DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[BigSqwert]

You're all over the place. Ron Paul, Obama, Kucinich. Make up your mind!

 

So seriously, are you to the point that Obama is sort of your main pick?

Leaning that way. Kucinich has no chance at all. He's too far left for the main stream. Paul is the best of the GOP for me but that ain't saying much.

[YASNY]

I just know this much. With our constitution being on the verge of made invalid, Ron Paul appears to be the candidate that is most cognizant of the fact that we have a constitution and it's relevance is of the upmost importance. Regardless of political affiliation.

[BigSqwert]

Role for Al Gore in Obama White House?

Candidate sees former vice president in 'very senior capacity, if he's willing'

 

Updated: 1:25 p.m. CT Oct 25, 2007

 

DOVER, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama says Al Gore would play a key role in his administration if he wants one, but he won't say whether he'd ask him to be his running mate.

 

After listening to Obama address a crowded community center Wednesday, a voter asked him to consider naming Gore as his running mate before the nomination is decided "as a way to take the wind out of Hillary's sails."

 

The voter even proposed a campaign slogan: "Obama and Gore: Experience and Youth. Obama and Gore: Wisdom and Truth."

 

Not so fast, came Obama's reply.

 

The Illinois senator said Gore would be involved in his administration in a "very senior capacity, if he's willing" but joked: "I will also be honest with you: having won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, being vice president again would probably be a step down for him."

 

Gore won the prize this month for working to raise awareness about global warming.

 

Answering the broader question - why him instead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - Obama repeated his argument that he is uniquely qualified to end the gridlock in Washington.

 

"I think people feel like I listen, and I've got some common sense and I don't have a lot of baggage," he said.

 

Obama also said opening government to public scrutiny will be at the heart of his administration, and he criticized the Bush administration as too secretive.

 

"I'm not just going to have one of these press conferences every six months where I call on my three favorite reporters. We're going to have regular press conferences to explain to the American people here's what we're trying to do and to be held accountable," said Obama, though like Clinton, he rarely holds news conferences on the campaign trail.

 

Another question came from a woman more concerned with Obama's fate in the general election if he is nominated. She asked how he would he avoid being "Swift Boated," referring to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads about John Kerry's Vietnam War record that helped sink the Massachusetts senator's presidential hopes in 2004.

 

Obama said he expects to face similar attacks if he becomes the nominee.

 

"I have no doubt there will be some of that - trying to make me into this foreign, odd, clearly black person and to scare people," he said. "When people try to Swift Boat you, you have to respond forcefully, you have to respond immediately and you have to respond truthfully. ... We are prepared for whatever they will throw at us."

 

In his answer, Obama also responded to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who said Wednesday that he'd made a slip of the tongue a day earlier when he said Obama, instead of Osama bin Laden, had urged terrorists to unite in Iraq.

 

"I think when Romney starts saying this stuff sometimes it may be honest mistakes, sometimes not. You don't know," Obama said.

 

He took a lighter tone when another questioner asked him to describe the differences between himself and bin Laden.

 

"Mitt Romney's been very confused about this," Obama said. "I have a lot of trouble growing a beard. I don't have a lot of facial hair, that's a good place to start. He lives in a cave."

[mr_genius]

More John Edwards news.

 

http://www.charlotte.com/209/story/335264.html

[Mplssoxfan]

More John Edwards news.

 

http://www.charlotte.com/209/story/335264.html

Linky no worky.

[EvilMonkey]

Obama fundraiser switches sides. Does he sense a sinking ship, or more money? Or both?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071027/ap_on_...bama_fundraiser

WASHINGTON - A longtime Democratic fundraiser has abandoned Barack Obama's campaign to help rival Hillary Rodham Clinton win the party's presidential nomination.

 

Bob Farmer, who was a top fundraiser for several past Democratic presidential candidates, had served on Obama's national finance committee.

 

Farmer did not respond to a request for comment after a message was left at his home in Bal Harbour, Fla. But Kirk Wagar, Obama's Florida finance chair, said Farmer let him know he was switching sides without saying why.

 

"I thanked him," Wagar said.

 

In response to the departure, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "He was not a bundler. He didn't raise any money for us, but we wish him well." Bundlers had committed to raise at least $50,000 for the campaign.

 

Farmer's defection to Clinton comes as her presidential campaign has been building steam. She holds a double-digit lead in national polls and a clear advantage in early voting New Hampshire. Iowa, however, still remains competitive among Clinton, Obama and John Edwards.

 

Clinton recently edged past Obama with an aggressive third quarter of fundraising. The New York senator holds nearly $35 million to Obama's $32 million, with primary voting just two months away.

 

Clinton had trailed Obama in fundraising and in money in the bank at the end of June.

 

For Obama, the loss of such a big name in political fundraising circles is hardly welcome news at his campaign.

 

Farmer was the finance chair of the Democratic National Committee during President George H.W. Bush's administration. He was a top fundraiser for Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry in 2004. Farmer served as Kerry's national treasurer in 2004, but when Kerry decided he would not seek the presidency in 2008, Farmer was one of several Kerry financial backers who chose to help Obama.

