DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Heads22]

in '08.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

in '08.

:notworthy

[YASNY]

Clinton has stuff that hasnt been "public" in a long time. I heard an interview with Dick Morris the other day about all her skeletons they have tried to hide int he past and are most likely hiding today. Namely Bill CLinton's conections to a group in Dubai.

 

The Clinton's have a s***load of skeletons in their collective closet. They go way beyond the Dubai connection. My point is that Obama is relatively new on the scene. There very well could be some more skeletons spill out of his closet. Time will tell. You have to remember he has a very vicious opponent in Mrs. Clinton and she may be waiting for her moment to go nuclear on him, if she has anything. We'll see how this plays out and Obama may very well come up smelling like roses. I don't deny that is a possibility at this point.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama opens up a HUGE lead in north Carolina

After a week in which Barack Obama made several appearances in North Carolina and confronted the controversy with his pastor by making a major speech on race, he has expanded his lead in North Carolina to 21 points. Obama leads Clinton 55-34 in the state.

[BigSqwert]

But Hillary is too busy campaigning to release her taxes.

No, she's too busy ducking from sniper fire to do her taxes.

[HuskyCaucasian]

No, she's too busy ducking from sniper fire to do her taxes.

Damn Bosnian snipers...

[HuskyCaucasian]

Obama opens up a HUGE lead in north Carolina

I did the math:

If Clinton wins Penn by 20 points (HIGHLY unlikely) and Indiana by 10. And if Obama wins NC by only 6 points. Then Clinton needs roughly 80% of the remaining PLEDGED delegates to win the total pledged delegates!

 

This thing will be decided by May 6th.

[Steve9347]

I did the math:

If Clinton wins Penn by 20 points (HIGHLY unlikely) and Indiana by 10. And if Obama wins NC by only 6 points. Then Clinton needs roughly 80% of the remaining PLEDGED delegates to win the total pledged delegates!

 

This thing will be decided by May 6th.

Thank Christ.

 

[YASNY]

I did the math:

If Clinton wins Penn by 20 points (HIGHLY unlikely) and Indiana by 10. And if Obama wins NC by only 6 points. Then Clinton needs roughly 80% of the remaining PLEDGED delegates to win the total pledged delegates!

 

This thing will be decided by May 6th.

 

Unless you expect Clinton to step aside for the benefit of the party (highly unlikely and out of character, imho) you are drastically underestimating the levels to which she'll go to pry the nomination away from Obama.

[lostfan]

Unless you expect Clinton to step aside for the benefit of the party (highly unlikely and out of character, imho) you are drastically underestimating the levels to which she'll go to pry the nomination away from Obama.

levels she'll go, or levels she's started heading to already?

[BigSqwert]

Unless you expect Clinton to step aside for the benefit of the party (highly unlikely and out of character, imho) you are drastically underestimating the levels to which she'll go to pry the nomination away from Obama.

I certainly doubt she would step aside but if some big names like Pelosi and Gore endorse Obama in the next few weeks I could see the superdelegates breaking for Obama and effectively pushing her out.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless you expect Clinton to step aside for the benefit of the party (highly unlikely and out of character, imho) you are drastically underestimating the levels to which she'll go to pry the nomination away from Obama.

Yeah, I've said before, I think that the only way Obama ices this thing before Denver is if he wins PA. And I don't think he can do that, without some major endorsements coming out (Edwards and Gore, specifically), and help on the trail.

 

Obama will still likely win, but it will be a bitter fight to the end.

 

[southsider2k5]

levels she'll go, or levels she's started heading to already?

 

Yes

 

[YASNY]

levels she'll go, or levels she's started heading to already?

 

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!

[BigSqwert]

Heh. Pretty funny write up of the tax stuff that happened today. From TPM:

 

Obama Releases His 2000-2006 Tax Returns, Demands Hillary Release Hers

By Greg Sargent - March 25, 2008, 11:43AM

 

This is pretty funny. Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer blasted out an email at 11:23 insisting that Obama release his tax returns for back years,

 

Exactly two minutes later, at 11:25, Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor emailed out word that Obama had posted his tax returns for 2000-2006 on his campaign web site. Turns out the Obama camp has been planning this for some time.

