly entertained by all the talking heads as of late, and when I say all I include all the 24 hour news channels and Comedy Central. I even might actually start buying the morning newspaper again.
* if you include Florida and Michigan, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and don't include any caucus states.
If you count it the sane way though, Obama's well ahead.
she's been saying that for awhile now
doesn't matter, by the end i expect obama to be in the lead in both the sane and insane way
She's been saying that, with the same caveats, for quite a while. Wolf and John King even did a graphic tribute to it a few weeks ago, where they ran down most of the possible vote-counting scenarios.
Guess what? Obama still led, unless you discounted states he won, and counted states he didn't run in. Good work, Wolf and John!
heh
Damn me if that isn't impressive.
:shock:
Edit: Every time I hear Bill open his mouth, I think he's said the most outrageous thing of his career. It's like the gift that keeps on pissing all over the carpet.
You're not alone. When I got to the ballot box in N.C. I realized that I had completely forgotten to research the other candidates. It was my first time voting and I didn't even really have any residual notions about them, except some attack ads. I felt pretty irresponsible, but I have no real love for either of the major political parties.
I did tick off a candidate for one of the lower offices because I was given a pamphlet outside the polling area. He was the only person handing out pamphlets, he seemed competent, and the outline of what the candidate supported seemed reasonable.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're going to have an election where the Democrat is by far the strongest on foreign policy. I mean, McCain keeps setting himself up for so many different vectors of attack, and each time he does, Obama just comes out looking better.
Sounds like McCain and Bush are going to be alone in this foreign policy stand.
From that article:
Because heaven knows that the Cubans haven't spent 60 years waiting for a change in US policy; they've spent that time "undertaking" many "fundamental reforms" as a result of the embargo.
That kind of shit used to sell. Part of the reason that Hillary tacked right on foreign policy (olol nuke Iran) is that in historical races, the Democrat got absolutely clubbed about the head and ears by muscular GOP posturing on foreign policy. The fact that Bush calling Obama an "appeaser" not only slid off, but was actively and successfully counterpunched was a surprise to a lot of pundits, and might reflect that the American public is, at least temporarily, a little sick of mindless bellicosity.
I think part of that was that Obama didn't meekly sit back and say, "Thank you sir may I have another." The Dems have always been unwilling to be firm on their FP stances, they have always responded then tried to change the subject. This gives them the appearance of being soft, it makes them seem like they have something to be afraid of on the subject.
Also, he thinks Ahmadenijad is the most power man in Iran. That, or he'd like everyone to believe so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccain-confronted-with-ne_n_102614.html
A bit off-topic, but Cuba hasn't spent the last 60 years "waiting for a change in US policy". They have, in fact, undertaken many reform programs, though none of them was a result of the embargo. A lot of what they did was a result of the fall of the Soviet Union.
Where is this sexism? I can't think of one example.
She would have to get Obama to write the speech. :P
It's mostly been on the random pundit shows when someone will be a douchebag and say something sexist as part of their larger inane rant.
The only part of Clinton's railing against sexism I disliked this morning is that she also said racism played no part in this campaign, but the media is overtly sexist. Race and Sex played a part in the campaign, and while tragic, it doesn't explain her campaign's performance. Which seemed to fail entirely around the lines of using loyalists instead of subject matter experts in high places, and having absolutely no plan beyond being greeted as liberators after Feb 5th.
If anything, the embargo has had more of an impact on the US than on Cuba. Cubans just hate the US and go on with their lives. Americans make a big electoral issue of this, drive a wedge in their electorate using it, and vote accordingly.
I think it has more to do with 60%+ of the nation thinking that our brazenly going into Iraq without even acknowledging that a table exists where 2 people can sit down and talk, was a mistake. 'I'm going to be diplomatic, but with a hard line' would not have worked for Gore, or even Kerry, most likely. It only works when we're embroiled in a failing conflict and/or starting to get isolationist. Even if you do point to Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and H.W. as evidence that your path leads to positive results and the Republican opponent's saber rattling leads to madness, it doesn't always go over well. Especially if you're a Democrat, because the quick attack lne is that you want to talk and won't take action, no matter how many times you say you're willing to bomb people. Only Nixon can go to China.
It would be pretty hilarious if Obama chose this moment to overshadow Hilary by delivering a speech about gender inequality in America, proving he has a stronger grasp of that issue as well.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The Clinton Campaign, however, have been courting the racist vote since Super Tuesday. "Hard working white voters"? Come the fuck on.
Clearly Israel doesn't care about the security of Israel. Probably all closet anti-semites.
She's saying the media is sexist (and the nation in general, but mostly the media), not Obama's campaign. I think it's misdirected outrage instead of asking why her strategy failed, but don't take it as a punch towards Obama.
Ayatollah Assahollah.
I hear they were openly talking about Hitler in their parliament just last week. With thunderous applause.
dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
I'll sum it up for you: Remember anytime Obama dismissed remarks by his opponent, at all? Those were all examples of rampant sexism, because his opponent was a woman.
Geraldine Ferraro is a goddamn moron.
¬_¬