 

Bill Clinton chose Farmer to be his top diplomat in Bermuda, and the Clinton campaign was unhappy when Farmer picked Obama over the former first lady. Nevertheless, campaign officials continued to court him.

 

Farmer has donated to all the leading Democratic candidates, a practice not uncommon this election cycle. Federal Election Commission records show Farmer gave $2,300 to Obama in March, $2,300 to Edwards in June and $2,300 to Hillary Clinton in July.

 

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

 

[Texsox]

Farmer has donated to all the leading Democratic candidates, a practice not uncommon this election cycle. Federal Election Commission records show Farmer gave $2,300 to Obama in March, $2,300 to Edwards in June and $2,300 to Hillary Clinton in July.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if he gave to a REP as well. It's an industry, just like a guy switching from Pepsi to Coke.

[mr_genius]

Linky no worky.

 

here you go. same story

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/polit...ory/750356.html

[Jenksismyhero]

If this guy ever becomes president I'll move out of the country:

 

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...TPAGE/710260384

 

 

Seriously, this guy is on so much crack its not even funny. Why not promise the world to everyone? Why make anyone in the country work when they can get everything for free? Why promote individual autonomy and responsibility when big brother will help you along the path of life?

 

If this guy became president and passed the sort of cocaine-induced legislation he wants to pass, I honestly believe he'll run the country into the ground. Say what you want about the screw ups of the Bush Admn, and there's a long list, but at least the country is still standing.

 

And did anyone see Edwards on Bill Maher the other night? For a guy whose whole schtick in the entertainment world is to be anti-modern media and against the soft-ball crap they throw, he sure ripped edwards a new one - not. He lofted up soft question after soft question. All Maher does is complain and b**** about the media not being tough enough, and here he has a candidate he likes in front of him and he can't even ask him follow up questions asking for specifics. I like Maher and his show, but he really dropped the ball on that interview.

 

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

John Edwards, keep your hands out of my f*cking pockets. I work my ass off for what little I have, and I do NOT like being told WHO I HAVE to help with my money. I give freely to charity of both my time and money, and I don't need you, thru the use of confiscatory laws, to tell me I need to do more.

[Balta1701]

John Edwards, keep your hands out of my f*cking pockets. I work my ass off for what little I have, and I do NOT like being told WHO I HAVE to help with my money. I give freely to charity of both my time and money, and I don't need you, thru the use of confiscatory laws, to tell me I need to do more.

But of course, it's ok for you to leave the bill for your war to people like me who'll spend our next 30 years of taxes paying off the couple trillion in debt and interest. That's perfectly ok. Even better when contractors run off with tens of billions of dollars...that's fine, as long as those mean Dems don't make the people running this war look bad. That emboldens the bad guys!

 

You want to be blunt and rant, so can I.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Go ahead, rant if it makes you feel better. Do you think I LIKE contractors running off with untold $$$? Do you think that that would only happen if a Republican was in the WHite House? if yuor answer is yes to either one of those, you are a bigger ass than I sometimes think you are. How about comnig up with a plan to end the war, instead of just 'leaving'? Oh wait, that would make it seem like the eeevil Republicans did something good if we actually won somethng, so we can't have that.

[Rex Kickass]

One plan for ending the war is leaving. It does end the war, for us.

 

Another plan is to gradually pull back combat brigades by leaving a rapid response residual force of between 30 and 60 thousand people. This is something that has been proposed by Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and John Murtha among others. However, you're too busy ranting that the Democrats have no plan to notice that they actually are out there. Unfortunately, since the administration refuses to paint any strategy other than their own as something that isn't cut and run - it really doesn't matter what the Democratic plan is.

 

Since the Democrats don't have the balls to do what they should do and refuse to fund the war effort until a real shift in strategy is actually acheived, be it a withdrawal or a completely different strategy (maybe say focusing in on what we've done in Anbar where some limited success was acheived without a surge in troops, by the way), this argument won't stop.

[Texsox]

Go ahead, rant if it makes you feel better. Do you think I LIKE contractors running off with untold $$? Do you think that that would only happen if a Republican was in the WHite House? if yuor answer is yes to either one of those, you are a bigger ass than I sometimes think you are. How about comnig up with a plan to end the war, instead of just 'leaving'? Oh wait, that would make it seem like the eeevil Republicans did something good if we actually won somethng, so we can't have that.

 

So it doesn't matter if it's a Dem or a Rep in the White House? That we can't blame s*** on their party affiliation?

[NorthSideSox72]

Go ahead, rant if it makes you feel better. Do you think I LIKE contractors running off with untold $$$? Do you think that that would only happen if a Republican was in the WHite House? if yuor answer is yes to either one of those, you are a bigger ass than I sometimes think you are. How about comnig up with a plan to end the war, instead of just 'leaving'? Oh wait, that would make it seem like the eeevil Republicans did something good if we actually won somethng, so we can't have that.