 

You can view them here.

 

In pure political terms, this will obviously give more political potency to the Obama camp's efforts to make Hillary's failure to release her returns a key issue in the campaign. The Obama camp is now free to beat this drum between now and mid-April, when the Hillary camp has promised to release hers.

 

Indeed, the Obama campaign is already calling on Hillary to follow suit. “Senator Clinton can’t claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances," Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs says, in a reference to the Hillary camp's frequent claim that Obama has not been thoroughly "vetted" in advance of the general election.

 

[southsider2k5]

For me philosophically it is a tough question. The Fed bank does exist, and this is actually a banking situation. I really disagree with most of their handling of this situation so far on the consumer side, but agree with the liquidity they have been adding to the system. That is exactly what they are supposed to exist for. Where do you draw the line? That is where it gets interesting. I personally feel that the fed banks role is more of a macro role, related directly to banking. I do not think it is the role of the fed to look at stock prices and make decesions based on those commodity prices. I don't much care for what the fed has become in micromanaging things. I guess this is the evolution of all of our government over the past 75 years or so though. They are involved in our lives from the day we are born (health insurance, shots, get your SSN etc) to the day we die (medicare/cade, SSI, etc) so what is the difference if they control the economy while they are at it? It is kind of depressing.

 

Actually I just found this, and it kind of sounds about like what I was trying to say...

 

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...zEzZjE0OTkxZDQ=

 

The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.

 

A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up - but never down. We've seen this kind of bubble before - in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.

 

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

 

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

 

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

 

When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.

 

Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.

[NorthSideSox72]

You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!

OK, I admit it. I actually didn't know that's what your name stood for until now. In fact, I always wondered if it was a New York reference of some kind.

 

 

[YASNY]

Heh. Pretty funny write up of the tax stuff that happened today. From TPM:

 

The ball is definitely in Hillary's court.

[lostfan]

OK, I admit it. I actually didn't know that's what your name stood for until now. In fact, I always wondered if it was a New York reference of some kind.

 

Haha, I was just about to say the same thing.

 

Maybe I should change my name to DILLIGAF.

[YASNY]

OK, I admit it. I actually didn't know that's what your name stood for until now. In fact, I always wondered if it was a New York reference of some kind.

 

 

That's what it stands for.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Heh. Pretty funny write up of the tax stuff that happened today. From TPM:

yea. i thought that was funny. Clinton has egg on her face.

I think this proves that Clinton doesnt need until April 15th to release her taxes. If you make it a priority, you can do it fast.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama opens up a HUGE lead in north Carolina

I wasn't so much surprised by this, since NC will be a solid state for him. What was more surprising to me, with Obama barely showing his face there yet, was the fact that Clinton's 15-20 point lead in PA has already shrunk to 10.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I wasn't so much surprised by this, since NC will be a solid state for him. What was more surprising to me, with Obama barely showing his face there yet, was the fact that Clinton's 15-20 point lead in PA has already shrunk to 10.

Yea. Once again I'll go to the math.

If she wins Penn by "only" 10 points, she needs to win roughly 68-70% of the remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count.

 

Obama has said a lose in Penn by 10 or less is a victory for him since it's a "Clinton state".

Edited March 25, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

Yea. Once again I'll go to the math.

If she wins Penn by "only" 10 points, she needs to win roughly 68-70% of the remaining delegates to win the pledged delegate count.

 

Obama has said a lose in Penn by 10 or less is a victory for him since it's a "Clinton state".

 

that's good spin. Downplay your own expectations so that you can look better than expected and turn a slight loss or win into a positive.

[HuskyCaucasian]

that's good spin. Downplay your own expectations so that you can look better than expected and turn a slight loss or win into a positive.

why not? To the Clinton's the caucuses dont count.