This is one of the classic argumentative styles I keep seeing from the GOP hardliners... ask what the alternative is to the current plan (on Iraq or anything else), but add a caveat - the only valid answer is a plan OTHER THAN the one I know you are most likely to choose.... then, no matter what their answer is, they are wrong. If they choose the one that was excepted out, then its "see, you have no answer!".

 

This is exactly the same as a Democrat asking you, "What is your plan for Iraq, other than staying there?" Its an accusatory statement disguised as a question.

 

[kapkomet]

This is one of the classic argumentative styles I keep seeing from the GOP hardliners... ask what the alternative is to the current plan (on Iraq or anything else), but add a caveat - the only valid answer is a plan OTHER THAN the one I know you are most likely to choose.... then, no matter what their answer is, they are wrong. If they choose the one that was excepted out, then its "see, you have no answer!".

 

This is exactly the same as a Democrat asking you, "What is your plan for Iraq, other than staying there?" Its an accusatory statement disguised as a question.

The truth of the matter is unless a Democrat is in the White House, they CANNOT show that the war can be "won" unless THEY (the Democrats) do it, because otherwise they lose face on everything they have told us in the last two years. Then, they can basque in all the glory of the "military victory" and show they're "tough" in protecting us from all that ails us. It's pretty clever, actually to say what they are and then turn around and "fix things" when they get in (more) power.

[Texsox]

The truth of the matter is unless a Democrat is in the White House, they CANNOT show that the war can be "won" unless THEY (the Democrats) do it, because otherwise they lose face on everything they have told us in the last two years. Then, they can basque in all the glory of the "military victory" and show they're "tough" in protecting us from all that ails us. It's pretty clever, actually to say what they are and then turn around and "fix things" when they get in (more) power.

 

And if a Dem is in the White House and the war goes well it will be because of the stuff that Bush did, and if it goes poorly, it will be the Dem's fault and it wouldn't have happened if a Rep was elected.

[kapkomet]

And if a Dem is in the White House and the war goes well it will be because of the stuff that Bush did, and if it goes poorly, it will be the Dem's fault and it wouldn't have happened if a Rep was elected.

No it won't. It will be because they finally (who ever it is) will do SOMETHING instead of just "waiting" for better results. That's the problem with the current ass-monkey in the White House. History will prove him right on the "war on terror" in the long run, but he has totally mismanaged the process.

[Texsox]

No it won't. It will be because they finally (who ever it is) will do SOMETHING instead of just "waiting" for better results. That's the problem with the current ass-monkey in the White House. History will prove him right on the "war on terror" in the long run, but he has totally mismanaged the process.

 

Don't worry, as soon as good news comes out with a Dem in the White House, both parties will be lining up at the press trucks whoring it up.

[Balta1701]

So, here I can present today the first study I've seen of the performance of the media during this campaign. There's enough in it for each side to get annoyed at, so I'll probably post it in both the Dem and GOP threads, and I'm going to highlight one little bit in this one.

 

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

 

The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.

 

What Topics the Public Wants Covered

More Less

Candidates’ position on issues 77% 17

Candidate debates 57% 32

Candidates’ personal backgrounds and experiences 55% 36

The candidates who are not front runners 55% 37

Sources of candidates’ campaign money 55% 35

Which candidate in leading in the latest polls 42% 45

Source: Pew Research Center for People and the Press

September 28 – October 1, 2007

 

All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.[1]

So, the Public literally seems to be begging for the Press to spend more time covering the actual candidate positions, backgrounds, and where their money comes from. The Press responds by telling more about how much money each one has and which one is winning today. (available in graph format at link). I think this is actually a remarkable demonstration of how out of touch the media has gotten with its market; the people actually want a bit of substance, but substance is hard and sometimes expensive, so we don't get any of it.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, here I can present today the first study I've seen of the performance of the media during this campaign. There's enough in it for each side to get annoyed at, so I'll probably post it in both the Dem and GOP threads, and I'm going to highlight one little bit in this one.

 

So, the Public literally seems to be begging for the Press to spend more time covering the actual candidate positions, backgrounds, and where their money comes from. The Press responds by telling more about how much money each one has and which one is winning today. (available in graph format at link). I think this is actually a remarkable demonstration of how out of touch the media has gotten with its market; the people actually want a bit of substance, but substance is hard and sometimes expensive, so we don't get any of it.

Wow. That's huge. Not a giant surprise maybe, but to see it in those stark numbers... that is an embarrasment.

 

[Balta1701]

Wow. That's huge. Not a giant surprise maybe, but to see it in those stark numbers... that is an embarrasment.

63% of the stories on the campaign were essentially horse race, "Who's winning today" fluff. I don't think I can stress that enough.

[BigSqwert]

63% of the stories on the campaign were essentially horse race, "Who's winning today" fluff. I don't think I can stress that enough.

Well for who's winning in Iowa check out this info:

 

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/pol..._news.html#more

[BigSqwert]

Anyone catching the debate on MSNBC at 8pm tonight? I'll try to catch some of it if I can.

 

EDIT: Never mind. It's on tomorrow night.

Edited October 30, 2007 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where to put this, but... Kucinich jumps the shark, and questions Bush's mental health.